User talk:Just plain Bill/Archive 5

Tinder

I actually really appreciate you reverting my edit to the wikipedia page for 'Tinder', which sent the hotlink for 'Kindling' to Wiktionary rather than a quite awful article for Kindling. (not being sarcastic, it actually sent me into a Wiki-spiral learning about the editing process)

That said, perhaps this would be a good time to actually flesh out the article for Kindling. All of the requisite references already exist on the articles surrounding it, and as I don't have much experience in the realm of actually adding content, maybe you would consider taking it on?

--DeucesHigh (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. There is an article on fatwood, a subset of kindling. If you have found sources suitable for an article on kindling, one way to go about it would be a draft in your user space, say User:DeucesHigh/Kindling. There is also a Wikipedia draft space with plenty of eyes on it, but I have no experience using that. If you do something along those lines, let me know, and I will keep an eye on it; I can certainly help with formatting and structuring stuff, along with copy editing and the logistics of moving it into main article space when it's ready for that. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Circle_of_fifths_deluxe_4.svg

This is, of course, a minor point, but shouldn't there be A# and Ab minor labels on the respective parts of the wheel? Both are... plausible, Ab minor perhaps moreso, depending on what they're transitioning out of, e.g. an Ab major piece might have an Ab minor middle section, and a C# major piece might have a section in A# minor. 00:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.209.131 (talk)

Sorry, didn't realise I wasn't signed in. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

As you probably know, those keys are just this side of the line beyond which there be dragons theoretical keys. Early iterations of the image didn't even label the major keys of C-flat and C-sharp, to keep that area from being too visually busy or crowded.

My device with a proper keyboard is incapacitated at the moment, and until its driver bits can be restored to a workable state, it will be cumbersome for me to mock up anything in Inkscape. If you feel like playing with the svg file, have at it. Talk:Circle of fifths is a better place to get other eyeballs on this... Thanks, Just plain Bill (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

ANI FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_tag_team_doing_bulk_section_deletions_against_numerous_other_editors Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Watching that, will continue watching as it runs its course. Thanks for pointing it out. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

NBS.Ivey edits - for consideration again

Hi Just plain Bill,

I had made some edits to pages as NBS.Ivey which were reverted.

I now have an individual user name, and would like to know if the same edits would be appropriate now.

I would like to make sure that I am clear on the conflict of interest guidelines as they apply to our situation.

I work for the Network for Business Sustainability (NBS), which is a non-profit knowledge hub for evidence-based research on business sustainability, affiliated with Western University's Ivey Business School. Most of our content is produced by academic researchers; it is not intended to advance any commercial agenda.

We would like to integrate some of the NBS resources and findings into Wikipedia.

I don't see that as a conflict of interest, but please tell me if I'm missing something.

Thanks for your work shepherding Wikipedia.Mayaf - NBSIvey (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Desertion

I don't know where my head was went I reverted your edit. Now that I look at what transpired, I still don't know how I did this except that I must have been looking at the wrong panel. My apologies. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries, and it wasn't really my edit... I'm a bit puzzled about what the removed text was supposed to convey, but am content to let it rest until/unless it comes back. Cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Mandolin

I have admired your editing of the violin page for some time now. I wonder if you have the time to advise me. I have been adding to the mandolin page for some time now, until is labeled too large. I like it the way it is, but since I've been working on it, my judgment is probably emotional. Would you mind looking at it and give me your generalized impression. Does any section strike you as to much? Is the way I've tried to internationalize it too much? Too much history? I would appreciate anything you can offer; I can do the work but feel more eyes that are experienced with a musical instrument article with be helpful. Sincerely, Jacqke (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. You may have seen WP:SIZERULE, where it says articles with more than 100kB of prose "almost certainly should be divided." I see you have started splitting out some likely parts. The article is now on my watch list; as I see opportunities for improvement, I will mention them on its talk page. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Jacqke (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Creation Science

Hi. Please refrain from removing my citations. They are a valid source of information related to this wiki page. You may disagree and that is fine however that is not a valid reason to remove my contribution. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadManPaddy (talk • contribs) 02:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis and creation.com are not reliable sources for science or consensus among scientists. Article talk pages are the appropriate places to discuss this further. Just plain Bill (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Logical truth

Hi ! How are you? Yeah, I think that formal logic is truth because A=A and no B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vouivre (talk • contribs) 23:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Propaganda

I started RFC. Massanino (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Responded there. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Inventions and artefacts as subjective emergent qualities.

