User talk:Chelo61

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cruz Martínez, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Cruz Martínez was changed by Chelo61 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-10-08T01:52:04+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Kingz1, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Marasmusine (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Entertainment

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJ Spyke 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chelo61. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cutno (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Erre XI has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bmyspace\.com (links: http://www.myspace.com/errexi).

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 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) 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. ArcAngel (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009. 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. Per WP:VG/GL, roster lists should be avoided, and instead they should be written in a prose, like below, that summarizes significant points about the roster! TRU CO 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2008. 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. If you have problems with this, you need to read the consensus at WP:VG/GL which indicate roster lists are NOT to be included in these articles. ArcAngel (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to SvR

See WP:GAMECRUFT Simon^KSK 03:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, no consensus was decided on those lists so your message is false. Simon^KSK 03:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009. 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. TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009

Please stop reverting, you are violating WP:3RR, which means that you are exceeding your 3 reverts in 24 hours of an article. Please discuss this first at WT:VG, where I started a discussion at the bottom of the page, to form a consensus on this matter, but for now it must be left at the original revision, which other articles are also abiding to, which is no roster lists.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC) How come it was ok for the roster to be included but now it isn't.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2009. 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. Simon^KSK 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2009, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Don not remove hidden comments. Simon^KSK 21:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

While you don't appear to be in danger of violating WP:3RR, please stop your actions now. Your repeated reversion of several articles is disruptive and constitutes an edit war. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked. Please engage in discussion and respect consensus if one has been formed. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosters in wrestling articles

Please refrain from readding rosters into wrestling video game articles, per a consensus formed in this discussion, rosters should not be added into articles and instead be summarized with prose per WP:NOT and WP:GUIDE.--TRU CO 22:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN3

I would like to inform you that a discussion has begun at an Administrator's Noticeboard concerning the edit warring you appear to be engaged in on the WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2009 page. Please be advised that this is a serious issue, and that disciplinary action may result from this discussion. Firestorm (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop.

I am tired of reverting you. We told you to many times to stop. You will be blocked. Simon^KSK 23:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video game rosters

If you continue to re-add the rosters to wrestling videos, I will have no choice but to ask for you to be blocked for violating the WP:3RR and for disruptive editing. Please stop now, this is your last warning considering the previous ones. It was chosen at WT:VG to remove the rosters. If you have or had a problem with it then you should have took part in the discussion.--WillC 02:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 04:00, 18 February 2009 (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).

Chelo61 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I should be unblocked because I was doing something to help people get info on the roster for the game. It's not like I was destroying it!

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is a collaborative project; we make decisions together by consensus. If you aren't willing to discuss your desired changes and get consensus for them, then you have to be blocked. When your block expires, you shouldn't make these changes unless other editors agree with you that they make the article better. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:10, 18 February 2009 (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.

No. We told you to stop doing it, per consensus. You reverted 19 times. You can only revert 3 times. Simon^KSK 22:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, anyone can revert more than that - just not more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. :)

@Chelo - Your reasoning is faulty. Wikipedia is not a game guide, that info can be found elsewhere on the web. ArcAngel (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, when you get a warning on your talk page, you should stop, make sure you understand what other users object to, and discuss what you're doing. You should then make sure that other users make sure they agree with you before you continue. That's good advice no matter what's in the warning. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't beleive you guys kept up how many times I edited it! Don't you guys have something better to do? Unblock me!

Hey, soemone listed your reverts in numerical order. You obviously can't listen. When you get unblocked, I hope that you will not go back to ading rosters. Simon^KSK 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment on AN3, you shouldn't view this as a punishment. What you should do instead is take this time to read up on the relevant policies on Wikipedia, such as WP:3RR, as well as the discussions that have taken place about the rosters. Although I do agree with you that rosters should be included, the consensus has gone against us. Even if you believe that you are right that they should be included, there is a consensus that has decided otherwise. That consensus must be respected by all of us. So please, look at this as a cooling-off period rather than a punishment. When you return, I hope cooler heads might prevail. Firestorm (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Neither source (which is the same thing) state there is a sequel in the works for TNA Impact!. TJ Spyke 23:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Los Super Reyes. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. JamesBurns (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:PW. The consensus is to leave them listed under Raw. WWE has never said the titles belong to ECW, they HAVE said that the WHC belongs to SmackDown. TJ Spyke 21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I didn't knew how to.Chelo61 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you also don't know that if you revert changes you need to give a reason to do so. Moreover, there is a rule that disallows three reverts in a 24-hr period, and I think you are on the verge of going there. You insist on adding redundant and unsourced information to an article you want other editors to keep. Your time would be better spent adding those "sources" you claim exist to the article, rather than reinserting instruments for the band members in the infobox--if you looked around, you would see that this is not common practice in Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a good thing that in between all those "don't delete" votes you also supplied the reference for the band's album charting. I added that to both article and changed my vote to keep. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your more recent edits

Re: Template:Flex—as you have been told before (02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)), "if you revert changes you need to give a reason to do so". Try using the template's talk page, don't just edit war. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some artist templates include unlinked text, that doesn't mean that it's correct. According to WP:NAV, in navboxes (which is what artist templates are) "unlinked text should be avoided". If you want to discuss this in greater depth, try using the template's talk page instead of the edit summary. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this back-and-forth thing has to stop. Discuss it on the talk page, not in the edit summaries. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not this again...

I noticed that you once again added the roster to WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2009. Please stop doing this now. Your Talk page is full of warnings for edit warring, and you have already been blocked once for it. Consensus has been established to not have the roster in the article. Please keep it this way. Should you continue edit warring, you will be blocked again, and for a longer period of time. Firestorm ^Talk 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to TNA Impact! (video game). It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Stop it, you know you are wrong on this. TJ Spyke 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I am NOT wrong on this. I don't know who thought of taking the roster off but they should be included.Chelo61 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ARE wrong. As it has been pointed out MANY times on this page, the consensus at WP:VG is to not include roster lists in article. This is a guideline covering all video game articles, if you disagree then you should bring it up there instead of vandalizing pages. TJ Spyke 00:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT wrong. How do I bring it up without "vandalizing"?Chelo61 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The video game project decided that rosters lists don't go in articles, so you ARE wrong; plain and simple. Start a discussion at WT:VG if you want the policy changed, until then you have to follow the policy whether you agree with it or not. You have been warned many times to stop. TJ Spyke 01:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chelo61 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. MuZemike 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I don't have another account. I am not the only who wants the roster back.Chelo61 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Los Super Reyes. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-21t16:23z 16:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Los Super Reyes, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-25t12:55z 12:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chiquilla

