User talk:Geniusdream

Sarah Geronimo

Hello. I would like to suggest to, sorry but, withdraw the nomination. It will likely to fail momentarily. The article is not ready yet. Apparently, its unsourced and many others to do before it even gets GA status. Hope that won't hurt you. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Sarah_disco.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarah_disco.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. bluemask ^(talk) 10:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sarah dvd.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Geniusdream!
We thank you for uploading Image:Sarah dvd.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot.

--John Bot III (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Sarah concerts.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Sarah concerts.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image with an unknown source or an unknown copyright status which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Sarah concerts.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Sarah awards.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Sarah awards.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image with an unknown source or an unknown copyright status which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Sarah awards.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Sarah movies.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Sarah movies.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image with an unknown source or an unknown copyright status which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Sarah movies.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Sarah Geronimo

I've observed that you've put a lot of work into the article, but it looks like your actions are a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.

Also, the images that you uploaded lack a clear fair-use license, and it seems as though you just took it from some website and uploaded with without any precautionary measures.

Any more violations and you might risk your account being blocked. Thank you. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Sarah Geronimo, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sarah Geronimo

But where? I don't see any citations. Just make sure that all those unnecessary "highest-paid", "sold-out" and all those stuff gets removed. It doesn't sound neutral at all and is more of like a shrine or a tribute to her, not a proper Wikipedia article.

I suggest that you read Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NPOV, in order for you to understand more about the policy. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Genius. We understand your behavior but please try to read that links given to you. --Efe (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Sarah dvd.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Sarah dvd.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image with an unknown source or an unknown copyright status which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Sarah dvd.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:My edits

OK, I'm just doing my job. I removed it because me and the other Tambayan members felt that it was rather unnecessary, and should be cleaned up. You said that you'll be looking for references, but I don't see the refs you mentioned. Also, your use of the words "sold-out", "highly successful", and other such words won't make the article a featured one, since you inclined to making a tribute to Sarah, not providing proper and objective info about her. Pay attention to what the other editors tell about you. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:My edits

Yes, they are persuasive, but that's not the way articles are presented. You shouldn't do it in such at tone; even though your intention is to make articles more fun to read, it would be more of a mere distraction or a nuisance to do so. That's Wikipedia's mantra, to be objective, not subjective. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sarah Geronimo. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Kww(talk) 03:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been temporarily blocked for not providing sources for your images. Be sure to read the image use policy and the non-free content criteria before uploading unfree images. Spellcast (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

unblock

This 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).

Geniusdream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You can delete immediately all of the images that have no references, because I really don't know how to delete and provide references for it.

Decline reason:

I'm not convinced by the exchange below that you're aware what you've done is wrong. Your block is temporary - it expires on Sunday - so I suggest taking this time to familiarise yourself with the policies about image uploads. — Fritzpoll (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Have you read and understood Wikipedia:Image use policy, particularly with regards to fair use considerations? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

Not yet, I'm just a new user, and I really can't grasp everything about it, so I just upload pictures just like with other sites. You can delete those images immediately, then I'll be reading Wikipedia:Image use policy and upload pictures properly next time. --Geniusdream (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that really didn't make sense for me at all. It means that an admin will just unblock you, when you don't know the reason & will possibly continue to upload copyright violations? I really suggest you check WP:IUP & try again. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sarah Geronimo FAC

Hi there. Sorry to see you've been blocked until Sunday. With that in mind, and the weight of opposes at the FAC page, would you be willing to withdraw it until 1) the article's ready, and 2) you have time to make the requested improvements? You don't have to do anything, just indicate here one way or the other and someone will sort out the 'paperwork'. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 11:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, again

User:Blakegripling ph and I are trying to help you get this article up to the standards of WikiPedia. However, you kept reverting substantial edits (not to mention blank edit summaries). But that does not necessarily mean you're a "bad" writer. Its just that your a newbie (and we understand that the moment you were blocked) and you have to learn more about how WikiPedia works and how its editors collaborate. If you don't mind, I suggest reading Biographies of living person, Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Copyrights (which means you are not to copy contents from other websites, unless...), and more. I also go through that and one of the best way to learn more is to read articles in WP:GA and WP:FA. Best wishes Genius. --Efe (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave that to you. But please do not revert good-faith edits, and please add edit summaries. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anytime sir. Just a note, other editors here are not friendly, so a bit careful next time. =) --Efe (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Efe (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm sure you're making good faith efforts on Sarah Geronimo, but please don't copy and paste content from websites. As pointed out above, when you add content, be sure it complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, it's best not to add all your info in the intro. The lead section should only summarise the article and not contain new information. Spellcast (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Geronimo