I don't agree with your act of removing my contribution about subjective emergent phenomena. My contribution is just a result of simple logic reasoning based on the definition of emergence and doesn't need (in my opinion) a citation or reference. But because it is formulated in an rather abstract way a few examples may be needed to clarify, f.i.:

• a lever - one of te oldest inventions of mankind - is the emergent invention that you can use a stick or pole as a lever to multiply your force to move some object. But this strongly depends on the possibility to recognize this application in the given context and is therefore subjective.
• The usefullness of a can-opener can only be recognised in the presence of a tin and is therefore a context depended subjective emergent invention.
• Pythagoras theorem is only (subjective) understandable in a specific geometrical context and recognised as a new invention
• etc.

Are these additions sufficient to sustain my contribution? --Ypan1944 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"Simple logic reasoning" without reliable sourcing is, in terms specific to Wikipedia, original research, and as such is not suitable for inclusion in articles.

In my view, calling a lever emergent from a stick and its surroundings (including sentient organisms such as humans) is quite a stretch. It is easily predictable from the nature of its components, and fails to reach the level of complexity found in most accepted examples of emergence, such as swarms of bees or flocks of birds. More complex inventions result from the application of human cognition; their complexity does not typically arise from multiple simpler interactions or behaviors.

Again, this discussion will find better exposure at Talk:Emergence. Regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Moseley's law

Hi,

Yesterday, J wrote on Talk page of Moseley's law that it is uncorrect to speak of hydrogen atoms by Moseley's law, because precisely at Z = 1 Hydrogen, Moseley's formula gives zero. Moseley's law at Z = 1 Hydrogen, loses physical meaning, then what sense does it make to speak of hydrogenic atoms in this article on the Moseley's law? Thanks and best regards--Starace Aniello (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

American Banjo Museum

Hi Bill,

I am close to finishing a banjo-relared article and wondered if you would assess it. I’m sure it could use improvements, and any suggestions are welcome. Mainly I just want to know is you see any major holes. Thanks, Jacqke (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I did some copy editing. One thing was changing "Jazz-Age" to "Jazz Age" where it referred to the era itself. Where it was a modifier, such as "a Jazz-Age instrument" I left the hyphen in. The article is now on my watch list; as time allows, I intend to give it a more careful reading. Cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Bill. It’s good to have a reliable set of eyes looking over things. Jacqke (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Bugle calls

Hello Bill. You reverted x5 edits of mine where I placed the title of a bugle call within quote marks. I did this because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics "The titles of articles, chapters, songs, episodes, research papers and other short works instead take double quotation marks". This guidance is repeated at the later section Punctuation, sub-section Quotation marks: "...conventional uses of quotation marks such as for titles of songs..." and "Quotation marks should be used for the following names and titles: Songs". I suppose you could argue that a bugle call is an individual work in its own right and should be italicized, but this would not be consistent with the usage at other bugle call articles that I didn't edit, e.g. Last Post and Reveille. Please now revert your x5 edits. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, reverted. Now who is going to go wrap quote marks around other mentions of bugle calls in those articles? Tattoo (bugle call) will need a bit of care, since sometimes the word refers to a ceremony, not the call. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I got them all. Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Circle of Fifths

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the only links in the lead were ones I added. There all sorts of links: circle of fourths, chromatic scale, key signatures, major and minor, geometrical, .... Kdammers

