User talk:Belevalo

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Belevalo! Thank you for your contributions. I am Mitchellhobbs and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~mitch~ (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belevalo, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Belevalo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Lists

Please read MOS:NOBR. We don't use html break tags to separate items in a list for accessibility reasons. In this edit you changed several lists to text with breaks. It's really galling to spend time marking up lists properly only for you to come along and revert it back to being inaccessible again. Please fix your edit to comply with the Manual of Style. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 18:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Latinx falls within this topic area. The Pew Research source does not say 65% of Latin Americans "oppose the usage". It says that one-quarter of US Latinos have heard of the term, and of those people, 65% say it should not be used to describe them. This is explained in the article already. See Talk:Latinx#Reception in lead. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More information is usually better than less

No content. Urselius (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC) See what I mean?[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Francine du Plessix Gray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French. 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) 08:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Era style

We've got a guideline at WP:ERA we ask editors to follow. Changes in established era styles should only be done after a talk page discussion reaches consensus. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Calvin Zola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congolese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of foreign-born samurai in Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wakamatsu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of military special forces units

When an experienced editor takes the time to clean up an article - almost 60 edits removing approx 20kB of content - that is usually to help improve the project. In this case, it was the removal of unsupported content that tends to creep into lists like this. You don't undo all that work with a single click, and without first attempting to discuss your concerns on the article talk page. I realize you're new here, but that is how collaborative editing works. The page was edited to conform to Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. Please familiarize yourself with those before editing further. Thank you - wolf 20:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors also make mistakes. What you did was erase a lot of info, most of it can be traced back through added links to their respective pages just by clicking on them. Start a talk page and give editors a chance to add refs instead of blanking most of the page. You should know this as an experienced editor. Belevalo (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also, you made glaring mistakes. example, since when is the Russian Ground Forces a special forces unit? Belevalo (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add anything, I only left entries that were either linked or supported by a ref. IOW, a fairly standard clean up. If you found something that doesn't belong, then remove it. If you feel something I removed should be re-added, then re-add it - but just that one item, (with a ref), don't do a wholesale revert of all my edits. If you notice, I went country by country, editing almost 60 in all. You reverted them all at once - that was just plain obnoxious. Also, alot of the info I removed was just superfluous bloat. There is no need to list every single squad, of every single platoon, of every single company of every single SOF regiment, and so on. Neither are any descriptions of these units needed - that's what articles are for, this is just a list. Anyway, take the advice offered; learn the guidelines and get to know your way around some more, or just keep doing what you're doing, and see how far that takes you. - wolf 23:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what was obnoxious is the way you deleted dozens of edits by dozens of editors without talking to them, then pulling the seniority card.Belevalo (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A) Aside from building this project, maintaining it is arguably the single most important task here. Removing unsupported article bloat is maintenance (and as such you just labeled literally tens of thousands of editors as being "obnoxious").
B) I'm under no obligation to try an track down the dozens upon dozens of random, fly-by ip-users that dumped in said unsuported bloat to try and "talk" to them. (About what?)
C) At no point during my editing of that page did I "pull" any kind of "seniority" card. I'm basically just an editor, like you. One difference between us, however, (that I only pointed out here, on your tp) is that of experience.
With that said, this really seems to be going no where, so I think we're done here. - wolf 04:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

good. leave and take your ego with you. Belevalo (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD...?

If you are going to be citing this with virtually every edit you make, can you please actually read it and learn it, and then apply it appropriately going forward. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, and it's not a free pass to make whatever edit you feel like. Thank you - wolf 01:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

exactly. you should of made this post, before you blanked most of the page. you removed an enourmous amount of info, withouth discussing it with any of the editors. your reasoning? i'm senior and i don't like it. anyway. you get what you wanted. i'm adding refrerences to what i can. it' not a full revert of your work. Belevalo (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of military special forces units; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. - wolf 01:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wrong. i'm not changing it back. I just use the original as the base. i'm adding references to the ones i can save from your i have seniority so i can blank and make a mess of whole sections of the page editing style. Btw, Russian ground forces, still not special forces, unless they're infused with stalinium as of late.Belevalo (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, every time you blank now, you're removing a ton of references. Belevalo (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Additional note

I started a lengthy clean up of this article which you completed reversed, without justification. I attempted to discuss this with you, without success. You now appear to be full-on rage-editing, making changes while adding personal attacks to your edit summaries, and edit warring.

