User talk:Cristianofigo

January 2016

Hello, I'm BRPever. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Manuel Pinho without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BRPever (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Manuel Pinho with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Manuel Pinho, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Manuel Pinho was changed by Cristianofigo (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.90649 on 2016-01-15T18:03:11+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Manuel Pinho with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. m.o.p 18:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Master of Puppets, I don't know if this editor ever checked back in. Who knows; they may have gotten a new account. :) Anyway, the article they were warring on, Manuel Pinho, is a BLP problem. I just posted on WP:BLPN after fully protecting it for two weeks. This editor seems to have tried to defend the subject, and their edits are not really vandalism. Sure, they were guilty of edit warring and/because they failed to invoke the BLP, but most editors now active in that article are new to Wikipedia and don't know the rules. To put it another way, I don't think this is a vandalism-only account, and if they want to get unblocked, I think we should consider it. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: In trying to defend the subject, they were blanking large sections of the article, repeatedly, and not responding to warnings. Perhaps {{uw-voablock}} was the wrong template to use, but blanking like that, BLP-related or not, is disruptive when done without discussion.

If the editor turns up and asks for an unblock, I'm all for unblocking provided they understand how to properly discuss BLP concerns. m.o.p 21:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MOP. Christiano, are you listening? You need to talk about what you did so we can talk about what to do next time, as a condition for getting unblocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]