The only links in the short description were ones you added. Short descriptions are a relatively new thing in Wikipedia. When reading an article, they are not shown in most browsers. The lead section of an article is text easily visible to readers. Links are entirely appropriate in the lead, not in the short description. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Is your Wikipedia page different from mine? What about all those links I just named?````

Those links are in the lead, which is part of the article's body text. The short description is a meta tag, normally invisible to the reader. It is not part of the lead. In the edit view, it is visible, set off within the double curly brackets that Wikipedia uses to mark templates. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Now I understand. Thank you. Kdammers (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda

Hi, Just plain Bill. I've gone over the old discussion on Talk:Propaganda/Archive 3 and all I see is a back-and-forth between yourself a now-blocked user. There was no RfC, let alone RfC consensus, to have this obscure juxtaposition as the main image. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you Bill for your editing, advice and knowledge on Mute (music)! Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Extensive use

Thanks, meanwhile (because of your correction) I understand this construction. Sorry English is n't my first language. Steue (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for revert

My submission was sloppy. Thanks for reverting.Electricmic (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. If it helps, the lede of the soap article has a short paragraph on the difference between soaps and detergents, with a link for readers looking for more. Cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of Analytical Psychology

Hello Bill, the relevance is precisely that Pauli helped Jung enormously in his thinking, relating quantum physics to psychology. See for instance, their correspondence: Jung, C. G.; Pauli, Wolfgang; Meier, C. A.; Zabriskie, Beverley; Roscoe, David (2014-07-01). Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters, 1932–1958. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-16147-1. Pauli was patron and lecturer at the C. G. Jung Institute, Zürich from 1947 until his death. The delicious thing is that Wikipedia has plonked Jung's Synchronicity into Pseudoscience, despite Pauli's contributions to its formulation. Jung and Pauli did not necessarily agree, but their debate started a decades long ongoing discussion and they produced a joint paper: Jung, Carl Gustav, and Wolfgang Ernst Pauli. [1952] 1955. The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche, translated from German Naturerklärung und Psyche. So will you consider reverting your reversion, please? --Po Mieczu (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've started a discussion on that article's talk page, where it will be more accessible for community scrutiny and input. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That seems a clever move on your part. Thanks. We shall see if anything comes of it.--Po Mieczu (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

New Article

Hi Bill, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm a beginner editor who would love to learn more about Wikipedia and how to create pages about my favorite celebs. I'm trying to create a page for B Major (Music Producer) please help me! TheWikiG99 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You might try clicking this link: B Major (music producer) and adding the content in the edit window which appears. Fair warning: you will need to establish the notability of the artist, to avoid the article being quickly deleted. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Afd

I started an Afd for Reedless wind instrument. Thought you might like to weigh in. -Special-T (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a silly useless unsourced article about a nebulous category of tenuous theoretical interest. (Does a siren whistle's rotor count as a reed? It is certainly a moving part in the air stream...) I will watch the discussion; thanks for the heads-up! Just plain Bill (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Commonly misspelled English words

I fail to see the problem with those changes, particularly the last one. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Commonly misspelled English words is the place to discuss this, for better visibility to other editors watching the page. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

You are right but its not fair to remove my all links. You can discuss with me.

Adelesmith (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing spam links is not unfair, it is Wikipedia policy. See WP:REFSPAM. The best place for discussion of those links is on article talk pages. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Chromatic Scale

Thanks for the updates. The break into intro and structure is excellent.

Thanks, that cleanup looks good, still room for improvement.

The first sentence was changed from a description to a definition. I prefer the description, the idea is taking the reader from words they do know to words they don't, or, use the familiar to explain the unfamiliar. The definition follows later anyway, so its moot?

The original is:

The '''chromatic scale''' is the set of basic [[sound]]s used to create music, songs, and emotional effects

I don't want to start a war, should I leave it? PeterMG (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

In my view, "description" and "definition" are two ways of looking at Wikipedia article content without a bright line of separation between them. Definitions can be descriptive, and a complete accurate description can serve as a working definition.

