User talk:AzulAlmonte

Welcome

Hello, MultiCinemaxPak! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Tangled, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McDoob AU 93 18:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (MultiCinemaxPak) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this:

It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. The article in question is Cinemax. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cinemax, 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. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please read through Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before re-making your edit on ¿Quién Tiene la Razón?. An image alone will not be enough to consider a source. Please refrain from adding unsourced and/or poorly sourced content to articles or administrative intervention will be asked for. MegastarLV (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20Q (game show)

The 2 IPs and the 2 users are all blocked. Obvious WP:SOCKs. Did an SPI anyway to formalise it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Internationalboy54. Semi-protected page - It's possible they would try again as another IP. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your AIV report

Thank you for your report . Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and you are encouraged to revert, warn and report inappropriate conduct. I have however declined to act on this report because the vandal uses multiple IPs, blocking them won't be effective. I see that the page has been protected, which should keep them away for now.

The Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism might be a helpful read if you wish to improve your future reports. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- Luk ^talk 15:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Page deletion

You should use this tag since it contains obvious misinformation. Kieferwc (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abismo de pasión

I've resolved the copyvio issue by deleting the article and restoring the last version before all of the copyvios were added. However, this involved getting rid of lots of improvements, so I manually restored the changes that I knew were helpful, such as your addition of episodes #52-60 and the inclusion of a link to hr:Abismo de pasión. Did I still delete useful content? I've put the content of the most recent deleted revision of the article (an edit you made nine hours ago with the summary of "Added last night's episode name & runtime") at User:Nyttend/Abismo de pasión. Please check that page, compare the differences between the most recent deleted version (the version of 11:44 on my userpage) and the version that's currently on the article (the version of 11:46 on my userpage), and copy over anything that I should have restored but didn't. When you're done, please let me know; I don't need to have this page hanging around in my userspace forever, and I'll delete it in a week or two if I don't hear from you before then and if I remember to get it deleted. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the table was one of the big problem sections; sorry. The most recent version of the table is now the entire contents of the test page in my userspace. Again, please let me know when you're done. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. I've simply chopped the technical team section: there's no good reason for us to have a large section that's completely unsourced. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: restoration of unsourced material

Not a bother. Good to see you using the uw-unsor series; if you get to uw-unsor4 and he still keeps reverting, just leave a note on my talk and I'll block. In the mean time, I'm going to leave a note asking for coöperation; it might not help, but it really can't hurt. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected for three months. This will prevent the IPs from editing; Lui2021 will still be able to edit it, but any more addition of copyvios will result in a block by me if I'm the first one to find out about it. Feel free to come back and ask for help again if needed. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lui1721

I'm quite hesitant to block immediately, as I didn't see evidence of the user pretending that these are two separate accounts or attempting to evade a block; we don't prohibit multiple accounts in situations other than these. However, I've deleted the copy/paste move, and I've left an only-warning template for copyright violation, as copy/paste moves without attribution violate the terms of the cc-by-sa-3.0 license. If you see any more sanctionable editing by this user, leave me a note and I'll block unless extenuating circumstances (which I can't imagine) arise. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just levied a one-week block for creating copyright violations. A new user creating copyvios generally isn't indef-blocked the first time around, but blocks can be expected to increase in duration rapidly, and I'll not warn before making future copyvio blocks. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No point; the checkusers won't correlate IPs with users, because apparently our privacy policy protects people who are trying to disrupt the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely you are — that's the whole point of having the sockpuppet investigation. I'm sorry that I left you confused; I apparently didn't quite understand what you were looking for. Go ahead and report everything that you want, as long as it's relevant and as long as you provide links to prove what you're saying. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I get the chance, I'll delete it and reopen the SPI. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, deleted. In the mean time, Darkness shines had converted it into a redirect, which is the best idea of all. It was still a copyvio in its history, so I deleted it, but I immediately recreated it as a redirect. I've fully protected the redirect for a month, hoping that this craziness will be gone by then; if it be recreated as an article even once, I'll protect it for substantially longer. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Univision

No protection yet; it's not gotten enough problematic editing lately. I've reverted the IP and left a second warning, since August 2012 was plainly inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La que no podía amar

