User talk:Chem-is-try7

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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 Godric On leave 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 Godric On leave 07:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at Chios Mastiha
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. This article was recently placed under full protection per a complaint at WP:AN3. After the protection expired, you continued to revert. Recently you made your fourth revert within 24 hours, which breaks the WP:3RR rule. You are expected to wait until you have been able to persuade the other editors, and not try to win by forcing your version into the article. From the discussion at Talk:Chios Mastiha it is clear that others disagree with you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Obviously is a somehow compromises (either connected to Pepperbeast with personal agenda or helping article by commission) if you follow the facts is constantly dismiss legislation, bibliography and FACTS. Take view what that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chios_Mastiha&oldid=797938763 reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chios_Mastiha&oldid=797943443

Behaviour on Wikipedia
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Chios Mastiha. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please ←do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Trying to drum up support by dragging the whole issue to Greek Wikipedia and making personal attacks on users is really not cool. Pepper Beast   (talk)  03:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeap I'll sure bring all the people I can gather. Even if i'm permanently block by the one-sided admin . Academic merit is not debatable is provable. People like EdJohnston and you Pepper disrupts the quality of Wikipedia to reach the level of Encyclopedia Britannica. Without incorporating reliable sources you FAIL TO ESTABLISH WHAT IS MASTIC LIQUEUR IN ORDER TO INCORPORATE IT TO YOUR UNRELATED BRADY BASED SKOPJE BEVERAGE. DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR "MASTIKA" IS PRODUCT OF FERMENTATION AND THAT LIQUEUR IS NOT!!!! This article is going change to the correct version until has all academically correct references or find references from academia that dismiss my referenced claims. eg EU PDO products are only branded within the EU borders. I know that sound the same but they are not! Is like to put "ouzo" in the same category with "arak" (although very similar) they are both under DIFFERENT LAW!!! HOW ELSE I CAN SAY IT??? BTW I don't care to delete "Producers" I'm NOT COMMISSIONED by those.Chem-is-try7 (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Inhale. Exhale.  I've largely agreed with you about article content and removed pretty much what you wanted to remove.  I've tried to improve the distinction between Chios Mastiha and Mastika. I've tried to include your material. I've updated references. I've asked you for sources to help me edit in more of your material. I even removed the bit about brandy. In return, you have insulted me and other editors and accused me of everything from stupidity to (I think) being some kind of Macedonian operative.  It's time you backed off.  I am continuing to hunt up more references; if you want to help, fine.  If you want to insult people, I suggest you find somewhere else to do it.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  08:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Paolo Lazise
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Chem-is-try7, thanks for creating Paolo Lazise!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This seems to have good sources, but as there are no page numbers and only one is WP:INLINECITED, it would not be easy for a reader to use this for research. Thanks for creating this, he seems very notable.

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.

Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Andreolo Giustiniani
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Chem-is-try7, thanks for creating Andreolo Giustiniani!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 1 issue.

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.

Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raggi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genoese ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Raggi check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Raggi?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Your recent editing history at Scarlett Johansson 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Neil N  talk to me 06:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Scarlett Johansson. 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:. Neil N  talk to me 06:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You tried a similar tactic in your appeal when you were last blocked for edit warring. It didn't work then... --Neil N  talk to me 06:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neil N  ...or i'm just get sick of morons so call "admins" unable to read obvious arguments or use double standards blocking just one and not others below that made 7 edits in a day!! Isn't that biased??? but I doubt that they have any kind education or any kind of degree in order to perform critical thinking.. Chem-is-try7 (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Given you've been amply warned about edit warring and blocked twice for it, you really do need to read the policy. These consecutive edits count as one and are not reverts for the purpose of edit warring. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Chem-is-try7, to solicit opinions regarding this matter on Wikipedia in Swedish is a form of canvassing – please abstain from that. Your message has now been reverted. Please do not repeat it. Thank you. / Ternarius (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

February 2018
Your recent editing history at Freddie Prinze Jr. 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Need Help
Hi User:Chem-is-try7. I am a new user here at Wikipedia, and I am very interested in the article WikiIslam. So far people over there have been (in my opinion) bending and misinterpreting Wiki policies to spread disinformation about the site. Moreover I have been falsely accused of both edit warring and COI violations by the editors doing this, in my opinion to silence me. I am afraid of editing at this point due to these accusations. Is there anyone I can appeal to for help?--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Evan Rachel Wood
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Evan Rachel Wood. 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.  KyleJoan talk 01:19, 5 August 2022 (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.