I do not think calling a chromatic scale a "set of basic sounds" is a very informative way to describe a particular collection of musical pitches. There are other parts of the article standing in need of clarification as well. Talk:Chromatic scale is the best place to discuss that, where it will be more visible to other editors who take an interest in the subject. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The fluff has finally gone and what's left is on point. At least the tag hasn't returned. PeterMG (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Toad

You know, I would be mad that you took down my glorious creation, but since you did it in only 9 minutes, I actually respect your dedication. I changed my view of you. From enemies to friends - I appreciate your work keeping this site safe from people like me. Toad supremacy (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ehh, people can change. Constructive encyclopedic editing is always appreciated, at least in my view. Be well, Just plain Bill (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

animal

More debris: I'm abandoning further discussion at animal, but I hope your position prevails so I can link the article to my own book. Otherwise, I can't bear exposing an average reader to "multicellular" and "eukaryotic" as an intro to animal. Now I'm stuck having to define "animal" as entry 498,001, something like "a living thing other than plants and single cell organisms." The definition here for "cell" is simple enough, so I can link it without worry and without having to reinvent that lexicographic wheel. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "my" position is on that, other than status quo ante was just fine, more or less. Great; now all I can think about is how in Soviet Russia there is no your cigarette or my cigarette, only our cigarette, as the kids seem to be saying these days. ciao, Just plain Bill (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of animals, how about fish?

You have an idea of my main reason for editing here but, if all goes well, it'll be a two-way street. Meaning, after my textbook goes online I'll welcome anyone (esp. Wikipedians) to use it and cite it as warranted. Case in point to address your interest in simplicity: A while ago I edited fish because the canonical order of adjectives was wrong. I otherwise left the definition as it was - technically accurate but too complex as an intro for my readers. My own definition:

fish
(noun)
1. Any among numerous varieties of aquatic animals that have a head, fins, gills, and vertebrae. 
(See generally fish.)
2. The flesh of any fish as used for food; Example: See soup. 

I.e. my textbook makes six mentions of fish, under the first sense, with one external link to Wikipedia under my glossary's fish entry. The second sense, which Wikipedia doesn't address, is internally linked to my definition for soup as it relates to maeun-tang. (I defined maeun-tang imply as "spicy fish soup" since the headword phrasing already indicates its Korean origin, and I externally linked it to the Wikipedia article as further reading and for its photo.) So, if any of my definitions inspires someone to simplify the articles here, or to create a page like oi-naengguk that's sure to surpass my desultory treatment in via a one-line definition, I'd be honored.

I really don't get what you seem to think is nefarious about my Wikipedia MO. What I'm doing here is all about cleaning up the verbiage - mainly the leads - for the benefit of general readers but also for my readers who follow my textbook's virtual Further reading links. There's no conflict of interest at all. And nothing could be further from the truth to think I want Wikipedia's definitions to match mine, or vice versa, which would be a recipe for copyright controversy. Indeed some of Wikipedia's leads are substantively better than mine but too technical for my purposes. I won't admit to dumbing any of my definitions, but pragmatics often supersedes technicalities.

A confession: Sometimes I find horrid, inane, irredeemably stupid leads here that I'm content to leave as they are despite my dismay for anyone else who reads them. (See. e.g. verb, which is so problematic it can't be fixed without wholesale redrafting contrary to a presumptive consensus.) The silver lining is that on a case-by-case basis I can emend certain leads for derivative use as my own intellectual property (see animal and fish) and thank Wikipedia informally, as well as in the credits of my text book, for being an invaluable resource overall.

Cheers if you've read this far. If so, I'd appreciate your clicking the "Thank" tab and then I'll delete this thread myself if you don't reply here. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary may be informative. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Long since noted. That's why among my ~2,200 external links, roughly 150 link here for further topical reading, and ~2,000 link to Wiktionary, where I do extensive editing unlike here. With each edit there I vacillate between posting it for all to see or leaving it as is and making the emendment solely within my own lexicon. The determining factor: if there are collateral senses that might interest my readers, I edit as needed and link.