When other people try to help you make this article into a good article, why do you always revert their changes? Do you really think that the reason people keep making these changes is because we want to make the article worse?—Kww(talk) 12:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So why did you undo all of Blake's edits here, here, and here. You didn't undo some anonymous vandal's edits: you undid a lot of work by named editors, and truly made the article worse in the process. I'll put Blake's version back again. Please don't revert it again.—Kww(talk) 12:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Geronimo

I suggest you reading these pages: WP:Featured article criteria and WP:Good article criteria, and pass first the article to WP:GAN. --Efe (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. --Efe (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop assuming ownership of article as what you did to Sarah Geronimo, also dont ever warn me for editing, i can report you some admins. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Sarah Geronimo, you will be blocked for vandalism. Rather, use that talk page to discuss changes to the article with other editors there instead of bringing it to their talk page or proceed with edits that are considered controversial or disruptive.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Geniusdream, can you please stop editing on Sarah Geronimo, your statements is all a lie. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Last Warning

Please Stop! One more that you'll try again to revert legitimate edits to your revision, you'll be directly blocked with no more chance! Wynchard Bloom (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

New York?

I DOnt think so that you live in New York! tsk tsk tsk, im sure you live in a Rural Area in the Philippines. Tsk tsk tsk Wynchard Bloom (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sarah Geronimo. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Jac16888 (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

While i'm not going to comment on your edits and there merit, It is quite clear that you have broken the 3 revert rule, and as a result you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. When your block expires, rather than simply continuing reverting, which will earn you a longer block, discuss your proposed changes on the talk page, be aware that as they stand your changes are against policy, and be willing to compromise--Jac16888 (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Vandalizing my Talkpage!Buti nga sau na blocked ka, tsk tsk tsk, yan ang napapala ng mga walang modo! Wynchard Bloom (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This 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).

Geniusdream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was just reverting the article Sarah Geronimo to the version which has the references, compared to the version that other users keep on putting there, which has no references. Furthermore, the user Wynchard Bloom (talk) keeps on vandalizing my userpage as well as my discussion page, putting personal attacks on it and warnings that are indefinite.

Decline reason:

Whatver issue you have with Wychcard personally: You continued to push your changes into Sarah Geronimo after I advised you above not to do so and fake block notices[1] don't help your case either. — Tikiwont (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Geniusdream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I admit it, I engaged myself to an edit war, but I just want to make the article better and more comprehensive. Look at the current version of Sarah Geronimo, the references was reduced compared to the version I reverted. And furthermore, regarding the long introduction, as I have read on one of the guidelines here in wikipedia, it is said that putting information is unlimited as long as it has sources and moreover, the introduction was generalized rather than very detailed.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I admit it, I engaged myself to an edit war, but I just want to make the article better and more comprehensive. Look at the current version of [[Sarah Geronimo]], the references was reduced compared to the version I reverted. And furthermore, regarding the long introduction, as I have read on one of the guidelines here in wikipedia, it is said that putting information is unlimited as long as it has sources and moreover, the introduction was generalized rather than very detailed. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I admit it, I engaged myself to an edit war, but I just want to make the article better and more comprehensive. Look at the current version of [[Sarah Geronimo]], the references was reduced compared to the version I reverted. And furthermore, regarding the long introduction, as I have read on one of the guidelines here in wikipedia, it is said that putting information is unlimited as long as it has sources and moreover, the introduction was generalized rather than very detailed. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I admit it, I engaged myself to an edit war, but I just want to make the article better and more comprehensive. Look at the current version of [[Sarah Geronimo]], the references was reduced compared to the version I reverted. And furthermore, regarding the long introduction, as I have read on one of the guidelines here in wikipedia, it is said that putting information is unlimited as long as it has sources and moreover, the introduction was generalized rather than very detailed. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.