The article Chiquilla has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication that this meets WP:NSONGS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rica Y Apretadita (Kumbia All Starz song)

The article Rica Y Apretadita (Kumbia All Starz song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NSONGS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Speedy Gonzales (Kumbia All Starz song)

The article Speedy Gonzales (Kumbia All Starz song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not clear how this meets WP:NSONGS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Por Ti Baby

The article Por Ti Baby has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not clear how this meets WP:NSONGS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Speedy Gonzales (Kumbia All Starz song)

I have nominated Speedy Gonzales (Kumbia All Starz song), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speedy Gonzales (Kumbia All Starz song). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RadioFan (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Azúcar

A tag has been placed on Azúcar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cutno (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Azúcar

I have nominated Azúcar, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azúcar. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Azúcar

I have nominated Azúcar, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azúcar (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cutno (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. The Azucar article was being considered for deleation, but I think you may have removed the tag by mistake. Cutno (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

This is the only warning You will be blocked from editing the next time you The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did with this edit to Camaleones (band). ♪ daTheisen (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2009 (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).

Chelo61 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unblock me because I didn't vandalize.

Decline reason:

But you did edit disruptively, as the block log says. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2009 (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.

Chelo61 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this temporary block, and though I don't have any deliberate say in its possible removal, I was the editor who had to report the problems tonight and I figure it fair you hear my reasoning. I'd been attempting to assist with your band article... you can of course make content edits and try to improve it, but it is absolutely unacceptable to remove any speedy deletion banners from a page. This is clearly noted on them, and listed at WP:CSD which explains the process. In lieu of an immediate report to an admin, I left a (final) warning above in hopes it wouldn't happen further. Doing it once again after warning kind of forced my hand-- this removal is very serious, and there's a reason we have the ability to leave messages in just a few seconds after it is spotted. The sooner we can get the message to someone, the least likely it is to happen again. Your edit history says you've been around for awhile and you've faced a block before on top of the plethora of general types of notifications above, so I have to say I'd have a hard time believing you didn't know how things worked around here. I certainly hope you can come back to making the good edits you've had in the past. Since blocks are not punitive and are based on current trends and possible coming actions, with this incident falling to the curb I'm sure all can continue as normal. Best of luck. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Flex AOL Dejando Huellas EP.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flex AOL Dejando Huellas EP.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kumbia Kings Fuego single.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kumbia Kings Fuego single.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song articles requires assertion of notability and sources

I've redirected a few song articles you created to their respective album pages. Just because a song is released as a single does not make it notable or worthy of its own article. In many of the articles, you only note that the song is a single by so-and-so band from so-and-so album. In fact, even if they are notable, if the article doesn't expand beyond a stub, it is best to merge that information into the album article and still create a redirect. From WP:NSONGS,

Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song....A separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

--Wolfer68 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Shhh! (song)

I have nominated Shhh! (song), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shhh! (song). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfer68 (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Azúcar

A tag has been placed on Azúcar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wolfer68 (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Boom Boom (Kumbia Kings song)

A tag has been placed on Boom Boom (Kumbia Kings song), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shhh! (song)

A tag has been placed on Shhh! (song), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Desde Que No Estás Aquí

A tag has been placed on Desde Que No Estás Aquí, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Azúcar

A tag has been placed on Azúcar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -SpacemanSpiff 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated recreation of material deleted by XfD

You have been repeatedly recreating articles deleted by the AfD process. If you wish to dispute a deletion, take it to Deletion Review, but please do not recreate the articles. If you recreate any such articles again, you will be blocked. -SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kumbia Kings Pachuco.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kumbia Kings Pachuco.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Selena. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 20:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Melissa Jiménez

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Melissa Jiménez. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Jiménez. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Discussion

Hello Chelo61, I've have been watching some of your edits and your new pages for awhile. I've noticed that most of what you've created has come under AfD a lot. I've noticed that you almost never participate in these discussions. Don't think for a moment that when it happens, your input is not wanted. It in fact is encouraged! Community effort is what Wikipedia is all about. I'm sorry that most of your edits have come under scrutiny of other Wikipedians. But I'm certain that if you read the policies that are outlined, I'm certain you can write articles that won't be AfD'ed on the spot. I think that it is fair to warn you that avoiding/ignoring the community could have some unwanted results. People may start to think that you are a page-creation vandal. I'm certain that you don't want to be blocked again. Please respond. Cutno (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Follow Up

Hi Again, I wanted to know if you had time to read my message or not. Please respond to my original message. Cutno (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Jiménez

Your addition to Melissa Jiménez has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. ttonyb (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Melissa Jiménez

A tag has been placed on Melissa Jiménez, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Closeapple (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA Alert

Hello, Chelo61. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cutno (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Melissa Jiménez

A tag has been placed on Melissa Jiménez, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as Melissa Jiménez, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The article was deleted a number of times as a result of it being deleted during an AfD discussion. This means the article in its current form does not meet the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. I highly suggest you read the Welcome message on your talk page concerning how to create great articles before you attempt to reinstate this article. ttonyb (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so on Wikipedia:Sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! ttonyb (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Melissa Jiménez

A tag has been placed on Melissa Jiménez, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeatedly re-creating page deleted after AfD discussion. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Melissa Jiménez

A tag has been placed on Melissa Jiménez, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted and protected against recreation. You may wish to take a deep breath and review some basics. WP:BAND and WP:BOLP are good starts and whatever you do, please don't engage in edit warring.

--PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do I have to do to get the page back. Chelo61 (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not recreate talk pages. The article has been deleted because it fails our notability guidelines. At this point it can not be recreated. If you find reliable sources to show that the subject meets our notability guidelines, at that point in time, you can take this up at WP:DRV, until then please do not recreate the article or talk page. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 06:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chelo61. You have new messages at Xymmax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Melissa Jiménez

You clearly are interested in creating an article on this performer. I have placed a copy of the article in your user space at User:Chelo61/sandbox/Melissa Jiménez. If you click that link, you will come to the article, and you can continue to work on it. It is not part of the encyclopedia, and will not be indexed by search engines. If you find sources that justify a page, the article can be restored by any administrator. You can ask me, or you can bring the article to deletion review. Please understand that the article is very unlikely to be restored unless much better sourcing than we have seen so far is provided. Feel free to ask if you have any questions, and good luck. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kumbia Kings Baila Esta Kumbia.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kumbia Kings Baila Esta Kumbia.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Frankie J More Than Words.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frankie J More Than Words.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Eiza González do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ADVICE - MySpace and Twitter are not allowed on Wikipedia. --Morenooso (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the warning. MySpace is not allowed. Period. --Morenooso (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

) Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Belinda (entertainer. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.--Morenooso (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shhh! (song)

A tag has been placed on Shhh! (song), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gongshow ^Talk 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Azúcar

A tag has been placed on Azúcar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Phearson (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chelo, once again you are creating articles that have been deleted by consensus. There are policies in place on how to recreate the article. If continue to carry on the way you have been, you may find yourself permanently blocked. Or Subject to Arbitration. Phearson (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about your editing at WP:EAR#Chelo61. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STOP!

