User talk:Monterrosa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Monterrosa, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Monterrosa! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced material in biographical articles[edit]

Information.svg Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edits to Gabriel Iglesias, as we really appreciate your participation. However, material regarding Iglesias' personal life and influences had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished synthesis of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not add unsourced material to articles, as you did with your edits to Trey Parker and Matt Stone. If you would like to add such information, please make sure it is accompanied by citations of reliable secondary sources, as I explained above. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's No Original Research, Verifiability or Reliable Sources policies by adding unsourced material to articles, as you did with your edits to Gabriel Iglesias and Stan Lee, you will be blocked from editing. Nightscream (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent addition of unsourced material to BLP articles, and ignoring repeated warnings, the most recent violation being this edit to Stan Lee. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Nightscream (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm MaskedHero. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Justin Bieber with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, MaskedHero (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Monterrosa, please stop your disruptive edits. If you continue edit disruptively, as you did when you again added unsourced material to the Stan Lee article, and removed content without providing a rationale from the Justin Bieber article, as mentioned above, you risk being blocked for longer periods of time. I really would rather not do that, since it appears that you are capable of making valid edits, but your non-constructive edits, and your lack of communication with others who attempt to speak with you on your talk page may result in more blocks. Please do not make that necessary. I'm here if you have any questions or need help. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent addition of unsourced material to BLP articles, and ignoring repeated warnings and a past block, the most recent violations being the following edits to Matt Stone and Trey Parker. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Nightscream (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Conan O'Brien (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Producer
Daniel Tosh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Producer
Matt Stone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Primus
Stan Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Producer
Trey Parker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Primus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced material to articles, as you did with the passage regarding Matt Stone's collaboration with Les Claypool during this edit to the Matt Stone article. While I appreciate the other sourced material you added, if you continue to add material without citations, you risk being blocked from editing again. Please do not make that necessary. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent addition of unsourced material to BLP articles, and ignoring repeated warnings and two past blocks for the same offense, the most recent violation being this edit to Gabriel Iglesias. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Nightscream (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gabriel Iglesias Presents Stand Up Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stand up (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Gabriel Iglesias[edit]

Hi. What was wrong with the Comedy Central's Stand Up Picks - Part 3 listing that you removed in your last edit? Is that information incorrect? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of material from the article, because you did not provide a rationale in an edit summary, and have chosen to ignore my attempt to ask you about it above, inasmuch as you have continued editing since I left i, without any response to it.

When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. Please do not remove material without providing edit summaries, since doing so might be construed as disruptive editing, for which you have already been blocked before. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent addition of unsourced material to BLP articles, and ignoring repeated warnings. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 05:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rowspans[edit]

Monterrosa, we do not use rowspans - it affects WP:Accessibility. Please refrain from using them, like in your edits to Seth McFarlane. Thank you. Lady Lotus (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Seth McFarlan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. On top of disruptive editing, and what I will now consider vandalism, you are now pushing an edit war because of your revision of 3 or more edits after more told why your edits are being reverted. I have already told you about rowspans - it affects WP:Accessibility, anyone who is hearing impaired or vision impaired with a screenreader cannot properly have the filmography read to them when they have rowspans. Other editors and myself are trying diligently to remove rowspans from article pages for this reason while "editors" like you keep putting them back. Please refrain from further edits like this or you will be blocked. Lady Lotus (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Lady Lotus (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeremy Jahns for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeremy Jahns is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Jahns until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lady Lotus (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Monterrosa reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: ). Thank you. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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.

Long-term warring at Seth McFarlane and possible block[edit]

See this complaint at the 3RR noticeboard: WP:AN3#User:Monterrosa reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: )

Basically, this is a long-term war where you keep restoring rowspans to the article and you keep breaking out the 'various voices' parts into all the individual voices. You are not waiting to get agreement on this. In fact, it appears you are not listening to anyone. You've never posted on the article talk page. You've been blocked in the past for as long as one month, but it doesn't seem to lead to any improvement. If you continue the war at Seth McFarlane an admin may decide to block you indefinitely from Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Seth MacFarlane filmography. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. You continue to do the same exact edits that have been discussed and you have been told numerous times to stop. If you continue, you will be blocked. Stop. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane filmography[edit]

Ok, I'm going to explain why each edit of yours is being reverted in hopes that you will stop making the same continuous edits over and over again.

