User talk:Michael F 1967

Welcome!

Hello, Michael F 1967, 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Reference Errors on 18 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Lavochkin La-11 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems AnomieBOT fixed the problem on 19th July.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel engine

Please don't break links to filenames [1] by 'correcting' spellings. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to avoid any breakage; thanks for fixing the one mistake I made when correcting about 250 instances of incorrect capitalization in that edit, in which I changed no spellings. Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walter HWK 109-500, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HTP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Is there a straightforward and quick way to create a new redirection page? I can't find anything in Wikipedia help. Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a new page you want to redirect to something, then type #REDIRECT [[(page you want to redirect to)]]. Hope this helped! –apap04^talk^|^{contributions} 21:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, but I'm afraid I can't find the process for creating a new page quickly. All I've found is wizard which apparently requires a new page request to be moderated before being accepted and that takes weeks.

There's a page Exercise Tiger Triumph which was created as Tiger Triumph and I feel it'd perhaps be useful to create a redirection page from Tiger Triumph. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been wrongly done. The page calls itself Tiger Triumph and, while it identifies itself as an exercise, it does not use Exercise Tiger Triumph anywhere. The page should be moved back and leave Exercise Tiger Triumph as a redirect, though why someone looking for it would not simply type tiger triumph as their search term is a mystery to me. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. Another user moved the page to Excercise Tiger Triumph. I just corrected the spelling. Two of the referenced links refer to 'Exercise Tiger Triumph' and what Tiger Triumph might be isn't clear from just the name - there is after all a motorcycle firm called Triumph that's made several models called the Tiger and this could be confusing. Tiger Triumph redirects to Exercise Tiger Triumph, so the article can be found either way. I'll leave any further changes up to the judgement of others. Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tiger Triumph (September 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Tiger Triumph instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tiger Triumph and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tiger Triumph, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael F 1967! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poros

Hi, I read it as porous and assumed a spelling mistake. Thanks Sun Creator^(talk) 01:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As it happens, I suspect that my capitalization changes of poros to Poros might class as mistakes: poros seems by one authority to count as a noun by itself.

Then again, by capitalizing the term, it makes it clear that it's a stone named after a place rather than an incorrectly spelt version of 'porous'. I don't think my judgement can be trusted one way or another. Michael F 1967 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Bridge

Hi Michael,

Our Iron Bridge article is pretty poor, but I've just seen the other article and that's really awful!

Iron Bridge (the bridge, not the article) is a mess, structurally. It's a miracle it has stayed up this long. Some of it hasn't, and the rest has had help.

You can't make trusses out of cast iron. Brunel discovered this, wrote extensively on it (then did a few more anyway - we really need an article on his Uxbridge Road bridge). Cast iron won't support bending loads, engineering design at this time wasn't up to the point of making pin-jointed spaceframes or planar trusses. Even if it had, cast-iron won't support their tensile loads either. So cast-iron bridges have been almost entirely arch structures, purely in compression, just like masonry bridges. A few weren't, most of those (like Stephenson's Dee Bridge) fell down.

There are some early examples of cast-iron trusses. Pont-y-Cafnau is a good example. However it's an awful design. It stays up by being small, lightly loaded, and being hugely overbuilt. Even then, it's only held together by later repairs in wrought iron. The Old Iron Bridge in Merthyr would be another one worth looking at, but WP decided it was "non-notable". Also it's hard to get access to see it, and even harder to study the technical design of it.

So, The Iron Bridge. It's a horrible design. Unlike Pont-y-Cafnau, which is a good timber bridge design reproduced in iron, the Iron Bridge is just all over the place. There are radial members which should be in compression, with dovetailed ends as if they were in tension (an idea which wouldn't work). Then because they're sometimes in bending (the foundations have shifted) they've mostly cracked off anyway. But structurally, this isn't a truss, it can't work as a truss, there's no concept of a truss in effect amongst civil engineers at the time. In particular, how is this a two- or three-hinged truss arch? There are no hinges. The only way this structure could flex is by snapping the brittle, non-flexible members. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Yes, there are hinges: the central arch section is made in two halves pinned together at the centre line - each semi-circle arch section is made in two parts. That centre line works as a hinge. The other two "hinges" are, as I understand it, where the arch segments sit on the ground.

