User talk:Firefighter83

What is the vandalism you speak of? I'm sure those of us in the FBEU aren't happy with being associated with the UFU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.137.222 (talk • contribs) 00:18, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

FF83 Response: If you're FBEU youre a long way from home put it that way.

Your edits are deliberately worded as to be inflammatory and read more as a newspaper article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefighter83 (talk • contribs) 01:34, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to United Firefighters Union of Australia, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at United Firefighters Union of Australia 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. Bakilas (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jim1138 (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply more information about what is 'opinion' particularly in the EBA discussion?NSWFire (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United Firefighters Union of Australia. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Jim1138 (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]