User talk:The Ruler Of All Water

September 2015
Hello, I'm TrueCRaysball. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Template:2015 WWE Network events without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 04:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Smegma, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=690966717 your edit] to WWE may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * |align=center | Dash Wilder and Scott Dawson

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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously?
What do you not understand about this? -- JDC808  ♫  04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. Not only did you ignore this, but you removed sourced information in your last edit. If you keep doing this, administrative action will be sought. -- JDC808  ♫  12:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you please use edit summaries, especially when you're called out on something? It's really annoying when you remove something, as you did here, and don't give a reason. Why would you remove a source? That makes no sense, and you did it a second time as well. Why? -- JDC808  ♫  02:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Hello, I'm Matthewrbowker. I noticed that you recently removed some content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~ Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 00:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 00:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary: USE IT
No one knows why you do this because you don't use the edit summary (I looked at your edit history and you have NEVER used it). You make yourself look like you ignore others efforts without explaining your reasons. The edit summary lets others know why you made your edit. It's one thing if you make a minor edit, but when you're reverted and you still make the same edit without explaining your reason, it becomes questionable and can be considered disruptive editing. Please, just use the edit summary! It's not hard. -- JDC808  ♫  11:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Does administrative action need sought? That seems to be the only way to get your attention. This is ridiculous. Looking back over your talk page, you've been warned a number of times before to use the edit summary. I still have no idea why you keeping making this edit. -- JDC808  ♫  01:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Your recent editing history at TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2016) 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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent reverts.
Please refrain yourself from editing the List of current champions in WWE and WWE Raw pages with disruptive editing, your reasons are not valid in comparison to my resources, so please stop before you are reported to administration. Consider yourself warned, thanks. MSMRHurricane (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
Your recent editing history at List of current champions in WWE 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.You've been asked SEVERAL times by SEVERAL users to take it to the talk page. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 05:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Ruler, User:WarMachineWildThing is correct. You're edit warring, and if you continue you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously???
Stop trying to add that picture. There are plenty of others out there. Find a better one Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If you add it again without getting a consensus I will seek an admin assistance. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 03:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You were warned Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 03:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 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. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Royal Rumble (2017). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You just came off a block...please stop rocking the apple cart. Vjmlhds 00:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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.

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Royal Rumble (2017). If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''Come on, man...you're making a bad habit out of doing this - your talk page is chalk full of warnings and blocks. Gotta stop.'' Vjmlhds 00:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Royal Rumble (2017). Seriously...enough already Vjmlhds 03:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Hi. You've been blocked for 6 months for disruption. El_C 07:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2017)
Please stop removing the serial commas. -- JDC808  ♫  20:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

US Title Tournament
WWE did announce the final at Royal Rumble on WWE.com. It's shown very clearly on the tournament bracket image. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 23:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:RED
I suggest you read it and understand it. Nothing wrong with a red link assuming the person may meet notability. Its how things work. -  Galatz Talk  19:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)