A different dynamic is at play here. Example: I use the term, farm tractor in my book. I parse the phrase and define farm but not tractor because the lead here is adequate and there's a picture in the intro. I linked the article for its definition and washed my hands of it. What about the rest of the article? I haven't read it. I'm trusting Fate.

Bill, I know you can take a jab, so handle this with one with aplomb... I just glanced through your most recent contributions and chose an entry at random: Loch Ness Monster. I have no stake in the article but, if so, I'd immediately tweak the lead. It's syntactically but not grammatically wrong as you left it. Specifically, the lead indicates how Scottish folklore is said to inhabit Loch Ness. Huh? Shouldn't it be a folkloric creature that inhabits Loch Ness? My resulting edit summary would highlight the misplaced subordinate "that" clause.

I'd be embarrassed to link my readers to such an encyclopedic article whose lead has an obvious albeit ubiquitous type of syntax error. Since my textbook is primarily about English compositional syntax, my readers, and the majority of even my beginner level students, wouldn't let me live it down.

And you let that error go? Without edit? Bill, Bill, Bill. You're right: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Lexicographical wannabes at Wiktionary bear the brunt of my semantic scorn far more often than the editors here, but they seldom make the mixed up syntax errors I routinely find here. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The text plainly says that the creature, not the folklore, is said to live in the loch. If you see a syntax error there, you may be trying to impose a Latinate structure on a Germanic language creolized in Britain with some Celtic tongues, later pidginized by Scandinavians ignoring finer points of conjugation and other inflections. See John McWhorter's "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English" for details. I spent a significant part of my childhood playing with kids who spoke an agglutinative non-Indo-European language, so I have some sense of how that proceeds in the wild. We managed to understand each other, mostly.

Another revelation came when someone mentioned Lakoff's "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" which brought coherence to some of my previous puzzlements. Logic is one thing, and while sense is not orthogonal to it in any metaphorical vector field I know of, they pull in different directions, so some effort is needed to approach harmony. That's about all the philosophy I have patience for these days. Be well, Just plain Bill (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me madden you with how my brain is trained to operate. My notion of "text" is closely aligned with the definition given here at text, i.e., it's written stuff. The text in the Loch Ness Monster unambiguously reads " folklore [that] is said to inhabit Loch Ness." No two ways about it. Speech differs from text. Speech has no punctuation. In prosody, if you say "Nessie is a creature in Scottish folklore that is said to inhabit Loch Ness," without pausing after "creature" and "folklore," your meaning risks being misconstrued.

By contrast, if you say "Nessie is a creature, in Scottish folklore, that is said to inhabit Loch Ness," we infer "in Scottish folklore" is parenthetic; i.e. the "that" clause relates to creature, not folklore. Since the article's text omits the parenthetic commas, the grammar is wrong. Whoever wrote it probably didn't get ruler-slapped by Catholic biddies in nun habits until he or she could recite arcane rules of punctuation in English composition. Such writers often omit commas where they're supposed to be. (Don't kick yourself if you can't offhandedly recognize or describe the difference between a restrictive versus a nonrestrictive relative clause, and how commas are employed to distinguish the two. It's irrelevant to real world speech.)

In journalism school, we were drilled in rewrites to eliminate commas that tend to clutter text. So I'd rewrite the lead as, "In Scott folklore... the Loch Ness Monster is a creature that is said to inhabit Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands." If you had worded your assertion differently, e.g. "the text plainly says means that the creature... is said to live in the loch" or "the text plainly says wording textually implies that the creature... is said to live in the loch," I'd agree. (My brain is hardwired to distinguish "text" and "textually.") In my world, editors are trained to catch and emend stuff that casual writers are hard pressed to get right, and that casual readers are inured to ignore. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Too many words, too much self-congratulation for pedantic hairsplitting, from the fellow who thought "The tongue is a muscular mouth organ..." was lucid style, because hyperlinks could make it all better. (They don't.) My aplomb is swiftly evaporating. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hairsplitting is what I do. Watching one wave his flaming sticks, wield his wayward stones, and wallow in presumptuous unevolvement is not. I'll gladly begone. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Mixing console. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

