User talk:Chema/Archive1

List of Telemundo telenovelas

If the article is titled "List of..." then there is no need for a heading that also mentions that it is a list. Please see MOS:HEAD which states: "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article." ... discospinster _talk 20:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See List of programs broadcast by Telemundo. The headings are separating the sections by type of programming (Current, Former, etc.). There is no heading that says "List of programming" because it is clearly a list by the title of the article. ... discospinster _talk 20:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Telemundo telenovelas, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alberto Gómez and Gustavo Bolívar (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) 08:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User page semi-protected

I have semi-protected your user page so that only logged-in users can edit it, not anonymous IP addresses. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the help :-).--Jorge Horan (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

El Señor de los Cielos is now fully protected because of your and Ricardo80's edit-war, and I came close to blocking you. The only reason I didn't block you was that several hours have passed since your last edit to the page, so I thought perhaps you weren't going to continue the edit war, and if so, a block would have been purely punitive. You and Ricardo may feel free to discuss the issue at Talk:El Señor de los Cielos, or at each other's talk page, or wherever you feel like. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you reverted several people because of your disagreement with Ricardo. Reversions can sometimes be appropriate, but this makes it look as if you're more interested in fighting Ricardo than anything. If you continue reverting without discussion, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting forever

Why do you have to revert everday? Do you hate everyone? Reversions can sometimes be appropriate, but this makes it look as if you're more interested in fighting everyone than anything. Wikipedia is not for you, it's for everyone. If you continue reverting everyday, you will be blocked. -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, you're reverting my edits again because you think that everything is incorrect. You are NOT a god so please stop reverting. -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you keep on deleting my messages. Are you scared of constructive criticsms? Hahahaha... don't worry, if you continue on doing evil actions and revertings against everyone, KARMA will come for you someday. -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Please refrain from edit warring. The next time you revert without discussion, as you did at Lo que la vida me robó, you will be blocked. Go Phightins! 21:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Lo que la vida me robó. 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. Go Phightins! 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit nailed it ... after being warned not to revert again, you reverted the same item regarding who the starring characters are. Also, I will ping Nyttend to the discussion, who also warned you in the past regarding edit warring. The bottom line, according to the messages you have posted on my talk page, is that you do not understand why edit warring is a problem, and have continued to engage in it. As such, I have no choice but to temporarily block you from editing. Thank you. Go Phightins! 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for block me, I hope you and him happy. to believe that this case will mourn me and beg me unlocking?.--Jorge Horan (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm notwithstanding, no, I am not happy that I had to block you. I would prefer you not engage in edit warring, but if that's what you are going to do, that is disruptive to the point that it warrants blocking, according to Wikipedia policy. Go Phightins! 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, ask the user to stop or at least explain, why their edits and just ignore me. I locked myself and he did, when he also edits gender wars. But anyway, you do what you want. This lock will expire soon.--Jorge Horan (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have talked to the other user involved on the aforementioned page, however that is not really your concern. To be unblocked, please follow the instructions in the template above. Go Phightins! 21:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why you revert important information?

How does this information about who died how, interfere you? You know there's even less information about cast, only actor and his role. People don't get information about cast. But they want to, telemundo descriptions are very short. Person, who starts watching in the half of the series, doesn't understand, why that person is dead and who's guilty of his/her death. ! Wikipedia is not imbd, so please, stop removing important information! And please justify your opinion! Sky0000 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why analysing characters is forbidden?

Why can't analyse characters in Wikipedia.Where is it written? Also I want to talk to administrator whom you allowed to talk when I revert again, please say me his/her username. Sky0000 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]