User talk:ChumleeS

Your edit has been reverted as vandalism

G'day, you edit on Pavle Djurisic has been reverted as vandalism, as your reversion was against WP policy and adds unsupported material to the article. Please do not insert material that is not supported by the citation in question. Please also read WP:BRD, and discuss the issue on the talk page if you wish to revisit the matter. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

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 get 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—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. slakr^\ talk / 04:08, 16 December 2014 (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. APK whisper in my ear 23:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning. This edit warring is completely unacceptable. I don't know which of you is "right" about the facts, but both you and User:Lackope are going about this the wrong way. If you continue to revert each other you will definitely be blocked. Instead of reverting further, I would encourage you to explain your point of view at the ANI thread or any other community discussion page that you and Lackope are both comfortable using. Dragons flight (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My last change in 19:15, 2 January 2015, User:AgnosticPreachersKid gives me a warning in 23:51, 2 January 2015, User:Dragons flight gives me a warning in 00:20, 3 January 2015. User:CambridgeBayWeather blocking me in 07:46, 3 January 2015 !!! User:Lackope in that time he worked changes I not. [1] This is woefully to read.--ChumleeS (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed both blocks since neither of you had edited after my warning. The warning still stands. Now is the time to come together and explain what is going on with the edit warring. Dragons flight (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to also note my comments at User talk:Lackope. There has been way too much edit warring without discussion going on here. For example, I'm not thrilled with the continued reverting at Serbs where it appears neither of you have discussed the issue. In this case, your reverts are pulling out multiple references that Lackope added. I can infer that you think there is a problem with those references and the attached numbers, but you really need to take the time to actually explain what that problem is using more than just a brief edit summary. Dragons flight (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Montenegrin Rugby Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FIRA. 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) 09:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ragbi klub Mornar Bar

The article Ragbi klub Mornar Bar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Is this notable? Is the title capitalized correctly?

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. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]