Stop adding non links to Pitbull's navbox, if you continue to add them.. I'll be forced to block you!--L.Geee 09:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleGee (talk • contribs)

April 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Disruptive editing: doesn't get it, WP:EAR was of no help; repeatedly recreating articles deleted at AfD, now adding the same article in userspace and linking from mainspace. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 27 April 2010 (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).

Chelo61 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is true that Melissa Jiménez got deleted but I was given the page so I can work on it and make it better which I did. That's why I added Melissa Jiménez back to the articles because now its better but you didn't knew so you blocked me. I wasn't trying to break the rules.

Decline reason:

Given that you continued to do so after numerous warnings, I find that hard to believe. Blueboy 96 01:37, 30 April 2010 (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.

There are procedures recreating the article. I have kindly reminded you on March 17, 2010 about re-creating articles:

"Chelo, once again you are creating articles that have been deleted by consensus. There are policies in place on how to recreate the article. If continue to carry on the way you have been, you may find yourself permanently blocked. Or Subject to Arbitration."

From what I can see from your talk page and editing history, including numerous number of attempts of me and other editors trying to help you, It seems you'd rather ignore then listen to us. Here is a great place to look at the Policies and Guidelines. I know its boring to read, but helpful when trying to recreate an article. Phearson (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to launch an RFC regarding Chelo61 either when an admin unblocks him, or the block expires. Phearson (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ignore y'all. I do read what y'all say. Chelo61 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But do you follow through? Doesn't appear to be so IMO. Also I've put a request to the help desk for information on recreating articles. Someone Should be posting on your Talk page shortly. Phearson (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WBSS2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WBSS2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Please stop making disruptive edits to article's like Michael Jackson's This Is It and Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'. Also, please do not lie in edit summaries by making major and disputable changes to the article(s) and citing them as being a minor edits. If you continue to make disruptive edits you may be blocked from editing. Crystal Clear x3 02:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I lie. Chelo61 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I said? You lied in edit summaries by making edits that were clearly very major and disputable and marking them with the "m" for minor edit. Crystal Clear x3 03:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read what you said and I wasn't lying when I put "m". Chelo61 (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2010

RfC

Hello Chelo, just letting you know that an RfC is underway at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chelo61. Although you do not have to participate, your response would be appreciated. Phearson (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Transalate: Hola Chelo, sólo para hacerle saber que está en marcha un RFC en Wikipedia: Solicitudes de comment/Chelo61. Aunque usted no tiene que participar, su respuesta sería apreciada. Phearson (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Regarding this; cut it out. The song is fails WP:NSONGS and, therefore, should not have its own article. I suggest you heed the numerous warnings that you have been given, or risk being blocked again. Pyrrhus16 17:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

Regarding this; quit the disruption. Take issues to the talk page. Continue and you will be blocked again. Pyrrhus16 18:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will take the issues to the talk page. Chelo61 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Michael Jackson The Defintive Collection.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Michael Jackson The Defintive Collection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mind Is The Magic.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mind Is The Magic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Thriller2001SpecialEdition.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thriller2001SpecialEdition.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Do not do this again, unless you can find a reliable source to back it up. Continue with your disruption and you will be blocked from editing. People are becoming tired of your nonsense, so heed the warnings that you have been given. Pyrrhus16 01:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, you're the one who keeps on writing all of this nonsense. I just gave the exact date it was released and if you want a source check the Invincible album and I should be the one blocking you since you are the one who keeps damaging my work on the articles. Chelo61 (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PROVEIT: the editor that adds information must provide it with a verifiable, reliable source citation. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as citations, and "knowing it is true" is also not a citation. --Closeapple (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Wikiproject

Hey! I see you are very active in Selena-related articles, I have proposed a Selena WikiProject and would like you to "support" this project! Here's the link Hope you join us! AJona1992 (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Thriller2001SpecialEdition.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thriller2001SpecialEdition.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Albums produced by A.B. Quintanilla

Category:Albums produced by A.B. Quintanilla, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dragon Ball Z Season 1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dragon Ball Z Season 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:The Last Airbender video game cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Last Airbender video game cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Dragon Ball Z Season 1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dragon Ball Z Season 1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Dragon Ball Z Season 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dragon Ball Z Season 1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Dragon Ball Z Season 2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dragon Ball Z Season 2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Erre XI Carita Bonita.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Erre XI Carita Bonita.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad (album)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Bad (album). Since you are always reverting in the MJ related albums, where you uploaded a cover, any user removed it and you are not giving a reason for keep it, It would be nice to know why. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 01:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Godzilla (2012 film)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Godzilla (2012 film), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godzilla (2012 film). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thriller2001SpecialEdition.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thriller2001SpecialEdition.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —indopug (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of File:Thriller2001SpecialEdition.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Thriller2001SpecialEdition.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. —indopug (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prince logo.svg and Love Symbol Album

Please stop restoring File:Prince logo.svg to the article Love Symbol Album, as you did here. The use of this image on this article fails WP:NFCC #10c for lacking a rationale for each use on the article. Further, its use as a 12px sized icon fails WP:NFCC #8. Further, its use fails WP:NFCC #1, as the symbol can readily be replaced by text. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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. John KB (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael (album). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Happy Thanksgiving Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carita Bonita. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Happy Thanksgiving Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song This Is It

Please read the text of the articles you are editing. They both state quite clearly that the song was never released in stores. It doesn't matter how Sony describe the song, or what MJ fans wanted to happen.

We had this discussion in 2009 and the conclusion still stands. This Is It was an album song that is impossible to get on CD or download. Calling it a single is misleading and wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.33 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Erre XI Carita Bonita.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Erre XI Carita Bonita.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 notification

You have been notified to WP:AN3 for Michael, continue with Pee Wee's song, and you'll be blocked. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but 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.

You broke WP:3RR on Michael (album) even after being warned. [1] The block is for one week, taking into account that you have been blocked for edit-warring previously. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2010 (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).