What you "recognize" is not relevant to the point of editing practices by other contributors. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are you interfering with the work of a long-term contributor, on a page where you have no history of significant contribution? Kvng's virtual sticky notes do not get in tne way of other editors. Kindly show the specific parts of WP policy you think they go against, or let the useful work continue.

Also, WP:Don't template the regulars.

Just plain Bill (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Removing non purpose-serving comment markups from an article is not interference - especially when they do not follow WP policies or are widely used & accepted practices. As I mentioned in the reverted edit, that kind of comment markup is not in line with WP:MOS WP:EP or WP:EC. Contributors are not to reserve sections being worked on - but are to work on them collaboratively. At most - the {{inuse}} is specifically allowed to be placed within article, but only when a major edit is being conducted, per WP:EC.

Also, WP:Do template the regulars

Picard's Facepalm (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Kvng has been dropping these unobtrusive way-finding breadcrumbs for at least three years or so without complaint, if I read the timeline right, and cleaning them up after himself as he works through the pages he reviews. They don't "reserve sections" or get in the way of other editors; if you look at the history of Mixing console you will see other edits interleaved with the ones marked "review" in the edit summary. Seems like an effective frictionless process to me.

Again, kindly quote the specific parts of policy you think this practice goes against. Just plain Bill (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I did. See the 3rd link. That is literally the only tagging markup that is stated anywhere in any editing policy or guideline for such things. Take the time to read it, and then go ahead and refresh further by reading all of the first two links. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If by "the 3rd link" you mean WP:EC, that is an essay, not policy, and scarcely seems relevant. You may have meant something else, but mind-reading is above my pay grade. If you think "anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden" applies to Wikipedia, then think again.

Again, kindly quote a sentence or two from relevant policy that says these temporary markers go against it, or drop the stick. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed - it should have been H:EC or WP:EDC. I apparently munged WP into the H by not paying attention. My apologies for that. However - at the bottom you can see what I am referring to, and indicated above. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Right. That is helpful advice for editors planning prolonged sessions and wishing to avoid edit conflicts in the meantime. It goes along with your earlier mention of the "in use" template. Nice to know, but not policy, and nothing to do with someone who edits smallish chunks at a time with days or weeks between edits, and who wishes to be thorough about going through articles under review.

The comments in question are invisible to readers, serve a useful purpose, and contain a pointer to User:Kvng/RTH for editors who may see them and wonder what is going on. Reading your various contributions, I recognize you as a bright fellow with a spark of wit, and I wonder if you could see your way to letting them be. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi

((Buzzer)) I don't know the reason for canceling my edit, can you add it yourself and do the appropriate edi?.Mohmad Abdul sahib 14:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Just plain Bill I checked the history and found that you have left a note, the site is indeed commercial but this article link is not commercial and the article does not offer any material for sale, so why did you consider it a commercial link?.Mohmad Abdul sahib

[[1]]

Linking to a sub-page of a commercial site is still a commercial link, showing a link to "products" for example. Like a foot in the door, it allows easy steps (clicks) to pages showing material for sale.

Talk:Buzzer is a better place for this discussion, where it will be more easily seen by other editors interested in the article. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Just plain Bill You are talking about a commercial link not a commercial site, there is a difference!.Mohmad Abdul sahib

Just plain Bill What if we say that there is a site that provides scientific information on audio engineering, and the site allows placing ads within its article, isn't the site here becoming a commercial link because of the ads?, The rule on which you are based is wrong.Mohmad Abdul sahib

Talk:Buzzer is a better place for this discussion. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Enough with the stalking, please.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Without activity for 72 hours, that was archived by lowercase sigmabot. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)