User talk:Romberd: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:01, 31 January 2022

January 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Last Don (album). You are repeating the same behavior that got you blocked as an IP Muhandes (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bishonen | tålk 17:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

190.5.46.74, please see my note at User talk:190.5.46.74 and respond there. Bishonen | tålk 17:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

This account has been unblocked after discussion at User talk:190.5.46.74. Please make sure to log in whenever you wish to edit, Romberd. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Disruptive editing

It took you, what, two edits to go back to disruptive editing? this edit reintroduces the same TheRichest quote which was reverted three times already. Please don't introduce material from this website. --Muhandes (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Richest website is one website of net worth, not of gossip, about the net worth, earnings. Romberd (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That website being reliable or not is the least of your worries. You were warned nine times about your disruptive editing and lack of communication. You were then blocked and given a second chance to edit. What do you think having your first edit after you are unblocked being the same edit you were blocked about shows? Maybe stop editing and read? --Muhandes (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, i just want to do the right thing, and editing with sources reliable. --Romberd (talk) 24:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't get it. Here you started discussion about your reverted edit, which is great. In this edit I answered you that no, you should not add it. Three hours later, you reintroduced the material which we are just discussing and I am opposing. Likewise, here you reintroduced the material from TheRichest which I just explained to you here that you should not add. You are just repeating the same edits you were blocked for. --Muhandes (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you told me what had that speak before of edit in the articles. "TheRichest" website of net worth is reliable, not is one website about gossip, is one website about net worth. ¿What is WP:SONGTRIVIA? ¿because the songs Dale Don Dale, Salió El Sol soundtracks of the videogame Grand Theft Auto IV have that be in that project.? --Romberd (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't understand what WP:SONGTRIVIA is. Did you click that link and read what it says? While we are at it, click on this link too: WP:DISRUPTIVE. --Muhandes (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Dale Don Dale, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Not sure why I give you this warning , your 11th one! STOP NOW. Muhandes (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you, me only i speak before of edit with sources reliable in articles. Romberd (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the tenth time. The main problem is NOT sources reliability. The main problem is disruptive editing against consensus. Click those links and read carefully, get someone to translate what you don't understand. --Muhandes (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited King of Kings: Live, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adiós. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page usage

I'm getting quite sick of repeating this. Please (for the sixth time) read HELP:TALK and get someone to translate it for you. We need to communicate and you need to understand how editors are expected to communicate. --Muhandes (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And while I'm at it, please don't add |url-status= to citations.--Muhandes (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you stop reading your talk page again? Please don't add |url-status= to citations. --Muhandes (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding certifications in US which are not by RIAA. This is against consensus. --Muhandes (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop misinterpreting sources. For example, in this edit, please show where Billboard says anything about being "best in 2019"? It only discussed one week of tours. If you don't understand the source in English, ask someone to translate it for you, don't trust Google translate (which I presume you did). --Muhandes (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: I understand you,but Billboard: says that the Tour of Wisin y Yandel was the thrid tour of "Hot Tours" on 2009.

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/hot-tours-miley-cyrus-phish-wisin-yandel-266364/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romberd (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the sentence from the source: Reggaeton duo Wisin & Yandel is the third highest grossing act among this week’s Hot Tours... Here is what you wrote: The was the thir best tour of 2009 on Billboard. Do I need to count the problems with this sentence? Fine, I'll do that:

The tour was not "on Billboard". There is no such thing as "tours on Billboard".
The word "thir". Also the word "thrid" you just used.
The source says it is the third highest grossing, not the third best in 2009, nor the third (or "thrid") in 2009. These are three different things.
The source does not say this is the final rating for 2009, it very specifically says "this week's..."

I keep needing to correct your misrepresentation of sources and generally introducing wrong information, like this edit. If you can't edit properly in English, try another language. --Muhandes (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how many times do I need to beg you to a) get acquainted with HELP:TALK and b) stop adding |url-status=live to citations? --Muhandes (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, correct, but was one the tours most grossing in week according information Billboard on Hot Tours. The source is correct. Romberd (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the source is correct. You are the one that wrote a wrong sentence, not the source. Same thing here and numerous other edits. -Muhandes (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: I get it Romberd (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Romberd, I'm sorry to see there are so many problems with your editing, per the examples given by Muhandes above. I think many of the problems may be caused by your level of English not being high enough to usefully contribute to the English Wikipedia. Language problems seem to have led you to not even having a concept of following links — when Muhandes gave you a link to Wikipedia's song project, WP:SONGTRIVIA, you merely asked "What is WP:SONGTRIVIA?" Did you not click on the link and read it? Or did you not understand it? I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem fair to force other editors to spend so much time repetitiously trying to explain things to you and correcting your contributions. I know you mean well, but your editing is not a net positive to the encyclopedia, since it wears down others. You have been indefinitely blocked. Please, I beg of you, contribute to the Wikipedia in your native language instead. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. However, and I cannot emphasize this enough, you are not allowed to evade the block by editing from an IP or creating a sockpuppet. Bishonen | tålk 21:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen:. ¿Because what the blocking? "The language english, the i can to get better"..

Me I want only to get better and contribute.. "I get it that the problem is the Language". And me i want to get better and learn.

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 Ok, correct, but was one the tours most grossing in week according information Billboard on Hot Tours. The source is correct. [[User:Romberd|Romberd]] ([[User talk:Romberd#top|talk]]) 22:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 : Of course the source is correct. You are the one that wrote a wrong sentence, not the source. Same thing [[Special:Diff/1068562886|here]] and numerous other edits. -[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] ([[User talk:Muhandes|talk]]) 15:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
+:{{Re|Muhandes}} I get it [[User:Romberd|Romberd]] ([[User talk:Romberd#top|talk]]) 00:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 ==Blocked==