Chelo61 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I should be unblock because even though I asked the other editors to "Participate in discussion at the article talkpage" they never did and just reverted my edits and now I'm the only one getting punished. They were all against me, it was a handicap battle. Chelo61 (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You edit warred, and were blocked. You promised to stop, and were unblocked - but went right back to the same behaviour. This is not punishment, it's an action taken to prevent further disruption on the encyclopedia: you have been disruptive. Have you ever read the bold, revert, discuss cycle? Have you ever read about sourcing your additions? Have you ever looked at your own actions, rather than argue that everyone else is wrong? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:35, 26 November 2010 (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).

Chelo61 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't promise anything. I have not been disruptive. After I got unblocked, I told the other editors to "Participate in discussion at the article talkpage" but instead they kept on editing the pages and I reverted them back to normal and they kept on disrupting. Now I'm the only one who got blocked. Unblock me so we may settle this. Chelo61 (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whether you promised anything or not disruptive editing is unacceptable. You have, in fact, explained in your unblock request why the block is justifiable, though you don't seem to realise it: "they kept on editing the pages and I reverted them" means that you were edit-warring, which is a sufficient reason for a block. I suggest reading WP:NOTTHEM, if you haven't done so already. Considering your very prolonged history of disruptive editing a one week block is rather minimal: I wouldn't be surprised to see an indefinite block before long if you continue in the same way. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2010 (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.

Hang tight for a moment, Mkativerata and I are having a discussion to try to sort this out. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. There was a problem because at the same time I blocked you, Rjanag decided not to block you. After consideration I've deferred to Rjanag's decision. You have clearly broken WP:3RR here and any further reverts are likely to result in a re-blocking. Happy editing. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm still blocked from editing pages. Chelo61 (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address was still autoblocked - can you edit now? --Mkativerata (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now I can edit. Thanks for unblocking me! Chelo61 (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to participate in discussion at the article talkpage and not edit the article in ways that you know do not have consensus. From now on, if either of you makes a disputed edit to the article (regarding this issue) you'll be blocked. Work out a consensus at the talk page first; if one can't be found, invite uninvolved editors to comment or try other measures of dispute resolution such as WP:30. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit warring again [2]. I was already lenient with you once. Take it to the talk page. Just because this is a different article doesn't mean revert-warring is appropriate. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I check, I see you made another revert at the same page after you were warned. The other editor was wrong to revert your edit without any explanation or any attempt at discussion, but that doesn't give you an excuse to do the same. As you already had been warned very clearly, I have no choice but to block you. (I don't generally support punitive blocks, but you were warned. If you need to participate in the discussion, you can add messages here for people to see, although as far as I can tell you have already stated your point many times and might as well just sit back while outside opinion is brought in.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually told the other editor to "Participate in discussion at the article talkpage" but he didn't. Chelo61 (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Tbhotch is just reverting my edits for his own personal plessure, I edit a page to make it better but then he goes on and reverts my edit and makes the page worse even on pages he don't usually edit. Chelo61 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even send anyone a message or participate in the discussion page, so can you please unblock me so we can settle this. Chelo61 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock you for revert me?, not thank you, we can talk here, something that you must do at first, and you'll comment me why those three changes [3][4][5] are wrong, and make the articles "worse". Keep in mind that a good article and a featured article are involved. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let's talk. Why do you always revert everthing I do? Chelo61 (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First that all say that "I always revert you" means that I never let you edit, which it's not true. Let's keep it in "I'm recently reverting you". I recently revert you ([6][7][8]) in three different pages becuase you have no fundaments for do thos changes. In the first, you alleged that "Cheater" is a single. Changing this makes the article contartics itself because it clearly states that "as a potential single, but full commercial release was cancelled for unspecified reasons", which make it a song. A single become a single when it is commercially released, if this song commercial release was cancelled, it cannot be a single. Second there's no source that call it as a single, the page was created erroneously with that template, but with this information already on it. For "This is It", on the other hand, you alleged that the song is a single because "It was released to the radio, has a cover, has a music video, made it to the charts", Beautiful, Dirty, Rich too, and it is not a single. The problem is that you made that change (I guess thinking on that summary) with no source, no reason and taggng it as "minor", when it's not a minor edit. As "Cheater" that change made it condtraticts itself too Despite Sony not releas[ed] the song as a single, it was confirmed that "This Is It" would be released to radio stations for airplay. An airplay single is not a single and as the lead says: "Sony misleadingly referred to the song as a "new single" during its promotion, but it was later confirmed that the song would only be released to radio, and not be available to buy or download as a single release." Therefore, is not a single. The third, the template. You put "Speechless" as the lead single of Invincible, which is not, without a reason, and the article says "'Speechless' was issued as a promotional single," which for obvious reasons, is not a single. As you can read, if I'm reverting you, is not for edit war with you, it's because I have basis of why I am reverting you. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 07:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For "Speechless" that was my mistake. Now for "Cheater", it was released as a single in 2004 to promote the box set The Ultimate Collection. "This Is It" was also released as a single on October 12, 2009 to promote the soundtrack This Is It. Chelo61 (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you have a source? Also note that "it was released as a single in 2004 to promote" and "was also released as a single to promote" are the main characteristic for promote an album, which is the function of a promotional single. Also keep in mind that with "This is it"^[1] (keep in mind that Sony called it "single" and some sources may still calling it "single") and "Cheater" was^[2]. For the best get very reliable sources. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 07:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Sony misleadingly referred to the song as a "new single" during its promotion, but it was later confirmed that the song would only be released to radio
^ a potential single, but full commercial release was cancelled for unspecified reasons

