User talk:Charlesaustria971

Charlesaustria971, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Charlesaustria971! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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. -WayKurat (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Oripaypaykim (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using misleading edit summaries. Just say what you have added to the article and don't use "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links, Fixed Type" as your edit summary. -WayKurat (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the episode during Special holy week

There's no sense to add the episode? you can't provide for the Philippine television on GMA for Second Chances, Kalian ba Tama Ang Mali and etc please do SO!!. will know they happened to understand the guidelines for Wikipedia in article shall the administrator go on. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Amaury. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Wish Ko Lang, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Imbestigador. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Amaury (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing. Oripaypaykim (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Celebrity Bluff. Amaury (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked for persistent disruptive editing--making unexplained edits that change, remove, or add unverified information is disruptive, as is your refusal to discuss matters with other editors. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Charaustria971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously you evading your block. Do that again, and you'll be blocked indefinitely! Favonian (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charlesaustria971. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 22:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]