If you want to work on the article as well, you need to be able to collaborate. You need to take the article back to quo and be prepared to discuss changes going forward. - wolf 01:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

now that's a straight up lie! there was never a discussion. you just blanked and told me you have seniority so i should accept it. and adding refrences to edits to save them from your rage blanking is not rage editing. Belevalo (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When an experienced editor takes the time to clean up an article - almost 60 edits removing approx 20kB of content - that is usually to help improve the project. In this case, it was the removal of unsupported content -> just to make it clear. i'm responding to this. you didn't even make an effort to add links. you just blanked even if the content had a valid wiki link. that's not good fait editing Belevalo (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You take BRD and cling to it while misusing and even abusing it. You use tunnel-vision to select a quote by me and cling to it, misusing and abusing it. See a pattern? You clearly have not read anything else I've written here, or else you would understand the edits I've made, without making the same incorrect claims and assumptions, repeatedly. You're rude, disruptive, you edit-war, and you continually make hostile remarks. And, have made zero effort at COLLABORATION.

But whatever. You are not worth this grief, I am done with you. Make whatever changes you like. In fact, feel free to put a ton of effort into it, hours and hours, with hundreds of edits... the more the better! After you're long gone, I will continue to clean up the page then. Ciao! - wolf 01:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

was not intending to make it into an it's either my way or the high way for either of us. my scramble for references was to save what i thought was sound edits that were thrown out with the bad ones. and i agree there were bad one (and by 'bad' i mean to much info or units that werent SF). Also, check the Pra SF talk page. I left a comment for you there. Belevalo (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Latinx; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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.

Your edit changed the short description and removed in-text attribution. The Pew source you cited does not say "Reactions to the term have been mostly negative" either. Please do not continue to add this material without discussion. Instead, discuss the issue at Talk:Latinx § Reception in lead. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of military special forces units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you now understand that you should not reinstate content removed as unsourced without adding reliable sources?

WP:UNSOURCED says "all content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is directly present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.

That doesn't guarantee inclusion however, read the rest of the policy. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Your recent editing history at Afro-Latin Americans 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. ... discospinster _talk 17:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have multiple people disagreeing with you on the matter. you're the one who took it upon yourself and push your own views on the article. Belevalo (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove sourced content. ... discospinster _talk 00:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

medium is not a good enough source. Belevalo (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also deleted the other source I provided. ... discospinster _talk 00:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are blocked from editing the article. ... discospinster _talk 00:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you didn't provide a better source. you just abused your privileges to force through your agenda. Belevalo (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk are you the one following me around with sock IPs? also you didn't provide new sources you just forced through a block insitgated by you sock IPs. Belevalo (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC) (refactored from Talk:Afro–Latin Americans)[reply]

I did provide a new source, however you were so intent on forcing through your agenda that you missed it. ... discospinster _talk 02:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khetag Tsabolov & Zaurbek Sidakov

Hey Belevalo. The same method applied to the Russian Nationals is also used at the Ivan Yarygin Grand Prix, athletes do not represent Russia nor a club, they represent Republics, just like in Russian Nationals. I ask you to please stop reverting this over the wrestlers mentioned above, because what is confusing is making it seem as if they actually represent Russia at this tournament, which is not the case and is factually incorrect. Sources: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

