User talk:Chukulem

October 2020[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Exile (Taylor Swift song), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. In this case, MusicNotes, the source that is cited in the article, says the lowest note is a C3. Therefore, we keep it as a C3 unless reliable sources are provided saying otherwise. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page moving[edit]

Don't move pages without permission, request at WP:RMT first. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad sorry, I remember seeing something in the guidelines that uncontroversial moves can be made without discussion first but I could be misremembering or be unaware of the typical actions required. Won’t happen again, thanks for the message! Chukulem (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sometimes it best to request a page move so an administrator can do it or start a discussion at the article's talk page. But don't worry, all the articles related to Anderson .Paak have been moved. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Chukulem. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Sam Sloan, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to be honest here, it kind of reeks of bias from your part that you would accuse me of COI after my making a single edit to an article that added the outcome of the case that Sam Sloan is notable for. I had never heard of him before today and when reading the article I saw that he was a non-lawyer who argued his own case before the USSC, and yet the outcome of his case was not explicitly stated in the lede. The fact that he won his case 9-0 is obviously relevant to the case. I don't know what beef you have with the subject of the article, but it has nothing to do with me. Chukulem (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sam Sloan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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 noticeboards.
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 ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sloan is notable because of his case that he argued before the USSC and it is absolutely ridiculous to say that including the fact he won his case 9-0 would be "disruptive". Chukulem (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sam Sloan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This content was already removed by another editor in November, and now you are repeatedly restoring it without even using the talk page. Please also state whether you have a COI, and stop editing the article if you do. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]