I don't go around asking you for a source. That's what singles do, they promote the album that they are released in. Chelo61 (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chanced upon this discussion. Dude, in the politest way possible, if you cannot provide a reliable source for your edits, then please stop editing first of all. Second of all, take that BS attitude of "I don't go around asking you for a source" to somewhere else. We don't need disruptive editors like you. If you continue to edit like this, its better you remain blocked. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for cursing. I am not a disruptive editor. Chelo61 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a disruptive editor, you were blocked at es.wiki for WP:Pointing. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you even know that!? You and everybody else in Wikipedia have been stalking my edits just so you guys can just revert them ever since this war over if Michael is a brand new studio album or just another compilation album like the others that have been released since 2001. I go to a page and make corrections then you guys come over and say "He just made an edit and every SINGLE edit he does is wrong, disruptive and it's vandalism" even on pages you guys don't edit. I am not a disruptive editor. I got blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia just because I was correcting the titles. Its spelled "Why You Wanna Trip on Me" NOT "why you wanna trip on me". Its spelled Michael Jackson's This Is It NOT michael jackson's this is it. IF I was a disruptive editor I would go around make edits like "poop eater" and "penis sucker" on all of the pages I edit. Chelo61 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "stalk your edits", in fact I saw this edit and checked your move on es.wiki. According to your comment, you are saying that we must move ja:マイケル・ジャクソン to "Michael Jackson" because it was his name. We have our rules, they have their rules, and well, if I was warned twice, I don't challenge the other user moving the page again. You say "even on pages you guys don't edit", and you want to point, just because we not edit those pages, we are not able to do it? we cannot edit them because we not know what we are doing?. Also note that "disruptive editor" is not the same as Vandalism-only account. You have a serious problem owning articles, which is disruptive. You have only one option here: Ask personally to the user to join to the discussion at his talkpage and left the page as it was, but instead, you reverted him by your fifth time, even you were warned twice for edit-warring, after a block, and after an unblock. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 21:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't type words that I never said. I never said anything about the Japanese Wikipedia, Japanese symbols are DIFFERENT then the alphabet symbols used for English, Spanish, Italian, French and any other similar language. The words HAVE to be translated into Japanese because their language isn't similar to English but a langauge like Spanish is. That's why Off the Wall is not translated into De la Pared for the Spanish Wikipedia but it has to be translated from Off the Wall into オフ・ザ・ウォール in the Japanese Wikipedia because Japanese don't use letters. But for some reason this guy in the Spanish Wikipedia wants to spell titles like "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough" into "don't stop 'til you get enough" and that is not correct so I corrected them and now I got block. I'm not saying just because you guys don't usually edit those pages you guys can't but WHY ALL OF THE SUDDEN you guys just so HAPPENED to get interested in those pages, well its just because I EDITED those pages so you guys just come in to revert them and start another edit war with me. Chelo61 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If those reverts started on those pages, were for the reason I posted above. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 21:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that guy blocked you as simple as your warns: Violate the MoS of es.wiki with no valid reason, and as I said they have their rules, and even if you don't like them, you must adhere to them. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 21:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you have against me? Ever since the war over if Michael is a brand new studio album or just another compilation album like the others that have been released since 2001 you've been attacking every single thing that I do. Chelo61 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attacking you, I'm simply asking you to justify your edits. That's all, if you cannot, just don't do them again. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 22:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do justify my edits but you keep on reverting them. Chelo61 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I already justified you why I did them. On the other hand, you never proved that I am wrong, you just commented I don't go around asking you for a source., and if you are not go asking me for sources is because I always put sources in everything I change. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 01:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll start know, you are wrong about Michael being just another compilation album like the others that have been released since 2001. "Cheater" IS a single for the box set The Ultimate Collection and "This Is It" IS a single for the soundtrack This Is It. Chelo61 (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that order; Michael is a compilation, after all the refs 2-6 state it. We are pissed that you stay arguing the same again and again, if this is persistent, then we must take it to WP:3O. For the other two articles, where are your sources (again)? Two reliable sources called them "airplay" and "cancelled" singles, respectively, but neither called them "commercial simgles", therefore they are not singles. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for cursing. Michael is not a compilation album like all of the other ones released since 2001. Michael is a studio album. Michael Jackson left a note saying that he wanted "Hold My Hand" to be the lead single for his NEW album and guess what is the lead single for his NEW album, that is not a compilation album. (It's "Hold My Hand"!) By the way, here's your source that you so desperately need: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-15/entertainment/michael.jackson.single_1_akon-michael-jackson-album?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ It even says his first NEW album in 9 years. (Now you're probably going to tell me CNN isn't a source just like all of the other sources I put in). And it's common sense that "Cheater" and "This Is It" are singles. Chelo61 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have WP:SYNTHESIS with Michael: A is B because c -> The album (A) is a studio album (B) because CNN called it "new album in nine years (C), really?, give a better argument. And for the singles, per common sense they are not singles, they are promotional recordings, which is different. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was right! You DID came in and disagree with me over the source. Now back to the discussion, I never said Michael is a studio album JUST BECAUSE CNN called it one. Michael is a studio album because we all knew, but apparently you don't, that Michael Jackson was working on new studio albums and none of the songs of Michael have been released (officially, not counting leaks). It isn't a compilation album like all of the other compilation albums that have been released since 2001. Calling it a compilation album is misleading. By the way, explain why "Cheater" and "This Is It" aren't singles. Chelo61 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only who disagree with you, many sources call Michael compilation, as well many "studio", the problem is that even we can put a bypass as here or here, but you persist in do this even when we already are discussing it in the article's talkpage. Michael was working on a studio album, yes, not, maybe, irrelevant here, becuase Michael IS NOT the album in which he was working, and well, thank you for the recent source, Sony stated that they'll release ten albums of unreleased material, will you edit war in their aticles in the future about if they are studio or not because they have unreleased material? And for the songs, for the third time, I've already told you why they are not singles, will you continue with this instead of get sources? Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 03:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources call this a compilation album because they think this studio album is a compilation album. (Why? Because every single new Michael Jackson album have been compilation albums) Michael is just a studio album because all of the songs are new unlike Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix, which is a remix album. HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I should be just consider a studio album but because the first album is a compilation album people count it as both. How do you know that Michael isn't the studio album that Michael Jackson was working on? Can you provide a source? Chelo61 (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I easily can ask you the same, a source that states that Michael is the album in which he was working. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 03:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. The source I put earlier said that "Hold My Hand" was going to be the new single for his new album and "Hold My Hand" IS the first single for Michael, Michael Jackson's eleventh studio album. Now it's your turn to provide a source. Chelo61 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CNN source, sorry but not give missinformation Michael Jackson's eleventh studio album. is never mentioned nor studio nor eleven[th]. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 03:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I PUT that because everybody knows that Michael is Michael Jackson's eleventh studio album. Where's your source? Chelo61 (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, unlike you, know that I have no sources citing "Michael is not id. eleventh studio album" who in the worls will waste his time for this? And I said "unlike you" because I admit I have no source, but you cite a source, silly commenting, because everybody knows that Michael is Michael Jackson's eleventh studio album. Sorry, not "everybody" shares your POV, and not everybody use a source which not state the words "eleven" or "studio". Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 03:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see how time consuming and annoying it is when a person keeps on telling you to provide a source. Why do you want Michael to be just another compilation album? Chelo61 (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you seeing how annoying is talk to an user which act like a wall? or who like to talk in circles? I "want" Michael to be a compilation for what I've already posted on its talkpage. Also, why we are discussing the album, when we are discussing the singles. BTW, you still providing no sources. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I ALREADY DID. Here I'll put it again AND put other sources.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-15/entertainment/michael.jackson.single_1_akon-michael-jackson-album?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

http://idolator.com/5677931/new-michael-jackson-album-breaking-news-december

http://jnelj.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/music-news-michael-jacksons-album-michael-to-be-released-in-december/

http://www.goodnewsweekly.ca/2010/11/michael-jacksons-breaking-news-set-for.html

http://clizbeats.com/michael-jacksons-new-studio-album-michael-coming-soon114102/