If you want to insist, please do not revert again and let's start a discussion without breaking the three-reversals rule. Take care. PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i understand the reasoning. the problem is that method mixed international with national representations. on the separate pages of the Yarygin GP i have no problem with the different regional representation. On international level on the other hand with the current method we would have national flags with regional flags intermixed. Regional flags wouldn't be an issue in this case either if we had for all nationalities. Example, a wrestler from Dagestan wrestling an opponent from California, woth both flagicons representing the subregion they're from, not in one case representing the subregion , while in the other the country. Given that the list is to highlight the diversity in international opponents, country of origin should supersede subregional representation. We don't see Karsondar bieng represented in the olympics while Russia is. I hope i'm making sense. Flagicons are already a contentious issue. Belevalo (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. However, that would be even more incorrect, as the Californian is not actually representing California, he is representing the USA, while the Dagestani, is actually representing Dagestan, not Russia, this are the rules of this tournament. Americans athletes wrestle for their country as Team USA, while Russians represent Team Dagestan, Chechnya, etc, not Team RUS.

In other Russian International tournaments, such as the Alans or the Ali Aliev, the wrestlers represent Russia, not their republic. I don't know if you're trying to compare it to the US Open in any way, but the main difference is the wrestlers there are wrestling for the USA, not for their state, it appears like that in the brackets, in the results and in the scoreboards, and they use the USA singlet with some logos of their club (Nittany Lion Wrestling Club, Ohio RTC, Hawkeye Wrestling Club, Penn RTC, Team Mercury Wrestling Club, etc...). So Americans represent the country, while wrestling for their club, Russians represent their republic, while wrestling for their republic.

I understand where that's coming from, but it's not the same to put Oklahoma flags and Moscow Oblast flags for that reason, and even if it was to "not confuse", it's incorrect and simply not true to say Americans represent their state, nor to say Russians are representing Russia. And at the Olympics, they are actually representing Russia as part of the Russian Olympic Team, they aren't wrestling for the Dagestani National Team (example) as they do in the Ivan Yarygin. Thanks. PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Узел, Кавказский. "Восемь золотых медалей международного турнира выиграли борцы из СКФО". Кавказский Узел. Retrieved 2021-01-08.
^ "Дагестанские вольники завоевали 17 медалей на турнире имени Ярыгина". Информационный портал РИА "Дагестан". Retrieved 2021-01-08.
^ "Сборная Дагестана по вольной борьбе готова к выступлению на Гран-при «Иван Ярыгин»". Информационный портал РИА "Дагестан". Retrieved 2021-01-08.
^ ria (2020-01-23). "Трое дагестанцев вышли в финал Гран-при «Иван Ярыгин» 2020". Новости Дагестана (in Russian). Retrieved 2021-01-08.

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aroldis Chapman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cuban.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Domantas Sabonis have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Template:Z186 — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 11:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Behavior by User:Belevalo. Thank you. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adegbuyi

Hi! I personally added that info in relation to many UFC profiles on Wikipedia. Those are his highlights, it is allowed in description plus there are notable and the most important wins of his career. New Rankings & Old Rankings. .karellian-24 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't matter. it's not about you. the fact that you got away with it on numerous profiles doesn't make it a good thing. just look at the most popular ones, badr hari, rico verhoeve, mike tyson, etc. none of them have it. because it's just fluff. Belevalo (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adegbuyi is not as proven as Tyson and Verhoeven. It happens mostly at UFC contenders or less. .karellian-24 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't matter. same rule apply. Belevalo (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examples that support what I am saying, please read the descriptions. Junior dos Santos, Alistair Overeem, Fabrício Werdum, Dustin Poirier, Frankie Edgar etc. Dos Santos was even a champion, not just a challenger. .karellian-24 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

