User talk:Diogoncm

May 2016

To enforce an arbitration decision and for adding "potentially contentious" content without obtaining the required "firm consensus", in violation of the sanctions already in effect on the page United States presidential election, 2016, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

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

Request reason:

Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening, when I made the edit in the page above mentioned United States presidential election, 2016, I did not think and I still do not that adding a candidate whose win in the Green Party's primary is almost certain, was a "potentiality contentious" edit and because so I did not obtain the "firm consensus" needed. Therefore, I hope to see my block leafleted before June 2. Thank you in advance.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; this is an arbitration-enforcement block, so we can't consider your unblock. If you believe you or your actions are exempt from the arbitration enforcement, you are welcome to follow the instructions above to have us copy your appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Yamla (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock}}

Blocking administrator comment - I'd be willing to shorten the block to 48 hours, but I'd need some form of reassurance from you that you won't make any similar edits to that page or any other page where those restrictions apply. At the moment, I get the feeling that you would jump right back to the same behavior. Of course I may be wrong, but you definitely worded that as though you think what you did was acceptable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coffee, you have no reason at all to be concerned about me really. I didn't say that I tough that what I did was acceptable. I acknowledged that I didn't not follow the restrictions that apply. I only said that I did so without knowing that my edit was considered "potentiality contentious". However, to prevent this from happening again, I will seek "firm consensus" in the future on pages that ask me to do so. I'm not going to break rules willingly since I understand the consequences of doing so. Thank you for considering my case.

Given your cooperative nature, I've reduced the block length to 24 hours. This means the block will now expire at 01:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC). Thank you for your willingness to work with me on this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for your comprehension.

Welcome back after your block. PhilKnight (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Flag carrier, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Flag carrier page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Portuguese presidential election, 2016, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. B.Lameira (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]