1. "Direct-to-DVD"

Especially if the film has it's own article page, it is NOT necessary to put this in an actors filmography. Notes should be about the actor not about the film, "Direct-to-DVD" belongs on the article page where people can go look at. It doesn't belong.

2. "Director, Writer, Producer, Voice artist" vs "also director, writer and producer"

Putting in the first version is only acceptable when that's all they did in that film or tv series. But it makes no sense to put that when they also had other roles like being in the film, that's why it is put as "also", and the caps are not necessary, it's just proper grammar.

3. "Various characters"'

When there are more than 3 or 4 characters, it clutters the look of the table and thus it is just easier and better to put "various characters", some voice actors can be 10+ character voices but you don't want to list all of them because then it just becomes a mess. This helps not make the table looks cluttered.

4. "[Stan Smith|Stan] vs [Stan Smith]"

Especially when the name of the character is wikilinked and has their own page, then it becomes not necessary to put their full name when any user can click on the link and see the characters full page.

5. "1999-2002, 2005–present"

This doesn't make any sense when his role on the series is still present, there is no reason to list the break in years. Plus it doesn't look nice.

6. "Known for..."

He is known for his popular roles on Family Guy, American Dad, Ted, etc. He is not known for the 85th Academy Awards, that doesn't belong.

7. "wikitable sortable"

It makes the table easier to sort through if a user wants to look at specific things on his table. It also has no cosmetic affect on the table so I don't know why you continue to revert this either.

8. "voice artist"

This is redundant when his role clearly states that he does the voices of certain characters or various voices.

Lady Lotus (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Downey, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Vargas (Angry Joe), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Director, Producer and Doug Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hugh Jackman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Stan Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Eureka, Iron Man (film), Entourage and Heroes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of awards and nominations received by Matt Groening, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe Vargas (Angry Joe) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Vargas (Angry Joe) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Vargas (Angry Joe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Matt Stone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Raising the Bar
Trey Parker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Raising the Bar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Matt Groening, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Will Ferrell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Usher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD[edit]

The wikiphilosophy is "Be bold, revert, discuss." The steps were to make a bold edit, then I reverted it and rather than revert my revert, the step you should have taken is to go to the Tina Fey Talk Page and raise the question of whether this was an appropriate change. Otherwise, this turns into a revert, edit warring battle and that leads to blocks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Billy Crystal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Skamecrazy123. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Works by William Shatner, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, William Shatner filmography[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, William Shatner filmography. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Works by William Shatner. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Works by William Shatner – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kelsey Grammer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Director and Producer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cecily Strong attends The Cinema Society and Jaeger-LeCoultre Hosts A Screening Of "The Host" at Tribeca Grand Hotel on March 27, 2013 in New York City.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cecily Strong attends The Cinema Society and Jaeger-LeCoultre Hosts A Screening Of "The Host" at Tribeca Grand Hotel on March 27, 2013 in New York City.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Critics' Choice Television Award for Best Guest Performer in a Comedy Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jessica Biel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Model (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Neil Patrick Harris. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. STATic message me! 07:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, Monterrosa, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! User:HopsonRoad 14:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

A few observations[edit]

Hi Monterrosa, Thank you for providing a reference at Jane Pauley. I had looked at the 42nd Primetime Emmy Awards article and saw that the one reference there didn't name Pauley. That's alright, I understand that yours is a good-faith edit. Let's turn now to what you are trying to achieve in the article in question—a succession box. I don't see one appearing at the bottom of the article. This would be a helpful feature. If you're interested in making it work, you could open up Bryant Gumbel and discern what works there that isn't working in Jane Pauley. You might find it useful to copy both boxes into your Sandbox (see your upper right, top of page) and play with the content there until you're satisfied that it's ready to drop into the article. One further thought, is that we try to practice civility here in Wikipedia. It can be hard to do when one feels that another person didn't respect your edit. But it's best to assume good faith in others and be kind to them. Doing otherwise, just makes everybody feel resentful. With my sincere good wishes, User:HopsonRoad 14:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Justin Timberlake. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. STATic message me! 06:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Justin Timberlake, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. STATic message me! 15:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR[edit]