While we have guidelines on intro length and amount of detail for fictional characters, they're rather more flexible than many other standards. As a result, I'm not going to offer any advice on that subject — I rarely work on articles about fiction or articles that are long enough to need much of an intro! However, spoilers are unambiguously problematic, so I've removed that. Feel free to ask for protection in an unambiguously problematic situation; I'll protect if (1) warranted and (2) obvious enough to me. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Figure It Out

At this point, I don't think full protection justified, and most of the problematic editing has been coming from autoconfirmed editors, so semiprotection wouldn't have a substantial practical effect. I've deleted the (Revival) article and recreated it as a redirect; feel free to let me know if it be restored to a content fork or if other problematic articles like it appear. I don't know much of anything about this subject (no more than I do about telenovelas), so I can't offer any specialised advice. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Goto

Somebody with a 190.104.x.x address has something against Paulina Goto. I noticed you reverted a weird-looking speedy deletion request from that article. The speedy request was placed by 190.104.102.198. As it happens I reverted a very similar request around two weeks ago, from 190.104.106.71. Both these IPs are in the 190.104.96/20 range; I'd guess the same person. Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 00:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relaciones Peligrosas !

Hello Friend I really liked your work in the article I like to have people like you who take care of manterne article and in good condition and free of vandalism, so I hope you continue to do very good work.

I saw on your user page that you like many novels I like all this is so you help the wiki is in good condition greetings and as I said before so I hope you continue to greetings.--NoFutureForYou 22:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AdP again

Thanks for the notice. One incident isn't enough for semiprotection, but if it happen again in the near future, I'll be happy to semiprotect. Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casos de Familia logo

re: Thanks for letting me know about the logo. I watch very few of the shows that I have or plan to upload the logos for, so I have to research and make a guess when I see a variety available. So again, thank you for the verification. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 17:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon more deeply researching, it appears that both logos may be official in some format as well as another text with more stylized writing. In YouTube clips of the show uploaded by the TV channel SBT, a variation of the triangle logo appears on the background set and in text boxes that appear at the bottom of the screen as shown in these examples. For this reason, I am going to undo your edit. We both appear to be correct, and—at least for now—it will save me time editing and uploading he other version. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 18:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IP editor

48 hours. Anyone who vandalises shortly after introducing a copyvio is a good candidate for blocking. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of a bunch of real-life work right now. Can you present me the evidence and then wait until tomorrow? If not, please report this at WP:ANI, because I'm about to leave the library, and I don't have Internet at my house right now. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had a break, and I decided to check into it. Thanks for the evidence; I've blocked for 48 hours, and my block message includes a one-strike-and-you're-out warning for future copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have some houseguests (just signed on for a few minutes) and can't investigate this weekend. I've copied your message to ANI with comments, so it should be dealt with before long. Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since months have passed since the last block, we really shouldn't block until a final warning has been given, and you'd not yet given such a warning. I've given one; if you catch the IP doing anything more like this, I'll readily block. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not protect — semiprotection is only for when multiple IP addresses are being problematic, since when it's just one, we block. In this case, I'm going to forget about the lack of a final warning; if you catch the same IP one more time, let me know (no need to give a warning) and I'll block. Or, if you catch a different one doing it, let me know and I'll semiprotect. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why apologise? I wasn't complaining and didn't mean to sound as if I were. Please keep reporting problems! Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-blocked by mistake

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: I'm not seeing the autoblock on your account; however, as you are a veteran editor in good standing, I've gone ahead and granted you IP block exemption, so you should be able to edit now. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have removed your IPBE flag because a review found that it is unnecessary at this time. If you think that it is needed again in the future, please feel free to request it. —DoRD (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luis2123

There's no penalty if people with the ability to enforce things don't know that something's happening. SPI doesn't work this way — someone editing an old page generally won't get noticed, and I'm probably the first person with additional userrights to see this page since you modified it. Let me investigate to find out how to reopen a report; this sock is too obvious to need its own investigation, but there are so many Luis21... accounts that I'm going to request a check to see which ones of them are related. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to say that a check was unjustified or that we shouldn't assume that this account is unrelated — I've blocked it and requested a check. I'm simply saying that nobody did anything because you didn't file it in such a way that anyone would notice. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the vagueness — if it had been that, you would have been told to be more specific. Nobody watches old SPIs. Go to WP:SPI and follow the instructions in the "Click to view" box; when you've done everything, it will fill out a template, including a category that the checkusers and clerks watch, but if you don't do that, it won't be visible anywhere, and nobody will notice unless you ask them. I've asked User:DoRD for input, so you don't need to do anything yet (and perhaps not at all), but in the future you will if more socks arise. Finally, let me note that this isn't some sort of bureaucratic silliness; it's simply that the software can't tell anyone that you've asked for input unless you use the preloaded template as mentioned by the instructions. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend is correct. The case formatting is important, particularly the case status tag, because otherwise the case will not show up in the open cases category, and the bot will not add it to the list of open cases, so it will not be visible to anyone. I had the case's formatting repaired and have posted my results there. Thanks. —DoRD (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Copyvio editor

