User talk:Yaysmay15

Removal of some entries in 2016 in the Philippines
Hi Yaysmay15 ,

Can you elaborate why are you removing some of the entries in the above named article without giving any comment or explanation? Are you doing them on purpose?

Examples are here, here and here

-- Nickrds09  (Talk to me) 13:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 in the Philippines
Hi, thanks for your contributions to 2016 in the Philippines. If you notice, I usually edit those events you added by linking relevant articles and changing the grammatical tense from past to present (or removing the auxiliary verb [e.g. has or have], just so that it sounds better). The latter regarding the grammatical tense is because timelines of other countries like 2016 in the United States or 2015 in France use present tense for their events, so I'd like to do the same for 2016 in the Philippines for the sake of consistency.

That's why I would just like to ask you that next time you add events to the page, please state the events in present tense (e.g. "27 people are killed" instead of "27 people were killed" or "27 people have been killed") and also link relevant articles while adhering to both MOS:UNDERLINK and MOS:OVERLINK. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks again and good luck! :) PatTag2659 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 in Philippine music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Engelbert Humperdink. 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) 09:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Yaysmay15, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into 2014 in the Philippines. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. I have removed your additions. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring on "X in the Philippines" articles
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 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TagaSanPedroAko (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may respond there if you wish. You seem to be continuing to edit the XXX in the Philippines articles without ever responding to the complaints or using the talk pages. In the complaint, an editor has stated you add "non-notable, redundant, routine, and "over-hyped" events". It is expected that, when there is disagreement, you will make an effort to find consensus for your changes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:19, 7 August 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.

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at 2016 in the Philippines. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2016 (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, 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.
 * 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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Blake Gripling (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring on Philippine article after release of last block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Abusing multiple accounts and 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Per a complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This block may be lifted if you will agree to follow our policies in the future. You have never posted on an article talk page, and you seem not to care whether anyone agrees with you about the notability of the events you are adding. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for an indefinite period
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to add vast numbers of routine news stories and irrelevant entries to articles about the history of the Philippines in different years, despite being previously blocked for this. As this is the fourth block for this conduct within a month I have set the duration as indefinite as it appears likely that you would simply pick off where you left when a time-limited block expired. However, the block is not permanent, and will be lifted if you provide a commitment to edit these articles in a collaborative way which reflects the kind of content readers would expect to see in them.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI re block evasion: User talk:YAYSMAY15. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Blake Gripling (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Blake Gripling (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)