User talk:Chem-is-try7

Chem-is-try7, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Chem-is-try7! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Liz (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Alexei Nikolaevich Bach

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Chem-is-try7, thanks for creating Alexei Nikolaevich Bach!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Do you think you might add a few more categories? Thanks,

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tagging

Hi, I noticed you added a stub tag to Peter Martyr Vermigli. Stub tags are for short articles that need to be expanded, which this article is clearly not. Thanks. --JFH (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Chios Mastiha

Your recent editing history at Chios Mastiha 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please revert your most recent changes at the article (which placed you in violation of the three-revert rule). If you do not, I will file a complaint at the edit-warring administrative noticeboard. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Chios Mastiha. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Godric on Leave: Just because I don't talk to them in a nice manner doesn't mean I'm wrong... If someone reverts by stupidity a nicely edited content then by default is stupid and I should treat him as such... (or anyone that is support by) Chem-is-try7 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the validity of your arguments and/or intelligence, you (and as a matter of fact anybody else) is not excluded from adhering to civility, one of our most valuable pillars.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring at Chios Mastiha

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

This article was recently placed under full protection per a complaint at WP:AN3. After the protection expired, you continued to revert. Recently you made your fourth revert within 24 hours, which breaks the WP:3RR rule. You are expected to wait until you have been able to persuade the other editors, and not try to win by forcing your version into the article. From the discussion at Talk:Chios Mastiha it is clear that others disagree with you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2017 (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).

Chem-is-try7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Compromised Admin @EdJohnston: tries to enforces opinions by blocking me instead of others that have vandalizing the article more than 4 times. Chem-is-try7 (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I do not see any evidence that Ed is compromised, nor do I see evidence of vandalism. You are engaged in a mild content dispute, and you're expected to discuss your changes. Kuru (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2017 (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.

@Kuru: Obviously is a somehow compromises (either connected to Pepperbeast with personal agenda or helping article by commission) if you follow the facts is constantly dismiss legislation, bibliography and FACTS. Take view what that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chios_Mastiha&oldid=797938763 reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chios_Mastiha&oldid=797943443

Behaviour on Wikipedia

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Chios Mastiha. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please ←do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Trying to drum up support by dragging the whole issue to Greek Wikipedia and making personal attacks on users is really not cool. PepperBeast (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pepperbeast: Yeap I'll sure bring all the people I can gather. Even if i'm permanently block by the one-sided admin @EdJohnston:. Academic merit is not debatable is provable. People like EdJohnston and you Pepper disrupts the quality of Wikipedia to reach the level of Encyclopedia Britannica. Without incorporating reliable sources you FAIL TO ESTABLISH WHAT IS MASTIC LIQUEUR IN ORDER TO INCORPORATE IT TO YOUR UNRELATED BRADY BASED SKOPJE BEVERAGE. DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR "MASTIKA" IS PRODUCT OF FERMENTATION AND THAT LIQUEUR IS NOT!!!! This article is going change to the correct version until has all academically correct references or find references from academia that dismiss my referenced claims. eg EU PDO products are only branded within the EU borders. I know that sound the same but they are not! Is like to put "ouzo" in the same category with "arak" (although very similar) they are both under DIFFERENT LAW!!! HOW ELSE I CAN SAY IT??? BTW I don't care to delete "Producers" I'm NOT COMMISSIONED by those.Chem-is-try7 (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inhale. Exhale. I've largely agreed with you about article content and removed pretty much what you wanted to remove. I've tried to improve the distinction between Chios Mastiha and Mastika. I've tried to include your material. I've updated references. I've asked you for sources to help me edit in more of your material. I even removed the bit about brandy. In return, you have insulted me and other editors and accused me of everything from stupidity to (I think) being some kind of Macedonian operative. It's time you backed off. I am continuing to hunt up more references; if you want to help, fine. If you want to insult people, I suggest you find somewhere else to do it. PepperBeast (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Paolo Lazise

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Chem-is-try7, thanks for creating Paolo Lazise!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This seems to have good sources, but as there are no page numbers and only one is WP:INLINECITED, it would not be easy for a reader to use this for research. Thanks for creating this, he seems very notable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Andreolo Giustiniani

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Chem-is-try7, thanks for creating Andreolo Giustiniani!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 1 issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Chem-is-try7. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hello. All articles need sources, but I was unclear if Ejner Johansson has any. It doesn't have a 'Sources' or 'References' section, and sources are preferable WP:INLINECITED. It has an 'External sources' section - there would often be an external links section, which means suggestions for further reading, not necessarily that those links were used in the writing of the article. Can you please change the heading from 'External sources' to 'External links' or 'Sources', depending on which you meant? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raggi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genoese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Your recent editing history at Scarlett Johansson 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Scarlett Johansson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:44, 29 December 2017 (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).

Chem-is-try7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Others added material about "her grand-uncle" how biased are you NeilN??? Chem-is-try7 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not a valid reason to unblock. Now please treat this as a serious warning; you have had two blocks this year, and in both you accused the blocking admin, without justification, of improper behavior. Any further accusations not backed with solid proof will involve you in a serious risk of a very long or indefinite block.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:04, 29 December 2017 (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.

You tried a similar tactic in your appeal when you were last blocked for edit warring. It didn't work then... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN ...or i'm just get sick of morons so call "admins" unable to read obvious arguments or use double standards blocking just one and not others below that made 7 edits in a day!! Isn't that biased??? but I doubt that they have any kind education or any kind of degree in order to perform critical thinking.. Chem-is-try7 (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given you've been amply warned about edit warring and blocked twice for it, you really do need to read the policy. These consecutive edits count as one and are not reverts for the purpose of edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chem-is-try7, to solicit opinions regarding this matter on Wikipedia in Swedish is a form of canvassing – please abstain from that. Your message has now been reverted. Please do not repeat it. Thank you. / Ternarius (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Your recent editing history at Freddie Prinze Jr. 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chem-is-try7. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help

Hi User:Chem-is-try7. I am a new user here at Wikipedia, and I am very interested in the article WikiIslam. So far people over there have been (in my opinion) bending and misinterpreting Wiki policies to spread disinformation about the site. Moreover I have been falsely accused of both edit warring and COI violations by the editors doing this, in my opinion to silence me. I am afraid of editing at this point due to these accusations. Is there anyone I can appeal to for help?--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Evan Rachel Wood

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Evan Rachel Wood. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. KyleJoan^talk 01:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]