User talk:Sérgio Itigo

Prison uniform
Hi. If the image shows a possibly recognizable person you might want to put a delete tag on it. I don't know off hand where to find these tags but maybe it's something you can look up. Best. Slight Smile  15:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi, Sérgio Itigo. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Prhartcom (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Hello, I'm MrX. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Hillary Clinton because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - MrX 17:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Bill Clinton
Hi Sérgio Itigo. You reverted my removal of the Robert Reich commentary with an edit summary "No problem. The source is an authoritative signature article. And the description was corrected and ratified by many users." Could you please point me to the discussion where this content was "ratified by many users" which I take to mean "has consensus"? Thank you. - MrX 17:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Coaching
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Coaching, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted.

Please do not remove properly sourced, informative content without discussing your edits at the talk page. Thurrigorn (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Landmark Worldwide. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Bill Clinton. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bill Clinton, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Bill Clinton. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treason, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aliens. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yantra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Your recent editing history at Buddhahood shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To VictoriaGraysonTalk
 * In Westerners, there is a trend to misunderstand Buddhahood and to be attracted by it. It is very dangerous. Please see the page of "Sokushinbutsu". It is Mummy just like Father. This is a famous joke of India. My corrected description is necessary. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pariṇāmanā, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sutras. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at the Yamantaka article
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Yamantaka. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Edit warring at Human Potential Movement
I see that you reverted the removal of inadequately sourced material on the Human Potential Movement page. Not only does the Apologetics website not meet WP:RS, but the content relates to opinions - which are clearly non-notable - rather than facts, and violates the neutral point of view policy. Please familiarise yourself with these policies, and please refrain from edit-warring. DaveApter (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human Potential Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New religion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Satyr
By adding these kind of images you make the page less accessible for younger people. These images were only made to arouse people. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All right. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pariṇāmanā, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

May 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Diamond Sutra, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Diamond Sutra. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your edits on Physical characteristics of the Buddha and Acala removed reliably sourced content and added unsourced or incorrectly sourced content. You have been informed about wikipedias policy on verifiability several times. JimRenge (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Diamond Sutra
Hi Sérgio- I reverted the change that you made to the introductory paragraph of the Diamond Sutra article- it's unclear what you were trying to convey. Maybe you can explain the change on the talk page- some other readers have had trouble understanding it as well. Thanks. --Spasemunki (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I wonder if you maybe English is not your native language? The changes that you are making to the introduction to this article are too difficult for readers to understand. If you would discuss what you are trying to say here or on the talk page someone might be able to help you. --Spasemunki (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Diamond Sutra. JimRenge (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. JimRenge (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Options in a content dispute
Hello, editing wikipedia generally follows a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor(s) on the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. Perhaps you are not familiar with Wikipedia's purpose or policies. If you have questions about editing wikipedia, you might consider to ask uninvolved, experienced editors at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)