We are discussing the studio album Michael because right now it is being counted as a compilation album which is misleading. Chelo61 (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take one by one:

I don't know why you insist but CNN not states that the album is an studio album.
Idolator is a blog, see its article, which make it reliable?
JNEL & J. Online Magazine as above is a blog, which make it reliable?
I really doubt that Good News Weekly is reliable (I'm seeing an image that is posted at blogspot), but let's keep it.
The fifth contradicts itself: "On December 14th Epic Records will release what will be a new Michael Jackson studio album called, Michael. Michael is a compilation of unreleased material".

If you want to argue something, use reliable sources. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, actually a "compilation of unreleased material" is a studio album just like how a "compilation of live material" is a live album. Chelo61 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But calling it a compilation album is misleading. Chelo61 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No really, many sources call it studio as well compilation, if neither call it "studio" nor "compilation", is misleading. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When people go to the Michael page and see compilation album they'll think it is just like other compilation albums but Michael is a studio album. Chelo61 (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chelo, if you want to talk about how people will think that Michael is a compilation for the next 5 days, OK, but I won't. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought or called Michael a compilation album. Chelo61 (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And who said you did it? Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did. Michael is a studio album. Chelo61 (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I get enough of this, I were talking to you only for these [9][10] changes, not for your thoughts on Michael. You refuse to discuss them and started to discuss something irrelevant with them, and I won't follow your game. Say "Michael is a studio album", won't make it a "studio" album. Provided poor sources or sources that just called it "new" (becuase it is new) and you pointed nothing. So when you are unblocked I just hope you reverting these changes two changes (without a good reason or a reliable source), and continue edit-warring at Michael. And as Jason said "I wouldn't be surprised to see an indefinite block before long if you continue in the same way". Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, unlike the other songs from The Ultimate Collection and This Is It, "Cheater" and "This Is It" were released as singles. Unlike me, you didn't provided any sources any sources for Michael. Chelo61 (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you have a source of "Cheater" and "This Is It" being released as singles? (and [your] ccmmon sense is not a source). Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/michael_jackson/cheater/

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1622136/20090923/jackson_michael.jhtml

Chelo61 (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Your Music is not a reliable source, it's a blog were users can rate their music. MTV source was published on September 2009, if you remember: "Despite Sony not releas[ed] the song as a single, it was confirmed that "This Is It" would be released to radio stations for airplay".[11] two weeks later. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 18:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b148437_michael_jacksons_this_it_single_hear_it.html

http://mashable.com/2009/10/12/new-michael-jackson-single/

http://popdirt.com/michael-jackson-cheater-video/34329/

Chelo61 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have I to post it again? "Sony misleadingly referred to the song as a "new single" during its promotion", many sources will call it single because Sony referred it at first as single. A song is a single when it is released comercially, if the song was not released beyond Airplay IT IS NOT A SINGLE, it is a PROMOTIONAL SINGLE, read single (music), God!. For "Cheater" another source as reliable as this book? Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to use the Lord's name in vain. What does the book have to do with "Cheater"? "This Is It" is a single. You know, all singles PROMOTE the album, so what's the difference calling a song a single or promotional single if they both do the same thing. Chelo61 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are refusing to read our articles, I'll do it for you. The main difference between a song and a single, as I said many times is that singles can be released for ""sale"" to the public, if you argue that "songs that promote an album are by default singles" therefore, ALL SONGS BECAME SINGLES AT MOMENT THE ALBUM IS RELEASED, as this song. For the book, on the other hand, states, as I said before (again), that was planned to be released as single, but for unknown reasons, was pulled. That's what Cheater has to do with the book. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 00:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOT ALL SONGS, don't put words I never mentioned. "Cheater" and "This Is It" were released as singles. That book is not a good source. Chelo61 (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources for "they were relaeased" and why the book is not reliable? Is more reliable than your words. Tbh®tch^Talk ^© 00:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ACTUALLY gave sources. The book is not reliable because it MISLEADING said "Cheater" was cancelled. Chelo61 (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your super-reliable sources, yes, how I could forget Rate Your Music. The book is so-so unreliable, because contratics your sources. How I couldn't see this before. Tbh®tch^Talk ^© Happy Holidays 01:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah because I "like to lie alot about things and be disruptive and mislead articles and call new studio albums to just another compilation album and call songs that were released as singles to just another song on the album and curse and make sure Wikipedia stays true to its stereotypical unreable encyclopedia (one of the reasons why colleges won't even let you do research here) and ask people to always provide sources and when they do I call them unreliable just because it doesn't go the way I want the article to say." Merry Christmas. Chelo61 (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really. You consider this a "personal attack". By the way, I'm already block, remember? You and some other users got together to attack me and you guys couldn't stand losing so you guys blocked me. Merry Christmas. Chelo61 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block myself (who does that?). You're the one who responded acting sarcastic first. Merry Christmas. Chelo61 (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT I DID: Made the articles as correctly as possible. I discussed the topic at the discussion page. Proving sources that confirmed my edits. WHAT YOU GUYS DID: Stalked my edits and undid everything I did even on pages that you guys don't usually edit but for SOME REASON you guys got interested (It was just because I edit on those pages). When I tried to get you guys to talk at the discussion page, you guys ignored me. When I provided sources you guys always called the unreliable. Merry Christmas. Chelo61 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enjoy your three next days, I'm tired, and I you only pointed nothing, and start calling me "a liar", which is a personal attack and a defamation. You didn't wake up thinking "I'm going to get my account", but you woke up thinking "Mmichale is not a studio album, is misleading and people won't see it again", that's what you probably thought, and at the same time you forgot your 4 blocks for the same, DISRUPTIVE EDITING. If I see you reverting my edits on Cheater and This is It, or change Michael without a consensus, I'll take you to ANI. Tbh®tch^Talk ^© Happy Holidays 04:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if I see you reverting my edits that I will make when I'm unblock, I'll also take you to ANI. Merry Christmas. Chelo61 (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where you will most likely get laughed at and blocked again. Unless you make contributions which do not need reverting (Which you have NOT been doing); that is. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 04:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you knew about this conversation? Have you been reading everything we said!? Mockery isn't a good thing. I will only get block if they start to get afraid about losing in the discussion and decide to block me before they lose. I make contributions on pages that need reverting (Which I have ALWAYS been doing); that is. Merry Christmas. Chelo61 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but 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.

