User talk:Jeremy N. Abreu

August 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Catholic Church in the Philippines. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kingdom of Bavaria, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted.   Night Snitch (talk ▪ contribs) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Hello, I'm UncleBubba. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Catholic Church, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Specifically, your inclusion of a percentage of all Christians who are Catholic isn't sourced. Also, the addition of two more decimal places isn't needed here, and actually detracts from the article.'' &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for continuing to remove maintenance templates without reason or explanation despite multiple warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. DrKay (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy N. Abreu! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not mark the removal of maintenance templates as minor. Please see Help:Minor edit: "Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article" is listed clearly as not a minor edit. DrKay (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy N. Abreu! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at John F. Kennedy that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 14:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not mark the removal of maintenance templates as minor. Please see Help:Minor edit: "Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article" is listed clearly as not a minor edit.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. --Asqueladd (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy N. Abreu! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Religion in the Dominican Republic that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 06:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

UTRS and unblock discussion
is now closed. My reply is carried over below. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 06:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in Ecuador, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Other. 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) 06:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Kingdom of Portugal, you may be blocked from editing. ''I have no idea why you continue to do the very thing that caused your account to be blocked on Oct 1. WHY won't you explain what you're doing (in an Edit Summary) or communicate with other people (on your Talk page)?'' &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Religion in Italy, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please don't change dialects (i.e. UK-to-US English) without discussion. Also, do not change article data without explaining what you're doing and citing a reliable source for your assertions.'' &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncle</b><b style="color:darkred">Bubba</b> ( T @ C ) 17:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Religion in Ecuador, you may be blocked from editing. ''What are you doing? You removed valid, sourced information about minority religions in Ecuador and replaced them with a chart showing only "Catholic" and "Other". Stop it, please!'' &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncle</b><b style="color:darkred">Bubba</b> ( T @ C ) 17:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but our taciturn friend is at it again. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncle</b><b style="color:darkred">Bubba</b> ( T @ C ) 17:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Religion in Nicaragua, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nigel757 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page No religion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Materialscientist (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

UTRS 36569
<div class="user-block" style="background:Gainsboro; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px">


 * I'm sorry, but I don't see that. I see no responses on your talk page to concerns expressed by others.
 * I see zero talk page edits.
 * I see zero user talk page edits
 * I do  see occasional edit summaries, but none that address the concerns on your talk page
 * I see progressively longer blocks for the same problems, but no responses from you.
 * You have again not addressed the reasons for your block.
 * As you do not understand the reasons for your block, you cannot help but continue to edit disruptively. I am declining to unblock you at this time. Please see the instructions I left on your talk page for a previous block, back on October 2. -- Deep fried okra ( talk )