User talk:Chami46

Welcome!
Hi Chami46! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Ytoyoda (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Hello, I'm Engr. Smitty. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Aleix Espargaro, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. '''Engr. Smitty  Werben''' 09:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce
Hello, Is there a reason you continue to remove Naomi Osaka from the quote in the Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce article? Regardless of your thoughts on Osaka, please do not edit direct quotations as you see fit. If you have an issue with her inclusion, please explain here or on the article talk page. Thanks Journalist. talk 14:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes I do have a problem with Naomi Osaka's inclusion. The comparison is inappropriate. Naomi Osaka is an upcoming young player who made her tennis breakthrough at the US Open in 2018. Nothing against her but she has been rather inconsistent throughout the next 3 years even though she has managed to win 4 grand slams to date including the 2018 US Open win. And her inconsistency is proved by her failure to go past the 3rd round of Wimbledon and French Open for 3 years. And a mere 64% career win percentage. Which is one of the lowest in history for a 4 time grand slam winner. Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce as you can even see on the Wiki page is one of if not the best female sprinter in history. Known for her longevity and consistency at the top level. She has been at or near the top of her sport for 13 years from winning gold medal at the 2008 Olympic Games to more recently winning the silver medal in this years olympics 13 years later. So to compare an all time great like her to an up and coming tennis player like Osaka diminishes Fraser Pryce's value and greatness. Either the article should be removed or Naomi Osaka's name should be removed from the article. Because comparing SAFP and Osaka doesn't make any sense.


 * I actually kind of agree. I’ve edited it to remove Osaka. It just needed to be done properly. Journalist . talk 01:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Hello, I'm Rocknrollmancer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Marc Márquez, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not continue to add your own personal commentary, as you did at Andrea Dovizioso - all Wikipedia content should be sourced first, not in your own words then look around for something that fits. It is important that you learn this early in your experience here.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Valentino Rossi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop writing your own personal commentaries, as here. Wikipedia is not a fanzine or blog. Please read and consider What Wikipedia is not.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith
You have made some bad edits with your personal commentaries, and edit summaries like this do not help your case:"Okay I forgot to reply to your message few days ago. I'm definitely not adding personal commentary. But the person who wrote the latter part of this article is either on drugs or have never followed MotoGP. Because it is complete bullshit. It says Rossi won races while Lorenzo struggled. But the truth is Rossi only won 1 race since 2017 while Lorenzo won 3. I cited a resource now. So here we go no need to revert to the former article again.." Wikipedia charges users with giving credence to previous text; two wrongs do not make a right, and you should be finding published source for your changes before uploading them. This applies to all users. By adding your own quips, this encourages others to do likewise. Using words like "wildly successful" and "rollercoaster" are not encyclopedic, see WP:WTW. It needs to be WP:NPOV. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks. I don't think I made any bad edits but maybe some spelling mistakes. Now I fixed them. I included a citation as well. Feel free to mention if there are any errors. This Jorge Lorenzo page was a complete mess before I edited it.
 * Probably there are a lot of pages requiring attention; I know I can find things to improve wherever I look. One of the problems is over-enthusiastic phone users who only know how to change one section at a time. For me, the far-past is immaterial, so I rely upon those contents to be near-enough correct, supposedly having been checked at the time. It makes little sense to me to have to fact-check what A. N. Other did, five, ten or fifteen years ago.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Using figures in articles
You have repeatedly added, and re-added when they were changed, numbers as integers. The Wikipedia house style is to use words for numbers 0 - 9 "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."; I personally include ten, not 10, which is also acceptable. Please read MOS:NUMERAL. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Jacques Villeneuve. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. MWright96 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Jacques Villeneuve, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Also, please refrain from agitating debating in your edit summaries and please comply with MOS:NUMERAL and refrain from editorialising at all times MWright96 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

"Former"
Why are you changing numerous articles from "retired" to "former"? You also changed Kimi Räikkönen to former racing driver, but him retiring from Formula One doesn't mean he is retired from motorsport as a whole. Please stop with these unconstructive edits. --TylerBurden (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. TylerBurden (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I'm not engaged in an edit war. (talk) is. He is the only one who keeps changing my edits. Please do something about him. Other editors aren't involved.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Walter Dix. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. &#32;Mako001 (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

TylerBurden (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC) keeps changing my edits without a reason. Something needs to be done about him. I even left a message on his talkpage but he doesn't even listen.
 * On the contrary you're the one who has been refusing to discuss, instead choosing just to edit war. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay my point is "former" is the more common method than "retired". Look at "Michael Schumacher" and "Valentino Rossi".
 * That's irrelevant to the pages you were editing, you need to obtain consensus there not in unrelated articles. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Triple H, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. TylerBurden (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"retired" vs "former"
Per WP:MOSBIO: If a person is living but has retired, use is a former or is a retired. There's no reason to needlessly go from page to page changing one to the other. --SVTCobra 12:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring to use the word 'former' to describe retired sportsmen
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * 20 kilometres race walk
 * added links pointing to Sergey Morozov and Yusuke Suzuki
 * 35 kilometres race walk
 * added links pointing to Qin Wang and Mikhail Ryzhov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)