As for "can't make a truss out of cast iron": erm, you've cited the existence of some cast iron trusses. You are correct that it's not a good idea to do so, but as you point out, the Iron Bridge is a mess of a design.

Looking at the Iron Bridge from the side, I'd say that "truss arch bridge" could make sense as a description, since there is an arch supporting a deck and it looks like one might call everything held up by the arch as the "truss".

Granted it doesn't look much like any sensible truss structure I've seen elsewhere.

I'm no civil engineer. All this is about is me reading the arch bridge article, noticing no mention of the Iron Bridge which one would have thought would have been mentioned as a notable example of the type, and following the wikilinks on that page until I found a page that mentioned the Iron Bridge - which defined it as of the truss arch bridge type.

I've just had a poke around on the wider web and not found anything definitive to settle the matter of whether the Iron Bridge counts as an arch bridge or a truss arch bridge. Nor, for that matter, anything which settles the matter of whether the arch-supported deck is made of wrought or cast iron.

I would therefore suggest that the Iron Bridge article be left with the description of "cast iron truss bridge" in line with the Wikipedia article on the subject until someone can find a more definitive source.

Certainly, I can't see any real justification for you repeatedly undoing my edit on the basis of your personal opinion rather than an available reference.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no hinges. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From a bridge engineering point of view, the centre line pins certainly are hinges. They are not a rigid connection: they allow rotation.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And while I'm at it, trusses have been used since antiquity , although apparently the ancient Romans were the first to make much use of them.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, WP:3RR? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced content

The Iron Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Michael F 1967. There is a question whether The Iron Bridge would be correctly described as a 'truss arch bridge'. You support use of the word 'truss' for this bridge. At this edit at The Iron Bridge you have added the word 'truss' back to the article, a fact which is unsourced. (Remember that another Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source). You stated "I suggest you leave "truss arch bridge" in place unless you can find a source which contradicts that definition." This is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen! Per WP:BURDEN anyyone who adds material to an article must be able to provide a source. Please consider undoing your last change. Otherwise you are risking a block for disruption. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a claim with a weak source to replace an unsourced claim which was to my mind very obviously fallacious. User:Andy_Dingley's repeated reversions of my edits to an obviously incorrect and unsourced claim is disruptive behaviour. Please consider your criticisms more carefully in future.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tiger Triumph concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Tiger Triumph, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Tiger Triumph

Hello, Michael F 1967. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tiger Triumph".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert

See H:DUMMY. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colston

Your skimming a bit close to 3rr.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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.Slatersteven (talk)

It's true that people are engaged in an edit war on that page - some editos on that page are behaving very badly in my view. Editors are repeatedly reverting my edits for invalid reasons, just because they disagree with my choice of words despite me following policy as best I can to improve the article particularly in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

Why some editors don't want to call a slave trader a slave trader is beyond me: it seems that Colston in the 21st century has people trying to protect his reputation and sweep some dirty aspects of history under the carpet.

Why are you suggesting that I am the guilty party? For example, my attempts to use a reliable source for evidence of Colston's restricted philanthropy are repeatedly removed for invalid reasons. This is very bad behaviour.

What is the method I should use for dealing with these disruptive editors? Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can discus rather than edit war, and when (and if) you convince edits you edits are vlaid make them. But if you think there are behavioural issues you should report them to wp:ani and not edit war (but I would strongly advise against that).Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also not an edit war warning is non judgemental, it is not based upon the validity of your edits, only your actions. Beging right is not a valid reason for edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - so why is it that it's just me who's the guilty party, rather than others? The current text was not arrived at by consensus, although there WAS a text agreed to on the talk page some time ago. That was immediately edited out of existence - surely it would be best to revert back to the originally agreed text until a new formulation receives consensus?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did any other editors make more than 3 reverts over 24 hours?Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You pointed out that is not relevant when you defined edit warring in these terms: Your recent editing history 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. Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? read wp:3rr.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your own message to me, above, stated: Your recent editing history 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.

