User talk:Elnecio247

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Elindiord! Thank you for your contributions. I am Davey2010 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Carolina Rivas has been reverted.
Your edit here to Carolina Rivas was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/carolinarivas27) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging with "refimprove"

Please take more care in tagging articles. in this edit you said that Prarthana Thombare needed more references and more footnotes: it had 3 good references to source its two sentences. I note that this was not an isolated incident: please don't add tags which are not required. (And note that if an article about a living person needs better references, there is a specific tag {{BLP sources}} to use). PamD 07:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full name musical artist

Hello. Just in reference to the Annette Moreno article, was just wondering where it says that the full name should not be put? I looked at, for instance Sting (musician) and his is listed in full? Karst (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Annette Moreno

You nominated this category for deletion. Please let the discussion conclude before emptying the category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Demi Lovato, you may be reported to admin, or even blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thanks, Azealia911 (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Shawn Mendes. IPadPerson (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Gore

The reference you are adding refers to a different person - a male Leslie Gore. Please don't try to re-add it again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Your recent editing history at File:Furious 7 poster.jpg 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. UBS talk 04:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
Basically even if you think you are right don't keep reverting. Ask for help or advice. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete?

Dear Elindiord, Why you reverted my edits? You have not mind from the edits that I doing it. Please don't reverted things that you nat have mind it from that.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Hello Elindiord, I am wondering why aare you reverting all the changes made to Tempo (rapper) page if all new text has references? Fatmexican1990 (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:EW--you're edit warring on Tempo (singer). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Kana Hanazawa, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what happen?

You have something against the reggaeton ? Please do not keep eliminating the information pages related to Don Omar or Nicky Jam, you are not the owner of Wikipedia . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepelugo (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Conifer (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for ongoing disruptive use of Twinkle. 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 ~~~~}}. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:38, 27 April 2015 (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).

Elnecio247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

can't block my account because I have not vandalized any article and have the right to edit what is wrong

Decline reason:

You might consider looking at the rest of this page and responding to the warning messages you've received. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:44, 28 April 2015 (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.

Imminent block warning

You really need to stop continuing to use Twinkle disruptively to avoid a further block, which will be much longer. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

You need to explain reverts like this. It's not obvious vandalism/spam so an appropriate edit summary is needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Conifer (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jencarlos Canela

You tell me why revert my edit?. Clearly in my edit summary to explain what I did. And you revert without any reason. And I think I have every right to modify the current template, because I've been to who has written almost all the article, also the singer, the current template is correct. And as I said before, all the information about his brother, wife and son is in the body of the article.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Elindiord reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: ). Thank you. Philip J Fry • (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for continuing with your disruptive use of Twinkle. 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 ~~~~}}. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elindiord, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Philip J Fry • (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of OttonielWhite (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Elnecio247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

DellInspiron3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

That's not an acceptable username, nor does it address the reasons for your block. Huon (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Elnecio247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am blocked because I reversed and edit articles which were correctly that he made a mistake and I 'm not part of that group of users who have vandalized blocked and reverse changes in the articles of Wikipedia, oh by the way they have to remove my user contributions I reversed except others. Elnecio247 (talk) 6:35 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Decline reason:

CheckUser confirmed that this account is a sockpuppet of Ottoniel Blanco. Otherwise, I can't make any sense of what you're saying. Katie^talk 04:04, 4 December 2015 (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'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).

Elnecio247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I need to unlock my user because I committed a fault and as a comment I am not part of that group of users who reverted to articles and vandalized Wikipedia in English. Please give me another chance and I promise you that I will not harm any of the items. Elnecio247 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account is a sockpuppet and will not be unblocked. You must apply for unblock at your primary account. Do not reply that this is your primary account, because we know that it is not. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:21, 8 July 2016 (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'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).

Elnecio247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Though not know I reversed and ruin the items and users of Wikipedia I pointed out for example I reversed the article actor and musician Jencarlos Canela for which was edited by the user Philip J Fry and then sent him to the same user Conifer and was so I blocked indefinitely. Elnecio247 (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Talk page access revoked. Request unblock on your original account (or, better, stick to the Wikipedia in your native language, as you are incomprehensible in English). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2016 (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 blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Elnecio247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16099 was submitted on Jul 08, 2016 21:20:15. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Elnecio247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16497 was submitted on Sep 09, 2016 02:02:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Elnecio247. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]