User talk:Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza

Welcome!

Hello, Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Devokewater (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Skanska

You seem to have inserted incorrectly sourced information into this article. The figure for the number of employees is shown on page 25 of the annual report as 33,225. Dormskirk (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock Whitney

Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS before making any further changes to wikipedia. The information you have added has created a mixture of 2017 financials, which is properly sourced (see footnote), and 2019 financials which is not sourced. Dormskirk (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to NovaGold Resources—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to NovaGold Resources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Boaz Weinstein. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Farmacias Benavides, 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. Thank you. — 🍊 Paper9oll 🍊 (📣 • 📝) 14:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Melvin Capital, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Hakken (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FirstGroup

You seem to have inserted out of date information into this article. The figure for the number of employees is shown on page 159 of the annual report as 103,494. In my experience Macrotrends is not a reliable source and in this instance are quoting a figure, which although listed as 2020, is out of date. There have been significant reductions in many UK businesses as a result of Covid-19. Dormskirk (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Essar Group, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Cantor Fitzgerald. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced info without edit summaries

Hi - I just went through some of your more recent edits and see that you are still not adding sources for the info you are adding, despite several requests. I see a lot of reverted info in your edit history, suggesting that you are making more work for others. This was your most recent edit to add unsourced info. [[1]] I added a few sources to try to support your earlier additions [[2]] [[3]], and removed info that can't be easily sourced [[4]]. Since you are somehow getting the information including numbers that you are adding, please be considerate and include the source, so the info can be easily verified. Otherwise, putting in unsourced info can weaken the reliability of the encyclopedia. Here's info about adding sources Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please also start using edit summaries so we can see what you did. If you continue to add unsourced information, you may be blocked from editing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HSBC - unsourced information on assets under management

Hi - Please read our guidelines before undertaking any more editing: in particular please read WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Day- Can you help me and let's be friends Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - The best think you can do is read and follow our guidelines and then we can all be friends. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After having received the prior requests from other editors to stop adding content without providing proper sources or explaining your edits in edit summaries, you proceeded to make these changes at Northern Trust. Communication is not optional on Wikipedia. If you do not respond to messages identifying problems with your edits, and you continue to repeat the same problems, you will lose your editing privileges. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason=Your reason here There is no evidence of wrongdoing and User:Rosguill|Rosguill]] (talk) where you get the rights to do so. To get the rights you need to get approved. And also I will check Rosguill if you have done any disruptive editing.} --Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 09:49, 09 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence

Dear User:Rosguill|Rosguill]] (talk) I have been incriminated without evidence in my account of which the disruptive editing was not taken as a message but as an attack in which it is as an offense. Which it says in Wikipedia Private Policy is a right. Also, I am not really violating internet laws but even this is an international issue. So please tell the evidence against me a law article, etc. --Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 10:02, 09 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Evidence

Rosguill User:Rosguill|Rosguill]] (talk)

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).

Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here the Northern Trust page evidence URL=https://www.northerntrust.com/africa/about-us/investor-relations was either cleaned by a bot or someone else that is erasing the evidence like it happened in Skanska, etc. Sometimes are even people, I know. Guess what Dormskirk ](talk) and I inspired me and helped me today to do this page. I also had him as a friend. It could have been another person that erased that citing and sometimes is my error sometimes not. Also, my editing has had and can get great happiness in society.

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. Yamla (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2021 (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.

March 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You got unblocked less than two days ago and you're back to adding vast amounts of unsourced content to articles. I strongly suggest you read WP:RS and WP:CITE over the next week or you will find yourself indefinitely blocked from editing. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please add edit summaries and sources

I see that you are still adding info without sources and edit summaries, such as with this edit [[5]]. While the info appears to be correct, if you don't add sourcing or edit summaries, you are making extra work for others trying to verify the info that you add. Please add edit summaries and sources, or you may be permanently blocked. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources correctly

Hi, I noticed that you added HTML plain links as sources at ING Group. This is not good practice according to WP:CS:EMBED. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Citing sources and to provide complete citations of the material your are sourcing your contributions to. This will benefit readers and allow other contributors to check the reliability of your sources rapidly. Cheers. JBchrch (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next plc

Thanks for contributing to the article Next plc. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you.. Please also note that you added 2020 financial data when 2021 financial data was available and had already been added to other infobox parameters. Dormskirk (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Quicken Loans

added a link pointing to Holding

Rock Ventures

added a link pointing to Holding

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced info without edit summaries - again

With this edit [[6]], you added incorrect subsidiaries, without a source, and as usual, didn't include an edit summary. You are making more work for other editors. This is your final warning. If you keep adding sourced (or even unsourced) info without edit summaries, you will be reported at WP:ANI, and will likely be permanently blocked from editing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for continuing the same behavior that got them blocked before--unexplained edits (no edit summaries, no proper communication with others), unverified edits (or edits with spam/spammy links), and a general kind of lack of competence demonstrated on this talk page and in various edits. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2021 (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).

Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That sources were erased unintentionally by an error that happened in the computer that I am still having problems

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. Yamla (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2021 (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.

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).

Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What will I do I need to edit please also this message is for you I will be bored and what are my possibilities

Decline reason:

Yamla said exactly what you needed to do in the unblock request right above this one. You should read the advice you are being given because you do not have an unlimited number of unblock requests before your talk page access is revoked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 16 April 2021 (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.