User talk:Kadyawbutuanon

Why?

Why did you put all the headings in the Butan page into capitol letters? I have had to undo this now by undoing all of your edits, I am sorry if some of your work is lost but it was the simplest way of removing those capped headings. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palarong Pambansa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laguna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeb2003, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gaisano. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kadyawbutuanon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to appeal for my blocked account. I only have one account and that is "kadyawbutuanon" and nothing more. I have been in editing with some pages that I know and I also provided links. Sometimes, I forget to relog-in again after 30 days Remember Me. So, I think I might or didn't log in first before doing edits. Hence, I would like to apologize for that matter. I hope you will consider my request for an appeal to unblock my account. Thank you and God speed.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Krakatoa Katie 14:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nomination of Ferdinand M. Amante, Jr. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ferdinand M. Amante, Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand M. Amante, Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Butuan barangay officials

The article List of Butuan barangay officials has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I can understand the list of city officials, but this long list of non notable sub-city level officials is just too much.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]