Stop icon You have violated WP:3RR on Seth MacFarlane when I specifically said not to do so. Also, there are actors and singers who have the flat list for such things, such as Beyoncé Knowles. Please do not violate WP:3RR (which says do not make 3 reverts to one article in a span of 24 hours) again. Also, don't call such things "garbage". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon You just violated WP:3RR again at Matt Stone AND Trey Parker! However different acting on screen is from acting behind a screen, the two still fall into the category of acting. If one only does voice acting, then he/she would be listed as voice actor. If the person also does on-screen acting, that would make both fall into the general category of acting. Since you disregarded my previous note about violating the 3-revert rule (reverting 3+ consectutive edits within a span of 24 hours), I'm going to have to report this. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Monterrosa reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: ). Thank you. STATic message me! 02:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Tiptoety talk 05:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Jeremy Jahns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Blogger
John Campea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Blogger

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Jimmy Fallon. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. You are continuing to edit war as you were doing with mobile edits as an IP a few days ago. Please stop. I have no qualms about reporting you for edit warring - and this would not be your first time being reported, would it? -- Winkelvi 00:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

No matter how well-known information might be, you MUST support any additions to articles with citations. Original research (information provided without sources) violates WP:OR, which specifically states not to have original research. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 00:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Seth MacFarlane shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. STATic message me! 00:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Monterrosa reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- Winkelvi 00:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Jimmy Fallon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be right there with you in telling this editor the same thing,Flat Out, if this was Monterrosa's first time at the edit warring rodeo, but it's not and he's been blocked numerous times previous for the same thing. -- Winkelvi 01:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
3RR warnings re: each involved article are important after a block release. Cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 01:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring at Jimmy Fallon, Seth MacFarlane, and Rachael MacFarlane. 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=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Monterrosa (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I don't know why i'm being blocked. The Seth MacFarlane page is just keep removing the comedian, singer, cartoonist, activist from the occupation table, which I have no idea why Users keep removing it. And Rachael MacFarlane they keep removing her husband and kid, and they demand a ref and when I've given them refs they removed because it's "not reliable", while most people who are married don't have any refs and also they can just search her up on the internet. And for Jimmy Fallon, Winkelvi wouldn't let me remove voice from the Family Guy part of the filmography, and he thinks he voiced a himself but he didn't he appeared in a live action bit in the episode: "We Love You, Conrad" and I kept telling him but he still wouldn't let me. So please just give me a chance to fix all that, and let them be blocked for vandalizing, cause I was just fixing their mistakes

Decline reason:

This is your sixth block for pretty much the same thing again and again; be glad that this one is only for a week. I would've blocked for longer, it it's becoming clear that you are unclear on the concept. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Note, the requesting user did not complete the request correctly. I'm fixing it for them, which is why I'm the one placing unblock request here. Gloss • talk 21:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not being blocked to stop you from fixing facts on Wikipedia. You are blocked because you are not collaboratively editing with others, and not being civil. That includes repeated reverts (aka edit warring: instead of reverting, you should enter into a discussion (starting one if necessary) on each disputed article's talk page. In it, you should explain why your edit is the better content. Please see WP:BRD for how this works.

Also, you should study Biographies of Living People. Each potentially controversial fact must be supported by a citation to a reliable source. Being married or having children is not generally controversial, but it is also not particularly notable in most cases. An encyclopedia does not contain a mass of trivia and random facts about its subjects—that is for tabloids and fan sites. An encyclopedia contains content which generally covers a subject or person, especially facts which are unique to them. —EncMstr (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 18:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Monterrosa, I've increased your block length to three weeks from the original block for block evasion by 2605:E000:96C0:AF00:8C17:8BD4:BC04:7CEA (talk · contribs). If you do it again, the next block will be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 05:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 06:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked you for continued block evasion and edit warring. It is clear that you are not here to work collaboratively with others. You can contest this block using {{unblock|your reason here}} or by emailing the ban appeals subcommittee. Tiptoety talk 07:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Monterrosa (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I have no idea why you blocked me since I don't have another account.

Decline reason:

As far as I can tell, you're right: you don't have another account. However, you have been editing whilst logged out to deliberately avoid scrutiny, which is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. Yunshui  12:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Misplaced unblock request[edit]

In answer to your misplaced question: when you address the issues that led to your block, and give suitable assurances that they will not occur again. There is no "expiration date"; this block will only be lifted when we are convinced that you are no longer a threat to Wikipedia. Yunshui  15:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so when is that? A day, week, month? please.

I've revoked your talk page access. These kinds of questions given your continuing use of IPs to evade your block are dishonest and abusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 03:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 23:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 04:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 03:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 06:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 06:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 18:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 02:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 02:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Winkelvi 03:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- WV 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)