User talk:Noel darlow

Welcome!

Hello, Noel darlow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transaction pattern (computer science)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Transaction pattern (computer science) on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wasn't experimenting although I may have misunderstood. Since everyone (including the author) seemed to be in agreement that the article was to be deleted I didn't foresee a problem. I would like to be seen as a serious contributor here so I apologise if I didn't follow procedures.

Noel.

Articles are deleted by an admin removing them from the database, not just by blanking the page. This prevents the Wikipedia DB getting filled up with cruft. You can find more info here. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that although I can try to anticipate problems people will often raise unreasonable objections which cannot be predicted in advance. Perhaps if you mentioned some specific examples which you believe were wrongly marked by me as "minor" I could understand better what you mean? Noel darlow (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a minor edit and neither were the ones that preceded it. --John (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you can't reasonably criticise me for thinking the linked example was a minor edit. "Aesthetic aspects of wind turbines and resulting changes of the visual landscape are significant" is quite vague not to mention extremely clumsy English. It doesn't even state whether these impacts are significantly better or significantly worse. Requiring ones audience to read between the lines is always a bad choice for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, "wind turbines are often criticised as having a significant visual impact on the landscape" is much clearer but still factual and non-judgemental. It seems that trouble has arisen because of some people who are very much anti-wind and the crazy thing is this edit actually makes a slightly stronger anti-wind statement!Noel darlow (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a reference to a German language paper. That seemed to be an uncontroversial thing to do in an English language blog... If there is an English language version fine - anyone can add that as a reference.

I removed a reference to the Derrybrien landslide. It is very misleading to present peatland damage caused by forestry as a problem created by wind turbine construction. Instead of simply reverting my edits out of hand, the individual concerned ought to have tried to discuss the issue with me and then we wouldn't be here. I have since started a discussion about this on the Talk page.Noel darlow (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. --John (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating yourself louder, in bold, doesn't actually help to explain anything. I'm trying to improve the wikipedia article in question. I believe we should try to create a balanced, accurate piece backed up with appropriate references. We are not obliged to pander to pronounced anti-wind farm biases. Indeed, it is our duty to challenge and remove all forms of bias. Anyway, we'll see how the discussion progresses on the Talk page. Perhaps we'll reach an agreement. Feel free to join in. Noel darlow (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. trackratte (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

ello. 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. trackratte (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Crown Estate

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Noel darlow reported by User:Trackratte (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Noel darlow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you look at the article history, Talk page, and discussion re the complaints which have been made, you can see that I have repeatedly attempted to STOP an edit war by asking user Trackratte, and others, to discuss controversial changes and attempt to seek some kind of agreement before we decide what changes should be made to the article. I think that is a reasonable position to take: maintain the original version of the introductory paragraph(s) which

are under dispute while we try to thrash out a solution. Instead Trackratte has repeatedly pressed ahead with changes which he/she knew to be contentious and has refused to engage in any meaningful discussion with the points I have raised. This is the source of the warring rather than any actions on my part. I am simply attempting to preserve the article quality and reach a consensus about possible changes in the face of aggressive attempts to sideline and harass another editor with spurious complaints. Noel darlow (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing of what you listed above as a justification of your reverts is a valid reason to repeatedly revert others, according to our policy. To me, it looks more like you vs. everybody else. In such cases, edit warring is not just inappropriate but also suggests the unconstructiveness of editing against consensus. Please understand that edit warring is just prohibited, no matter what. Max Semenik (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As you can see, I repeatedly requested (in edit summaries and article Talk) that any disagreements should be discussed before deciding what changes should be made to the article. That is not unreasonable behaviour and in line with Wikipedia policy. I did this to try to stop an edit war (but was ignored) where the article was repeatedly being changed in a retrograde way. The fundamental issue of royal pantomime v reality still hasn't been resolved and the fact that you appear to be backing those who are making changes which degrade the quality of the article will now only make it harder to resolve. Noel darlow (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, wind & peat

A courtesy ping notification on your removal of material on this page.Talk:Environmental impact of wind power. 185.51.72.3 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

If you revert at Channel Islands again, you will be sanctioned. Consider this your only warning for edit warring. The best thing for you to do is read WP:BRD which is for people in your situation. I look forward to you opening a section at Talk discussing your problem. Regards -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I've just read all the other edit warring stuff on this page. It appears you haven't learned from past mistakes... -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Your recent editing history at Channel Islands 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]