random POV info in lead not needed. needs to be a summary of a section. Belevalo (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the fighters on the list were top 10 kickboxers. Check New Rankings & Old Rankings. .karellian-24 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't matter. it's WP:original and doesn't have the significance to be mentioned in lead. a world championship title fight or a medal in the olympics isBelevalo (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@.karellian-24: Hi Belevalo and .karellian, Good day. I am here in good will as requested from user:.karellian-24 to comment on the above discussion - see here. For MMA fighter notable fights in Lead section - As long as the notable fights are significant, it can be mentioned in Lead; however, not every fights with top ranked fighters should be mentioned for such a very limited notable fights should be mentioned in fighters page, most should be removed than add them in LEAD. For Kickboxing, If the ranking is well-sourced for world top 10/15 they can be added in the LEAD section. However, it would be a good practice, for the editor who add in the info to maintain the ranking on every ranked/dropped out of ranked kickboxer pages week by week (the regular interval of the ranking changes taking place from the source). This edit by add "derandom fighters not even chbut" is not constructive, kindly refrain such edit in the future. Content dispute can also discuss civilly in the article talk page, all you have to do is start the discussion, stating the issues and ping the editors involved and come to an agreeable dicision. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Adegbuyi - edit warring

Your recent editing history at Benjamin Adegbuyi 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.. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the "war" has been over for 3 days now. Belevalo (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aljamain Sterling

Hi, pls note no ethnicity in the lead section (intro) - see WP:Ethnicity. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality is not ethnicity see Jamaican American versus Jamaicans and Americans. Belevalo (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in USA. - see the existing source as well here - -1 , -2 and -3. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

birth country does not mean automatic representation. See discussions on Mila Kunis (Ukraine born) and Nina Dobrev (Bulgarian born) Belevalo (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that he was born in USA. And professional fights is not country vs country and secondly, no representing should be place in the lead section. Some fighters represent the whole world (one world idea) and other represent their parent country and not even mentioned their own birth country, but we can put representing country and not the birth country in the lead. Lead is the section only significant info is placed. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that's not true and a total red herring. when it comes to sports, lead mentions country represented and Aljamain clearly represented jamaica. Belevalo (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pls bring the discussion to the talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

start a discussion. Belevalo (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Belevalo, I have started the discussion at [Talk:Aljamain Sterling]] and pinged you twice prior to this message but you have not response even you were active. Kindly engage. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Aljamain Sterling. Your habit of edit warring is disruptive. Please stop. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Aljamain Sterling. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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 noticeboards.
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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Aleksandar Rakić, you may be blocked from editing. Can you stop already? This edit summary is a personal attack. You may be (somewhat) right about ethnicity, but that's not a good reason to use even edit summaries as a battleground, and again you're edit warring. Your opponent is too, of course. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not using wiki as a battleground. edit wars are annoying, espeially when its with a newb who's forcing their views. go tell the editor that he's in the wrong then... edit war stops immediatly. Belevalo (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are. "newb" is odd considering that you thought they were a sock. Please don't tell me what to do: I'm losing patience with these aggressive edits of yours. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

he was a rookie (better?) and a sock. that was plainly obvious. he made a threath that he reported me, not knowing that can be checked with a 2 second search. Belevalo (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Aljamain Sterling. Cassiopeia^(talk) 19:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Cassiopeia

Hello, Belevalo. You have new messages at Talk:Aljamain Sterling.
Message added 08:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You were ping about a discussion on content dispute where by the your are an involved editor. Pls response. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Узел, Кавказский. "Восемь золотых медалей международного турнира выиграли борцы из СКФО". Кавказский Узел. Retrieved 2021-01-08.

[2] "Дагестанские вольники завоевали 17 медалей на турнире имени Ярыгина". Информационный портал РИА "Дагестан". Retrieved 2021-01-08.

[3] "Сборная Дагестана по вольной борьбе готова к выступлению на Гран-при «Иван Ярыгин»". Информационный портал РИА "Дагестан". Retrieved 2021-01-08.

[4] ria (2020-01-23). "Трое дагестанцев вышли в финал Гран-при «Иван Ярыгин» 2020". Новости Дагестана (in Russian). Retrieved 2021-01-08.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]