User talk:Gumercindogracindo

Hello, Gumercindogracindo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding addition of "Daydreamers" for the Adele fanbase on Stan (fan), you need to provide a reliable source when adding new information like that. Unsourced content is seen as original research. It is against Wikipedia's policies to add original research. Thank you. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if personally owned by a singer, blogs are not considered reliable sources. Please do not keep adding the Adele blog post. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If providing a disambiguation link, please make sure it contains information relevant to the article. The link you provided mentions nothing of Adele's fanbase, so please don't keep adding that. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Hulmem. An edit that you recently made to Paul Epworth seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --hulmem (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 25 (Adele album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 25 (Adele album), without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at 25 (Adele album). —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at 19 (Adele album). Dl2000 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andressa Urach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Adele, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Lapadite (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to 1000 Forms of Fear. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've counted 4 or 5 times that you've deleted information from the infobox and changed the year date in the lead. There is a consensus on the talk page to have the film described as a 2014 film - something that is also confirmed by a thread on the Film Project talk page. You need to stop edit warring now. If you want to change it, use the talk page to gain a consensus, rather than trying to force your preferred version against the consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gumercindogracindo. What are you up to here? Did you see my edit summary immediately prior? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what your motives are here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Adele. Diff: [1] Unexplained removal of standard age calculation templates and introduction of unnecessary wikilinks contravening WP:OVERLINK Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gumercindogracindo, you've been reverted and warned multiple times now. If you continue to vandalize and/or disrupt Wikipedia you will be blocked. Lapadite (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for long-term disruptive editing, with no attempt to respond to attempts by other editors to communicate with you, and no sign of willingness to edit in line with Wikipedia's accepted standards or with consensus of other editors. You have never once made any attempt to explain why you disagree with other editors, or to constructively discuss the issues involved: indeed, out of your 336 edits, the only one made on any kind of talk page was a childish personal attack on another editor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=When my user account will be unlocked? Answer me}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to In the Deep, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Dl2000 (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Askill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WIM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to 21 (Adele album). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francesco Carrozzini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ultra Music, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Dunhill Records. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mickey Gilley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Ultra Music. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Miniapolis 22:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Skyfall (song). Dl2000 (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Adele shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. This is Paul (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Satoru Iwata. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adele. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This is Paul (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for repeated wikification of Etta James at Adele. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You've been edit warring for days to repeatedly insert that link and refuse to just drop it and move on. Further, you have failed to discuss the issue on either the article talk page or the user's talk page. Three months is quite extensive for such a petty antic but you've been blocked twice before and you still seem to fail to communicate. Further, you can't just go by and remove tags like this without any discussion (nor in particular remove the date tagging) which helps in no way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gumercindogracindo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]