User talk:Chris Tomic

Welcome!
Hello, Chris Tomic, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Acalamari 08:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

May 6
Your additions to May 6 have been reverted for the following reasons: First, the events added do not meet the inclusion criteria per WP:DOY; second, you grouped multiple items together which is against the formatting guidelines per WP:DAYS: third, you added unnecessary references. References are not used in the DOY articles. If you have questions, please ask, but please do not add the content again. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 09:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Craig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Nick B 1993 Autumn & Winter 1.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Nick B 1993 Autumn & Winter 1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ron h jones (Talk) 16:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Badults (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Clark. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serena Gordon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goldeneye. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Koepp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor disagrees with some edits that you made about an association football game and wishes to discuss at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this message, Chris Tomic? Or can we take your silence as tacit approval of the article as it stands? – PeeJay 08:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my godfather died of cancer recently and I've been at/dealing with funeral business and grief. You'll understand my silence of course. I only ever go silent in discussions when serious issues arise in my life.


 * What you have done is totally disproportionate. We had a discussion on the relevant talk page and we were making good progress with it. We don't need ADR. Chris Tomic (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what ADR is, but you may mean DRN. I understand that this is a case where life trumps Wikipedia.  However, if there is no reply at DRN, I will close the thread as a general close in about 24 hours.  My sympathies about the death in the family.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sympathies from me also. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding and sympathies. I'm sorry, I'm a law student and I'm prone to use legal terms; by ADR I did indeed mean DRN. I was saying that PeeJay has dealt with this issue disproportionately in bringing it here. The talk page discussion was perfectly sufficient in resolving this issue. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Circumstances appreciated. But I don't think the talk page discussion was sufficient as the only other third party so far (User:Cliftonian) expressed no interest in continuing his involvement. Therefore I sought a party more willing to help us reach a suitable compromise. DRN was the right place to go. – PeeJay 22:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He was more active than you during your very recent period of silence. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Like yours, that was an enforced silence. Besides, that conversation was going round in circles and I very much doubt anything would have come of either of us re-hashing the same arguments over and over again. – PeeJay 23:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You should have made more of an effort to stay in the loop. Arguments weren't being recycled, just clarity of points was being ameliorated. Progress was made, your petulant self just couldn't stand the fact that my contributions were prevailing. Chris Tomic (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in feeding your delusions over who was "prevailing" or otherwise. Of course you believe your arguments were stronger, you're biased to believe as such, just as I am inclined to believe my arguments are stronger; that's why I requested third-party intervention. I'm not party to what's going on in User:Cliftonian's head, so only he can say who he thought was more in the right. Regardless, the DRN discussion has now been started, and as User:Robert McClenon says, if you choose not to reply in the next day or so, the discussion will be closed. There's no policy for what I'm about to say, but I believe if you choose not to participate, you forfeit your rights to complain when the original version of the article remains in place and your changes are consigned to the annals of the article's edit history. You don't win arguments on Wikipedia simply by being stubborn, so if that's your plan by ignoring the DRN discussion, you might as well give up now. – PeeJay 00:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exchanging snarky comments at DRN results in the comments being hatted (partially suppressed). Exchanging snarky comments at a talk page only results in advice to stop exchanging snarky comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't alluded once to what my 'plan' is. I have merely said and indeed standby now that DRN is not needed in this instance. You alone invoked mild issues with my edits and fuelled a furore to get rid of them which was totally disproportionate. We argued for days and no one but you opposed my edits as fiercely as you have and it must have come up as notifications for dozens of users. Of the points of argument, the talk page discussion resolved most of them and if you could just persevere with it a little longer we can assign this needless debate to the annals of history. Chris Tomic (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up
I was asked by one of the editors of Battle of Old Trafford about efforts to discuss your edits to the article. I have replied on the talk page. I haven't seen any efforts at real discussion on the talk page, and failure to participate in dispute resolution was not helpful. It looks as though you have "blown off" previous requests to discuss your edits. Please engage in real discussion on the talk page, because the only real remaining venue now is WP:ANI, which could result in you being topic-banned from the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
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 get 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&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. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of James Bye (actor) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Bye (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/James Bye (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 5 albert square (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Your recent editing history at Vedad Ibišević 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 get 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&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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring at Vedad Ibišević. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. GiantSnowman 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Daniel Craig. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. ''No, it was not approved. Reach a proper consensus first.''  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  23:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Vedad Ibišević. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Knee-jerk reaction for which I apologise; it doesn't better anything or anyone, least of all myself. Out of deference to myself, you and others, I have retracted the statement. My apologies once again. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Conversation on WP:CHU/U
Hello Chris Tomic. May I kindly ask that you refrain from conducting extensive or heated discussions on the changing username pages, and carry out any user-to-user discussions on your or the other user's user talk page? A bureaucrat has, in the past, commented that these discussions unnecessarily clutter up the page and are detrimental. Thanks, — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 00:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

July 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Idris Elba; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2020 (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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Idris Elba. 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:. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - I just took a look through your recent contributions history. It seems that you have a particular interest in changing the nationality in the leads of BLP articles. Now that you have had your attention drawn to MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:OPENPARABIO and WP:UKNATIONALS, I wonder whether you'd be willing to review your recent edits and self-revert any changes that might not be compliant with the guidelines (once your block expires, or should you appeal and have it lifted). This edit, for example, seems to be replacing a statement about the subject's nationality (American) with one about his ethnicity (Croatian-American) - unless there is a source that specifically says he has dual nationality (the source you inserted doesn't appear to be clear about that), this would seem to go against that guidance. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  10:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (help!) 09:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Information icon4.svg Since you have continued editing in the same vein, without addressing any of the concerns raised above or at the ANI thread, there is now another discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:ANI. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Topic banned from race, ethnicity and nationality, broadly construed
This is a notification that you have been topic banned from any edits relating to race, ethnicity and nationality, broadly construed, based on the consensus from this community discussion. You may appeal this decision, but it should be filed no earlier than 17 January 2021.

This editing restriction has been logged here. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)