Hosumyng123
Hosumyng123, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Hosumyng123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
December 2020 edit
Your edit to Sheryl Cruz has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. -WayKurat (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Gab4gab. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mark Herras, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gab4gab (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to upload media files with false or lacking copyright and source information, as you did at Jennylyn Mercado, you may be blocked from editing. Please make sure you have read and understood our image use policy before making any further uploads. If you have questions, ask at the copyright question page. -WayKurat (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to upload media files with false or lacking copyright and source information, as you did at Mark Herras, you may be blocked from editing. Please make sure you have read and understood our image use policy before making any further uploads. If you have questions, ask at the copyright question page. -WayKurat (talk)
Your recent editing history at Nicole Kim Donesa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please read, understand and follow WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. Social media is not a reliable source for claims in an article about a living person and that a celebrenews site has repeated a claim from a social media platform without independent verification, as in this case, does not magically convert it to a RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ‑ Iridescent 16:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hosumyng123 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: ). Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Eggishorn and User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks to both of you I've been blocked even though I have reliable sources, please read the sources before reporting someone or search google for your own misconceptions. The birthdate was already placed in that page for many years until User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång removed it. He's not even from the Philippines, a complete foreigner disrupting the page.
- First of all, no, it was not due to anyone else that you were blocked You were blocked due to your own actions. See WP:OWN and WP:NOTTHEM. Secondly, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors due to country of origin is often regarded as a personal attack and a sanctionable violation of the Civility policy. Everyone editing at a collaborative website such as this should be aware of the rules and community norms. Editing in violation of those norms is always a negative experience. Seasons's greetings. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Eggishorn Second, if the other editor is not lazy to search and just googled the source, it wouldn't be resulted to edit warring. He just removed the birth date by the reason of WP:BOD. In the first place, why would someone remove the original birth date if the source was given or if the editor is not sure of the birth date, why not search on the internet instead of removing it.
- No one is ever forced into an edit war. Violating the rules on multiple reverts is a conscious choice, no matter how invested one is in the text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Eggishorn Then you reverted it back again. Did you even check the link source : https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/celebritylife/relationship/64010/mark-herras-posts-heartfelt-video-greeting-for-nicole-donesas-26th-birthday/story
- Please see above and the talk page. I would not have written what I did unless I had seen the reference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Eggishorn I don't know if you are a foreigner or not, don't assume that the article is not reliable source. FYI, GMA Network is where Nicole Donesa works and gmanetwork.com is the official website of GMA network
- The article says it's her 26th birthday, 2020 - 26 = 1994 and the article created May 27th. All the information posted by Nicole Donesa on her instagram is obviously May 27th and 26th birthday now if you are struggling with mathematics then asks a fifth grader or if you don't believe then feel free to misinform the page. I will leave that page for your own happiness.
- I ask you again to please read the policy links. Believe it or not, I am trying to help you. If you take a minute to read the policy links I have previously given you it will actually help you immensely. As you make very clear immediately above, the GMA network reposting a social media post is not independent because GMA is promoting one of their own actresses. The source of the information that GMA used is likewise not acceptable because it is a social media post. These do not meet the requirements of reliable sourcing which is mandatory for Biographies of Living Persons. When your block expires, if you continue as you have been, it will result in an indefinite block which would be unfortunate. You obviously have good intentions of trying to improve the coverage of this person but even the very best of intentions is not going to result in the text you want if there aren't acceptable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Eggishorn Nope as I have told you I'm not going touch this page again. It's not about social media, let us say common sense if the source is obvious. You are the one who reverted it, you chose to remove it and you are the winner hooray.That birth date was already placed there until someone removed it. I am not the one who put that birth date in the first place, it's just sad to see this page with missing info. To end this discussion, why don't you put your reliable source and search the google, I'm kind of tired looking for another sources and debating with editors like you.
- I ask you again to please read the policy links. Believe it or not, I am trying to help you. If you take a minute to read the policy links I have previously given you it will actually help you immensely. As you make very clear immediately above, the GMA network reposting a social media post is not independent because GMA is promoting one of their own actresses. The source of the information that GMA used is likewise not acceptable because it is a social media post. These do not meet the requirements of reliable sourcing which is mandatory for Biographies of Living Persons. When your block expires, if you continue as you have been, it will result in an indefinite block which would be unfortunate. You obviously have good intentions of trying to improve the coverage of this person but even the very best of intentions is not going to result in the text you want if there aren't acceptable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please see above and the talk page. I would not have written what I did unless I had seen the reference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Eggishorn Then you reverted it back again. Did you even check the link source : https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/celebritylife/relationship/64010/mark-herras-posts-heartfelt-video-greeting-for-nicole-donesas-26th-birthday/story
- No one is ever forced into an edit war. Violating the rules on multiple reverts is a conscious choice, no matter how invested one is in the text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Eggishorn Second, if the other editor is not lazy to search and just googled the source, it wouldn't be resulted to edit warring. He just removed the birth date by the reason of WP:BOD. In the first place, why would someone remove the original birth date if the source was given or if the editor is not sure of the birth date, why not search on the internet instead of removing it.
- First of all, no, it was not due to anyone else that you were blocked You were blocked due to your own actions. See WP:OWN and WP:NOTTHEM. Secondly, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors due to country of origin is often regarded as a personal attack and a sanctionable violation of the Civility policy. Everyone editing at a collaborative website such as this should be aware of the rules and community norms. Editing in violation of those norms is always a negative experience. Seasons's greetings. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Eggishorn and User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks to both of you I've been blocked even though I have reliable sources, please read the sources before reporting someone or search google for your own misconceptions. The birthdate was already placed in that page for many years until User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång removed it. He's not even from the Philippines, a complete foreigner disrupting the page.