User talk:Jfmisha

Welcome!

Hello, Jfmisha, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Clifford Chance 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

<ref>http://www.thelawyer.com/clifford-chance-to-cut-115-london-support-staff-jobs/136978.article]</ref> A further 13 London lawyers were made redundant in 2012. <ref>http://www.thelawyer.com/news/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Clifford Chance 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

<ref>http://www.thelawyer.com/clifford-chance-to-cut-115-london-support-staff-jobs/136978.article]</ref> A further 13 London lawyers were made redundant in 2012. <ref>http://www.thelawyer.com/news/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Allen & Overy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Clifford Chance shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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.
I clearly have no connection whatsoever with the firm, please read up on what the lede section is for... it summarises the article's content. Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly uninterested in actually contributing to the article on Clifford Chance, just putting your opinions on. It is not a blog post. I gave a balanced and useful description of financial perfomance and you deleted and it an replaced it with unreferenced information. Please stop. If you would like to contribute further please use the Talk function on the page. --User:Maxitrillian LG

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jfmisha reported by User:NebY (Result: ). Thank you. NebY (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete reports

Hi there. Please do not delete reports on the edit warring noticeboard. Stickee (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Clifford Chance. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed the report filed against you at WP:AN3, and you made unfounded accusations of socking, which constitute personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]