--Mkativerata (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The block is set at two weeks. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me why do you feel the need to block me? Chelo61 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous edit warring, obviously. In hindsight, 2 weeks was lenient, probably too lenient, given the proximity of the edit warring to your recent block. If things don't change, there is a pretty good chance the next block will be indefinite.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good block. This editor was clearly out of control. Hopefully, they'll take these two weeks and use them to reflect on what happened. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After 6 blocks A quest, Do you really believe he will reflect about how he is leading to be indef blocked? Tbh®tch^Talk ^© Happy Holidays 19:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always reflect on my edits and think to myself whether or not they were correct and if it was wrong I go back and change it and now I'm thinking about the "indef block" you keep on metioning and it just proves that you always wanted to get rid of me. Whenever I edit a page you always come in and revert, probably to irritate to me or to find an excuse to block and to call my edits "vandalism". Maybe by blocking me you feel like its a victory or something but seriously you need to stop. I checked the Michael page and YOU changed it back to the misleading title of "compilation album". Whenever I make my points you just ignore and focus on the whole entire "you're wrong and I'm right". If you got something to say, say it. Chelo61 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block reset

I've reset your block for two weeks due to sockpuppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chelo61 for the relevant conversation. Using another account to evade block is unacceptable behavior. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you people. Now what? Was I acting too "polite" or too "mean" in MY user talk page while I'm BLOCKED? Or is it because you guys just don't like me. Chelo61 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it clearly reads, due to sockpuppetry. Just give it up on the "you guys don't like me" shit. You've been disrupting Wikipedia, so you were blocked. It has NOTHING to do with a personal opinion of you what-so-ever. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 00:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for cursing (I saw that WTF and s-word you wrote), now calm down and behave like a gentleman. I wasn't disrupting Wikipedia, I make edits just like anyone else one here, its not like when I make an edit I type random stuff such as "random random random funny funny funny nonsense nonsense nonsens". I saw the sockppetry you guys accused me of and this reminds a lot like the one I was accused of 1 year ago just because other editors made similar edits like mine. Chelo61 (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the meaning of being banned or indefinitely blocked? If not don't worry, you will soon have it. Continue socking, but we guys are too smart actually. The whole talk page of yours, I dont see any remorse or taking onus of the disruptions that you have done, neither any proactiveness to learn from experienced editors. You basically think that everything you are doing is correct. I don't know from what deluded thinking is giving rise to this, but you have reached the point where you are just a casualty on WP, a disruptive editor. As I said before, you can continue cribbing, a fat lot of good it will do you. Either take up onus for your disruptions and be a good editor, else just give up. WP doesnot need vandals and sockpuppeteers like you. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'I make edits like everyone else here'. Yes. That is true. But you do NOT have to 'type random stuff such as "random random random funny funny funny nonsense nonsense nonsens" for it to be disruptive. Your edits are UNPROFESSIONAL, and I will prove this to you. You claimed on the Michael (album) talk page that "If it was just another compilation album, then Sony would have said something like "New Michael Jackson album that includes his greatest hits with a new song". NO professional press release would ever be written like that. Your lack of professionalism is also reflected in your statement that you "don't have time to look for a source that saids for a source that saids "Michael is a new studio album even though we are sure that most people will use their common sense and figure out that is a studio album", yet you are extremely keen to assert that based on YOUR flawed and skewered belief, that everyone else should believe you, otherwise 1) Wikipedia is a "stereotypical unreable(sic) encyclopedia" (please learn to spell) or 2) incorrect 3) out to attack you. You have NOT addressed the GLARING fact that there are more than 3 REAL editors with VERIFIABLE 3rd party sources contradicting YOUR SINGLE UNVERIFIABLE AND PERSISTENT ASSERTION, and no, creating sock puppets does not increase the number of supporters you need for a futile and incorrect clause.46.64.21.150 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping yourself. Even if you were right about studio vs compilation issue (I have taken no position on the matter), that doesn't justify repeatedly edit-warring and sock-puppetry. You need to realize the latter are much worse than the former. The sooner you acknowledge your mistakes, the better off everyone involved will be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fist of all, sock-puppetry? When did this happened? Second of all, yes I KNOW the meaning of being banned or indefinitely blocked and now you just assume that I will get block again. Third of all I CAN spell, that was just a TYPO, I seen people make many mistakes when they type and I'm pretty sure they didn't even notice or they typed too fast and didn't look at it but I don't see YOU asking them to "please learn to spell". This "edit war" wouldn't had started if you guys just stop reverting my edits. Chelo61 (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'edits' are 1) INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3) NON-CONSTRUCTIVE. YOU started the edit war with your 1)INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3)NON-CONSTRUCTIVE edits and YOU have YOURSELF ONLY to blame for being 1) INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3) NON-CONSTRUCTIVE.46.64.21.150 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that my edits are "1) INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3) NON-CONSTRUCTIVE" but they are not. If I make mistakes I go back and change them or somebody else will notice that I made a mistake and change it for me and I'll let them correct it but if I know what I did was not a mistake then I go and change it back. By the way be careful about what you edit because people are starting to think that you and me are the same user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chelo61) just like how people think that me, ZDriver, 201.141.21.211, and The Gamer of Games are the same user and then you'll be indefinitely blocked and my block will be reset again. Chelo61 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than 3 editors have pointed out that your consistent edit-war where you insist that Michael is a studio album is 1) INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3) NON-CONSTRUCTIVE. YOU do not see this clear mistake, and therefore you do NOT let them correct it. YOU persist in going back to your 1) INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3) NON-CONSTRUCTIVE edit war. I have clearly stated my reasons why the album is NOT a studio album, the direct OPPOSITE of YOUR 1) INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3) NON-CONSTRUCTIVE claim, so nobody would ever assume we are the same person.46.64.21.150 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently someone does think you and me are the same person. (Check link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chelo61) I did not start an edit war nor did I want to. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_%28album%29&action=historysubmit&diff=400401841&oldid=400400187) But then you guys just had to come in and start another edit war. Then you guys hide behind each other and get me block. Chelo61 (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You PERSISTED in edit warring and have broken the 3 revert rule THREE TIMES, and blocked accordingly as a result of your 1) INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3) NON-CONSTRUCTIVE edits where you assert untrue information. WE are correcting YOUR 1) INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3) NON-CONSTRUCTIVE edits. You can go on playing the victim all you want, it will do you no good. Even if we stop correcting you, someone else will point out that you are WRONG and correct it, and you will start your drama again. The fault lies soley with YOU, and you only have YOURSELF to blame for being 1) INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3) NON-CONSTRUCTIVE46.64.21.150 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "playing" victim, I am a victim. You can't think of anything else to say besides "1) INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3) NON-CONSTRUCTIVE"? I can correct my own mistakes. Chelo61 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are incapable of correcting your own mistakes. The solid proof of this is your TRACK RECORD FOR ALL TO SEE IN YOUR HISTORY that clearly shows that you have PERSISTED in REPEATING your 1) INCORRECT 2) DISRUPTIVE 3) NON-CONSTRUCTIVE MISTAKE that Michael is a studio album, when it is not. No worries, the glorious indefinite block will stop you from repeating it, even with your sock puppets.46.64.21.150 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never had sock puppets. What makes you so sure that I will get an "indefinite block"? Chelo61 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, you can't fight here, this is the war room! Seriously though, calm down. Nolelover^{It's football season!} 21:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot

