User talk:Tilleyman

Bret Hart

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 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.

In addition, please provide a reliable source that proves your claim that those were ring names not not just nicknames. Thanks. Nikki♥311 07:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is me responding but a nickname is a ring name. When they announced his name, they did not simply say here's Bret Hart. They said here's Bret "The Hitman" Hart also known as "The Excellence of Execution". He was know by these names because of what he did within the ring. He was not known as "The Hitman" or "The Excellence of Execution" for his ability to ride a skateboard. Within this article it says those are his names. When someone refers to either name in regards to wrestling they are not referring to anyone else. Tilleyman (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still learning exactly how to use this aspect but additionally, it was a reliable source as I took it from this article. So if it was previously accepted as correct within the article then it must be correct. Unless you want to dispute those claims as well. Just sayinTilleyman (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Randy Savage

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Randy Savage, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. As I stated to the last person who did not like this change, it is a reliable source as I took it from a source this article provided. So if it was previously accepted as correct within the article then the source must be correct. Unless you want to dispute those claims as well you must accept the source. Just sayinTilleyman (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC) additionally, failing to inform you're opponent about any and all evidence that may be used in a trial, or information that points to or that might make or prove their argument is considered a loss and bad moral code or in a court of law a mistrial. So let's talk about this and see if we can come to a conclusion. again just sayinTilleyman (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Bret Hart. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. LM2000 (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Bret Hart, you may be blocked from editing. LM2000 (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Bret Hart. LM2000 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

who are you to block me?? what did you create Wikipedia? dont be so shyTilleyman (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DO you not wanna talk about?? DO you just want your way??? how about the voice and opinions of others???Tilleyman (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to talk about. Bret Hart is not dead but you continue to edit war to list him as such. You've been warned about edit warring before but have continued to edit war over demonstrably false information.LM2000 (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SO I'm guessing you don't wanna discuss this page or others?? 09:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Tilleyman (talk)

by the way.....what makes you an expert??? show me your qualifications as so that you may make these decisions?? What makes you so qualified???Tilleyman (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Click on ring name and read their definition....then tell mem I'm wrong. Just sayin...Tilleyman (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're quick to revert changes but not so much to converse so much?? did your computer crash?? Tilleyman (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you really don't know that you've re-inserted this material into the BLP four times today then you lack the WP:COMPETENCE required to edit here. You've been warned about deliberate errors, sourcing and edit warring by three different users but have continued vandalizing Bret Hart anyway.LM2000 (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have still yet to prove yourself or your arguments correct. I will fight you on this a long way. Make all the treats you want. You will just ruin the already fragile credibility of this site.Tilleyman (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again...who made you god of this page??? Who are you to make absolute assurance that this site is absolutely correct???Tilleyman (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I have read your competence agreement It does not pertain to this scope. Try again Tilleyman (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC) what a joke you are????????Tilleyman (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Again I ask....what makes you competent to pass judgement on this subject???Tilleyman (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. only (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]