Your edits to Eglise Gutiérrez
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Eglise Gutiérrez, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Judging by the fact that your edits are identitcal to those of User:Bbilgili, please read my comments to him on User talk:Bbilgili. Please, do not remove valid referenced information again. Please do not add unreferenced personal information again. Please do not introduce grammatical errors and unidiomatic English to the article by deleting the existing material. Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see you are continuing to do this. I have repaired the damage you did to it once again, including removing information and misspelling her name. (Gutiérrez is the spelling on her official web site. If you have a personal connection to Eglise Gutiérrez, you are her doing no favours to her by making her Wikipedia article ungrammatical and poorly referenced. Please stop. Voceditenore (talk)
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Eglise Gutiérrez. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Eglise Gutiérrez, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eglise Gutiérrez. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Your alternating editing as this IP and as Bbilgili makes no difference to this warning Voceditenore (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 1 day. When the block expires, please suggest changes to the article on the talk page instead of removing the sourced information. Also, posting that other users are crazy isn't very nice and is against our policy prohibiting personal attacks. Lastly, the last line of this edit is not appropriate, so please stop. Thanks. wodup 09:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- ADMIN: please look at the entire history here. We have 2 editors (but the same person? Easy if you don't bother to log on).
- There is a history of constant reversion of one specific but very valid reference. The term "last minute" seems to upset "both" editors, yet we have 4 or 5 now who support the inclusion of the rerfernece as being perfectly valid. Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.