User talk:Rabono26

Welcome!

Hello, Rabono26, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Qed237 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at FA Cup Trophy. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at FA Cup 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 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. Qed237 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:FA Cup. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Stop immediately with name calling Qed237 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:FA Cup. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to James McClean— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your opposition in detail - I can do nothing with "appears unconstructive" - it's a good edit, in line with the others I'm doing to the same section. Rabono26 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits on James McClean, you have tidied the page and added more rationality to a page often dogged by the scourge of sectarianism. Don't be downhearted when as a new user people think you are being unconstructive when you make purposeful edits - it happened to all of us at one point. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]