User talk:Chem-is-try7
Chem-is-try7, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Chem-is-try7! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 GodricOn leave 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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 GodricOn leave 07:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)