User talk:Sergioca369

Sergioca369, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Sergioca369! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top 20[edit]

You are very close to being dragged to WP:ANI and put under a block to not edit this page. If there is no consensus then there can be no change. Why are you so hell-bent on having 21 items? Primefac (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shut your effing mouth! Sergioca369 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your tendentious editing. The thread is Failure to get the point, and disruptive editing. Intervention requested.. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=What should I do to be unblocked then??????????}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tt

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).

Sergioca369 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not believe that I should be blocked because I was doing use contributions to the list of 24 hours videos, but that guy Primefac should be blocked because he wants to put a video (Ready for it) on the list but he doesn't cite which is against Wikipedia's policy, irght?, so please guys unblock because I didn't really do anything bad, but I'm also asking to block "Primefac", PLEASE!!! he just wants his favorite video to be in the list even if it shouldn't please talk to him. THANKS!

Decline reason:

"I'm right, he is wrong!" Is not a valid reason to unblock. Demanding another user be blocked because you think they are wrong is not a reason to be unblocked. In short, this request is declined. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2017 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) Even if you are not going to get unblocked by saying that you are right and someone else is wrong, I still fixed it for you. !dave 20:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protip: If you feel the urge to tell someone to "go FUCK YOURSELF YOU PUSSY", don't. Civility is a core principal here and that sort of behavior will get you blocked every single time. Yes, that is your fault, not theirs. --Tarage (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2017 (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).

Sergioca369 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my reason is not that i'm right and the other person is wrong, but that i was contributing to the page, I just was asking to block him but that isn't my reason, do you get it??!!!!!!!!!

Decline reason:

Even if true, that's completely irrelevant. Yamla (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2017 (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.

Comments Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_233#Kworb seems to have a consensus that Kworb can be used and that Primefac was correct. The sort of incivility involved in your ad hominem attack at ANI and in edit summaries and your unblock requests is not acceptable. If you have a difference of opinion with another editor, seek discussion on the article talk page, try to achieve a greater consensus and seek WP:dispute resolution if an impasse is reached. At present, your block is only for a short duration. Hopefully, you will discuss changes civilly, without making personal attacks once your block expires. Until/unless you acknowledge that you will cease and desist from personal attacks and will discuss changes constructively, it is unlikely anyone will unblock you before the block expires. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Yoshiman6464 erased my work because he believed that "kworb" wasn't reliable. Please talk to that user so everything gets clear and so he doesn't erase my work ever again!!!!! Please talk to him!! THanks Sergioca369 (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Users can make mistakes. It's not the admins job to police every mistake. Besides, irregardless of the sourcing issue, you do not have consensus to expand that list from 20 to 25. Look, I get that you are a big Katy Perry fan. Just because her video isn't on a top whatever list isn't an excuse to go on a rampage. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a fan page. --Tarage (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious???!!, the one that started all this problem is Primefac because he wanted "...Ready for it" to be in the list, I mean like I get that he loves the snake trash Taylor Swift, but that doesn't mean that her videos should be on the list. Ok! so please shut your mouth when you don't know what you're talking about. Sergioca369 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You REALLY need to drop that attitude or you will be blocked a lot longer. The one who doesn't know what they're talking about is you. Reliable sources back up the inclusion of that video on the list. Again, calm down, be rational, or you won't be here long. The problem is NOT everyone else. The problem is YOU. --Tarage (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Since you're evidently not interested in collaboration (or even mere coexistence) with fellow editors, I've blocked you until agree to. I had all the reasons to revoke your talk page access, too, however I'm giving you a chance by just protecting this page for 1 day. After that, you can appeal your block. Max Semenik (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2017 (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).

Sergioca369 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I swear that I will make good contributions to the page, please unblock me. I won't behave that way again

Decline reason:

Your block is not related to making changes without someone's approval, and does not appear to me to address, or even include the reason that led to the block. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:43, 5 December 2017 (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.

Just as a note, this is likely to be declined because you haven't actually given a reason that describes how you will avoid the actions that led to your block in the first place. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't making any changes without someone's approval, is that enough to be unblocked?

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).

Sergioca369 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will not say profanity (meaning that I will not ever, ever, ever say anything offending to anyone), and I won't make changes without someones approval (but if I have a GOOD RELIABLE source that proves that I'm right then I will make the changes. PLease, believe me, I will be a good editor and I will keep the peace around.

Decline reason:

Your block is mostly in relation to the violation of our policy on personal attacks on fellow editors, not the use of profanity. I do not believe that you understand why your actions resulted in a block. Continuing to make unblock requests that tell us what you think we want to hear may result in a loss of access to this page. Please, read WP:NPA and consider not only how your edits violated this policy, but explain how you will avoid making these sort of edits going forward. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:46, 5 December 2017 (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.

Why did you block me for then? I thought it was because I was saying bad words and making changes (which I already apologized for)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergioca369 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked because when I opened up the ANI you started saying all sorts of uncouth things. You were brought to ANI because you wouldn't drop the stick and refused to discuss changes to the article before making them. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually following the unblock instructions would be a good start and show that you do have the required competence to edit here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]