User talk:Comfycozybeds

You Tube links

why exactly the collaboration between Eric Nally and Macklemore was removed? the link was directly to Macklemore official channel on Youtube....

Because YouTube links are inappropriate for Wikipedia. The channel of the link doesn't matter. Comfycozybeds (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

then remove the previous link too, dont apply double standards

I don't see any other YouTube links. Comfycozybeds (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Macklemore and Ryan Lewis – Single". Retrieved September 16, 2015.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGhoLcsr8GA In any case, while i dont mind the removal of the link, why was the complete edit removed citing the collaboration removed?

Non-English pages

Hello. I saw that you placed both PROD and Not English tags on a non-English article. Non-English articles go to WP:PNT instead of submitting them for deletion right away. They get a two-week grace period. I've removed the PROD tag. Largoplazo (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Largoplazo (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, following further activity on the same article: Nevertheless, deletion for reasons other than being in a foreign language works as usual. Largoplazo (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ships

Ok but I removed them as what's the use keeping record of decommissioned ships. Pradha89 (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Your recent editing history at Felbrigg Hall 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—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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Wilkinson (singer)

FYI - When marking articles for deletion using a CSD, unless the article is an attack page, copyright violation, obvious test, vandalism, patent nonsense, etc., it is customary to allow 10-15 minutes before marking the article with that tag. reddogsix (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Miss World 2017. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit appears to be a good-faith removal of unsourced content which doesn't seem to be obviously important in the article. This would therefore seem to be not too much different than me removing content from Sinitta this evening, in good faith. Since there was no discussion on the talk page and no discussion of substance elsewhere, I consider you both violated 3RR and both get a 24 hour block. And no, I did not block you by mistake, I blocked you both because I consider it fair. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - this edit is removing information that is either unsourced or cited to Facebook or other self published / questionable sources. So I would consider the IP's edits to all be in good-faith and no different to edits I might make myself (although I would probably be not quite as terse as removing it wholesale unless it cited a red-top tabloid like The Sun or the Daily Star. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: If you read my userpage, you'll understand why my fifth edit shows good knowledge of policy. Comfycozybeds (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of I Love Bridges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Oba Chandler

Please see Talk:Oba Chandler —Wasell^(T) 15:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]