Why do you now suggest that that only applies to me but not anyone else? Are there special rules that mean I should be judged differently to others? Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I am asking who else made more than 3 reverts on that page. You are only edit warring if YOU are , it does not matter if 3 other editors make 2 reverts a piece, that is not edit warringSlatersteven (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I asked you about your statement that Your recent editing history 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. Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not mine is a standard wearing template that can be issued when ever an editor is pushing at 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you posted it on my talk page. Please read the Colston talk page and make the edit we agreed upon.

It does occur to me that if I were to re-instate the older first paragraph text using two reverts, and you then removed it each time, you but not I would be guilty of wp:3rr and you could be blocked from editing.

It would be better if you just undid your reversion, since we both agree what form the text should currently take.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment, here, I have reverted twice, that is not a breach of wp:3rr.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Edward Colston; 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. ——Serial^# 15:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are within a cat's whisker of being reported. Stop. Now. Cassianto^Talk 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I made a necessary change in line with policy and talk page discussion.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine have it your way.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely interested in learning here. I do not understand why am I being accused of edit warring apparently on the grounds of making an agreed change back to a form of text which had been developed with consensus on the Edward Colston talk page.

Please would someone explain? Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YOU were not, you had already been accused of edit warring before making your last revert. Moreover you are not supposed to get one person to agree and then rush to make the change. The fact you were reverted means you did not have consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You had explained that I had a correct understanding of Wikipedia policy regarding text being discussed under an RFC. The text I reverted to had previously been agreed by consensus on the talk page. All I was doing was putting back consensus text in line with policy, after checking that I'd correctly understood policy. Please tell me what's wrong with that? Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know no agreement had been reached on that text, that is why there was an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you read wp:npa, tone it down.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was that that form of text was agreed on the talk page, and then an objection was raised about the reference to philanthropy, causing the RFC to be raised. Therefore, the text should not have been changed until the RFC was closed.

You made the point that the text should have remained unchanged. It looks to me that the text should be put back to what it was when the RFC was raisedt. If not, why not? Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment here ever, next time its a report. I have told you being right is not a justification for edit warring (if you had read wp:editwar you would have seen that).Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 16 July 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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Your recent editing history at Concorde 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. - Ahunt (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to edit war to try to force your own way on this page. You need to gain a consensus on the talk page before making any more edits or risk being blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Hardly an "edit war" on my part. Other editors, for spurious reasons which I identified in each case, kept removing information which was both properly sourced and valid for inclusion. Each time someone removed that information giving a spurious reason, I restored the information with explanations as to why the reasons for the removals were spurious. It strikes me that those who kept providing different (and in each case invalid) reasons for deleting relevant information were those who needed to gain consensus on the talk page if they wanted their ideas to stick.

But... Hey, we're all here to make this place a better place, am I right?

One might suggest the "removal" types were edit-warring - or then again, assuming good faith, more likely they'd just got the wrong end of the stick.

Peace and love, man. Peace and love.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just an fyi...

I noticed your edits on BilCat's talk page. Once someone removes something from their page, that's it... it's not your place to reinstate it. You shouldn't continue to pester people on their talk page, once they've made it clear they don't want you posting there. Also, this is his user talk page. If you wish to discuss an article, you should do so on the article talk page. Hope you find this helpful. - wolf 04:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. In this case, I had what seemed to me to be a valid reason for asking a question. The user in question had not stated or implied that they didn't want me posting on their talk page and I was certainly not pestering them, simply trying to get an answer to a question relating to claims regarding an edit made by that user.

In other words, where else would I go? Well, the issue's gone away now.

82.69.102.61 (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one might think it was implied he didn't want you posting there when he deleted all your comments. But regardless, that is done now. As for the issue, you asked where else would you go, and as I stated above, you should discuss issues regarding articles on article talk pages. (In fact, it's preferred.) If you don't get a reaponse, or do but cannot come to an agreement there, then you can go to through the dispute resolution process.

Lastly, and on another note; if you are Michael F 1967, then it appears you are editing while logged out. Try to remeber to always log in before you edit. Hope you find this helpful. - wolf 20:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nelson River DC Transmission System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solid state.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]