Chelo61: Will you please accept on good faith that I am honestly trying to help you and trying to give you good advice? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. I'll admit that I do need some help here on Wikipedia so I won't get attack all of the time. Chelo61 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can be a very forgiving place, but you need to acknowledge what you did was wrong. In this particular case, you edit-warred. Now, you weren't the only one to edit-war, but you were the most prolific. What they did was wrong, too, but you were the one who got blocked. Is that fair? Probably not, but there's nothing you can do about it - you can't unspill milk - so I suggest that you move on. After your block is lifted, I suggest you stick to only 1 revert and then move discussion to the talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, what they did was wrong. It was not fair that I was the only to get blocked. I will acknowledge what I did was wrong. I will try the advice you gave me. Chelo61 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your block is over, or at least soon to be over. Please heed my advice and keep out of trouble. Being blocked is not fun! :( If you need any advice or feedback, feel free to ask on my talk page. Good luck and happy editing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael (album)

Please STOP labeling it as a studio album after consensus CLEARLY REJECTED this. You were blocked for it last time, don't get blocked for it again this time! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 09:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus has been established either way. AQFK (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ending the Michael Jackson edit War

Unfortunately the current edit war over the album type is rather sad but it is most certainly intolerable. Please visit Talk:Michael (album)#End the Edit War - Studio vs Compilation and part-take in the attempt to find a final resolution. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're view is a little flawed. Admins don't block people for changing compilation → studio. Its that fact that there is now a consensus supported by evidence. Editing against consensus is a block-able offence. There is a difference. Now it may be time to accept the facts and get over it. Seriously mate I'm saying this for you're own good... when you start forum shopping people its time to drop it. Happy 2011 btw... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

This is your only warning. If you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Michael (album), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch^™ ^© Happy New Year 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? was blocked as your account even if it ws or not, you are not able to do this changes a) withough a valid reason, since is blocked with your name you have 0 reasons for doit and b) tag it as minor edit, when it is not. Reasons for block you? we have enough especially when you canvass people. Tbhotch^™ ^© Happy New Year 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Godzilla (2012 film)

FYI, Godzilla (2012 film) is up for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Godzilla_(2012_film)_(2nd_nomination). ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selena JW Category

Hello Chelo61, I agree about what you said on the edit in Selena, but Wikipedia's rules about people in categories are very strict. If you read the talk page of Selena you'll see that I've engage and discussion with another Wikipedian about this category and I've tried fighting for Selena to be in Category:American Jehovah's Whiteness. So instead of adding back a category that others tried adding back, why not expand more Selena-related articles? I've done Dreaming of You (album) which is currently a good article nominee and Amor Prohibido (song) which is currently a good article. Theres a lot of Selena-related articles that needs help. If English isn't your strength then how about translating Selena, Dreaming of You, and Amor Prohibido articles in Spanish so they can be at these status. Take care, AJona1992 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Welcome 2 America Prince banner.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Welcome 2 America Prince banner.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here I Stand (Usher song)

The release date and format parameters are only for songs with releases independent from the album, such as Breaking News (song) and Wait Your Turn. Album tracks recieve no release aside from being included on the album, therefore the parameters should not be used. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Michael (album), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the consensus (something you apparently never will follow) start a new. Just because the albums is listed on an "elitist" website, do not convert the album in that. You have been here enough time for known that. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned Tbhotch about their long-term edit-warring.[12] Unfortunately, Tbhotch was not receptive.[13] In the meantime, you shouldn't be edit-warring either. Instead, you should present your new evidence on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American music task force invite

Hello Chelo61! I've noticed your work on articles relating to Latin American music. I would like to invite you to join the Latin music task force a collaborative effort which aims to create, expand, and maintain Latin American music-related articles. If you'd like to join, please sign up here. Thank you. Magiciandude (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Raymond v. Raymond has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. If you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. -- Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your edit: Template:Infobox album says to use single-name codes (ie. "studio"); The "alt" field is not used here at all; and internal links in the same section should not be multiple (WP:Wikilink). Be practical, what good would having "will.i.am" linked twice in the same section do? Dan56 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need me to revert it for you? Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usher discography

I do not appreciate such edits you have done to this article. You do not revert someone's work with no edit summary, then doing it twice more asking a user why they are doing what they are doing, and claiming "it doesn't have to be change[d]". If you saw my edit summaries, you can see I was updating the style per WP:DISCOGSTYLE guidelines. I think this was discussed with you before, but excuse me if I'm wrong. But whether not you like the new style or not, there IS a guideline for discog styles, and it is in the middle of being updated. ℥^nding·start 00:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use this month wisely

You have been given a month of timeout to prevent further disruption and to allow you think about your recent actions, not because of bias. Please use this time as it is intended. I myself have been blocked because I thought I was in the right but while blocked I thought about what I had done and realized I was NOT right. I would suggest that instead of sockpuppeting which will only reset the block; take a wikibreak and think about what happened. This is what saved me from an indefinate block and there is still time for it to save you too. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 00:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sony misleadingly referred to the song as a "new single" during its promotion, but it was later confirmed that the song would only be released to radio

[2] tential single, but full commercial release was cancelled for unspecified reasons

[1]

[2]