User talk:Filucz2004

Jennifer Lopez infobox
See Talk:Jennifer Lopez.  — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Could you stop reverting the info-box edits on Jennifer Lopez? It could see you be blocked from editing. Instead, contribute your opinion at Talk:Jennifer Lopez... Ar re  11:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Jennifer Lopez. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.  — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 11:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=577162303 your edit] to Charge Me Up may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * song

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=581096861 your edit] to Priyanka Chopra may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Infobox musical artist

January 2014
Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Britney Jean, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you.  Snap Snap  16:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Selena Gomez does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do provide edit summaries, and remember to cite additions. You have twice added unsourced content and removed notes from infobox at Katy Perry without explanation. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado
Why do you keep inserting that material without explanation? Read singer-songwriter: that's not what Nelly Furtado is. Nor are there any reliable sources that describe Furtado as a "philanthropist".&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Selena Gomez infobox
Please stop changing the infobox at Selena Gomez without explanation. You have done this four times now, and each time it has been reverted. I note that you have been doing the same thing at other articles with similar results. It was not that long ago that I asked you to use edit summaries, but I see you still are not. Edits such as this and this, without edit summaries, look like disruptive editing or simple vandalism and if you persist with such edits, you may find yourself blocked from editing. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Your recent editing history at Christina Aguilera shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note, you have actually violated the 3 revert rule at Christina Aguilera. If you make another revert at that article you are very likely to be blocked. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Rihanna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained changes
Why exactly do you keep changing infoboxes from "person" to "musical artist" again and again without explaining your reason(s) in the edit summary? You have been repeatedly asked to explain such changed in edit summaries and have continued to disregard these requests entirely. If you keep making these changes without explanation, you'll probably be blocked again for longer than before. Please explain yourself. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox changes
I warned you before that you shouldn't be changing infoboxes on people. Your changes to infoboxes, such as the one you changed on Christina Aguilera, are unconstructive. Aguilera is not only a singer and record producer. She is more than that. If you continue to change infoboxes to what the person is not, you will be reported to administrators and likely to get blocked. --IPadPerson (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Shakira
What is so "untrue" about the edits being made? You need to explain more than just "Stop" and "Untrue". Where are the sources for your reasonings?  livelikemusic  my talk page! 22:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Changing infoboxes
You have been repeatedly asked not to change/remove content from infoboxes without explanation in edit summaries, and continuing this with Madonna's article is not going to help you. Please explain yourself. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please explain the removal of the net worth information from the infobox of Mariah Carey. It's sourced information, so you need to explain why you removed it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to make clear, this is your third revert to Madonna (entertainer) in the past 24 hours. You really need to explain why you keep making these changes; otherwise, you may be blocked to prevent further disruption to articles. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * While this time you didn't remove sourced info from Madonna's infobox, you still need to explain the changes you make to infoboxes by using edit summaries. Please DO NOT KEEP CHANGING WITHOUT EXPLANATION. The "infobox person" template is more flexible as it can display and accommodate for more information (i.e. residence, net worth, spouses, children, cause of death) that the "infobox musical artist" can't display. If making such changes, at least explain in edit summaries why you are making changes. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I done told you to stop changin' them infoboxes! Christina Aguilera ain't just no singer and you know it GOOD DAMN WELL! KEEP ON DOIN' IT AND YOU WILL BE REPORTED TO AIV AND ANI!--IPadPerson (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained edits that remove information look disruptive
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Alicia Keys, you may be blocked from editing. You've removed, among other things, the spouse field from the infobox when you changed it. You've refused to discuss the matter. While we like to assume good faith in editors, this persistent removal of material from the infoboxes and refusal to discuss or explain the changes is starting to look disruptive. If you do not change your behaviour, be prepared for further unexplained removal to be dealt with as disruptive edits. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  → Call me  Hahc  21  21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the third time you get blocked, for the same behaviour. Usually, this one should be indefinite, but I am giving you two additional weeks so that you can understand how proper changes can be made: discussing on the talk page, not starting edits wars across multiple pages about American singers. I hope that, after two more weeks, you can re-evaluate your approach to editing on the project and become a more productive editor. Otherwise, an indefinite block will be the only thing you will get, and that's not something I'd like to see.  → Call me  Hahc  21  21:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Persistent removals
Filucz, you need to gain consensus before removing information from infoboxes. Admins and  have asked you to change your behaviors, but you haven't done so at all despite being asked and warned repeatedly. Your refusal to discuss changes on talk pages is very concerning, and keeping up this behavior, as Hahc21 said, is going to get you indefinitely blocked. Consider this your final warning. If you don't want to be blocked, you need to change your ways as soon as possible. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And for the record, removals such as this are NOT "cleaning". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If reverting an admin like you did when reverting admin here, you'd need a very strong reason if you don't want to be blocked if this keeps up. Given your past persistence in changing infoboxes from "person" to "musical artist" for countless people with any sort of musical affiliation, I doubt your arguments would come off as very persuasive to those you've edit warred with. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox changes again
You absolutely need to stop changing infoboxes on BLP articles without consensus, such as what you recently did on the articles for Keke Palmer and Demi Lovato. You have been asked to not do this numerous times in the past, but you ignored the requests. What you did on the Demi Lovato article was not cleanup at all, and on the Keke Palmer article, you changed that infobox to a musical artist when she is more than that, and she barely does music any more. If you continue to contribute in this manner, you will be reported. IPadPerson (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the last warning you will get. Changing infoboxes en masse without discussion is not productive. Prodego  talk  02:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * should this go to WP:ANI if it keeps up? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If I'm not paying attention, yes. And just to be clear - I'm not saying it is wrong or right to change the infoboxes, just that clearly there is disagreement and it needs to be discussed. So if Filucz2004 makes any more of those changes before a discussion indicates that it is actually desirable, he will be blocked. Prodego  talk  02:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've indefinitely blocked your account until you respond and explain your edits. Prodego  talk  02:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)