User talk:Geniusdream

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}

.