Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits toJamie Herrell has been undone by an automated computer program calledClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very fewmistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, pleaseread about it,report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at theintroduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message:Jamie Herrell waschanged byWinmelgarcia(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.966375 on 2014-11-30T07:50:32+00:00 . Thank you.ClueBot NG (talk)07:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articleWinmel Garcia has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company,etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure tocite anyverifiable sources.

Pleasesee the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteriafor biographies,for web sites,for musicians, orfor companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —Cryptic01:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time you create aninappropriate page. —Cryptic02:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winmelgarcia. Please never give out any personally identifiable information (name, age, location, school) on Wikipedia – or anywhere else publicly available on the Internet – even to people you know or think you might know in real life. Some sites have ways of restricting access to your personal information; most, including Wikipedia, do not. --Shirt58 (talk)10:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did toMutya Johanna Datul, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has someguidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at thewelcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Blake Gripling (talk)06:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Winmelgarcia. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started,Pia Wurtzbach, for deletion because it's abiography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Pia Wurtzbach to be deleted, pleaseadd a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note onmy talk page.

Thanks,Wgolf (talk)03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atMutya Johanna Datul. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have beenreverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved throughconsensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result inloss of editing privileges. Thank you.Mabalu (talk)13:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articlePia Wurtzbach is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pia Wurtzbach 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.Mabalu (talk)14:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of48 hours foredit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.  —Coffee //have a cup //beans //16:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time youvandalize Wikipedia, as you did atVanessa Hudgens.IPadPerson (talk)03:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articleJodilly Pendre has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Eeekster (talk)04:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleJodilly Pendre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodilly Pendre 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.ApprenticeFan^work03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not create, add, maintain, insert, or restorehoaxes on Wikipedia, such as you did with the articleAnne Curtis. Usually, hoaxeswill be caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Pleasedo not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at thefive pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you.ApprenticeFan^work14:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not create, add, maintain, insert, or restorehoaxes on Wikipedia, such as you did with the articleTyra Banks. Usually, hoaxeswill be caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Pleasedo not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at thefive pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you.ApprenticeFan^work12:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one ofyour recent edits, such as the edit you made toTop Model, did not appear to be constructive and has beenreverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at thewelcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please usethe sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.ApprenticeFan^work15:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Sorry, everyone forgot to note you about this. Feel free to reply atWP:ANI#Winmelgarcia. Thanks!EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)}19:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am very concerned that you're making stuff up and putting it in articles. For example, please explain where you got the information inthis edit. It's important you explain thisbefore you edit any other page; if you resume editing before explaining this, I will block you from editing. I'm not familiar withTop Model, but the claim that you're adding fake info to articles seems pretty strong. --Floquenbeam (talk)00:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblockedindefinitely from editing for persistent addition of unsourced information to articles, including violations of Wikipedia'sbiographies of living persons policy. Normally I would have blocked you for a specific amount of time, but in this case you are not only adding unsourced material, you are also adding incorrect and misleading information that contradicts the sources and have not addressed concerns regarding these discrepancies on any talk page in your entire editing history. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.  Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}18:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]