I apologise for the lack of action; I've just gotten back from a three-day road trip, and right now is my first time with Internet access since leaving, so (1) I couldn't help you before, and (2) I have a lot that needs to be done tonight before bed. Please let me know if you find any more copyvios; your warning on the IP's talk is sufficient grounds for me blocking him without further warning if you find more. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait — I just scrolled up and saw our conversation from last month in the "Re: IP editor" section. Is this the same person? If so, I'm willing to levy a block immediately. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was on the road most of today too. I've semiprotected both pages, for what I hope is a week. Please check and make sure that everything of protection is the same from one to the other; I'm falling asleep and will soon be in bed, so it's likely that I made some sort of mistake. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El Señor de los Cielos, episodes

Hey friend, wanted to know if it is necessary to leave the list of episodes and, contains no name?.-- Bradford ΣTalk 04:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that same saw on the website, no more titles for the episodes, and the same goes with telemundo's other novels, though I like the idea of leaving so titles. but good.--

Bradford ΣTalk 04:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i would look like a good idea to remove that section, because you do not see anything there, and if telemundo again put titles to the episodes, I do not have problem restore it?--

Bradford ΣTalk 11:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, no problem :) .--

Bradford ΣTalk 09:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal

Thanks for the note. I think it's best to wait on this, because the "final warning" that you left was given after the IP's last edit. It would be weird, confusing, and not particularly helpful to block after giving a final warning when nothing happened in the mean time. That being said, there's no reason not to block should this editing pattern continue, so I'd appreciate a note if the vandalism resume. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IP editor

Please see someone else. I wish I could help you, but I can't right now. If things continue, keep watching my userpage; once User talk:Nyttend/Editnotice is removed or changed, I should be able to help you. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just occurred to me that I could ask someone else for help; quod vide. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note about this IP's harassment. This person does seem to have a particular focus on harassing you. I know from experience that it is difficult to avoid the impulse to respond in kind to that kind of harassment, but there's a lot of wisdom in Wikipedia:Deny recognition, which is related to this article.

Because this user hops from one IP to another, we can't block the user without blocking everyone else who uses that same internet service provider. That may turn out to be necessary, but first I want to see if semi-protection of the pages will help resolve the behavior. --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk re:Mobile Editing

Hi Ricardo,

My name is Kenan. I'm the mobile product manager for the WMF. Wondering if you'd be willing to answer a few questions for us regarding your editing habits and opinions on mobile. Thanks! --KWang (WMF) (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

First of all, yes, yes I am that user, second my edits are correct, then all that unreferenced list of chapters add nothing to the article, and goes against what wikipedia is not.--GeorgeMilan ^TALK2ME 02:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This ip 70.190.12.130, are you?. If so stop activity, it is frowned upon to use anonymous accounts, to enforce editing.--GeorgeMilan ^TALK2ME 12:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick CheckUser request

Ricardo80, I have removed your Quick CheckUser request from WP:Sockpuppet investigations#Quick CheckUser requests because that section is explicitly not for cases involving sockpuppetry. I did block User:Chema as an illegitimate alternate account, but if you would like a more thorough investigation, you must file a sockpuppetry case per the instructions at the top of WP:SPI. Best —DoRD (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPs

Well unlike you, if I have accepted, and do not deny it and never denied that the account was mine, I wonder if anyone that account was mine, so I have nothing to explain. It is very strange that a ip appears defending editing.--GeorgeMilan ^TALK2ME 16:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, first of all I have not accused, but I asked you if it was that ip, since both have the same interest in adding irrelevant information in wikipedia.--GeorgeMilan ^TALK2ME 16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]