User talk:Osmand Charpentier

A single editor with two accounts is so scientific that it deletes such an important contribution for all hydraulics students in the world, why is it not yours? This is more important than questions of your jealousy or my vanity. And you are thus violating the good faith principle of wikipedia. Your human capacity is such that you would erase Cristrobal Colón having discovered America. What is your problem? ==

Mention links that don't work, but it's not true. It must be that his Internet connection is the one that does not work. Then act in bad faith, because it erases everything without consulting. In addition, the write has all the evidence of its validity itself. If he who reads does not understand the subject, and therefore deletes it, this is immoral and vandalism to wikipedia and science.La edición anterior es vandalismo, porque sugiere lo mismo que está hecho.

A single editor with two accounts is so scientific that it deletes such an important contribution for all hydraulics students in the world, why is it not yours? This is more important than questions of your jealousy or my vanity. And you are thus violating the good faith principle of wikipedia. Your human capacity is such that you would erase Cristrobal Colón having discovered America. What is your problem?

Manning formula

You are repeatedly reinserting the same material in Manning formula that has been removed by several editors. Please stop doing that. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and will probably get your account blocked. Tercer (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Manning formula 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. XOR'easter (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2021 (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. Tercer (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Edit warring and apparent self-promotion.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello Osmand Charpentier. You inquired about your block in a recent email to me. Since no private information is involved, it is not necessary to use email. If you want to appeal the block, you may do so here on the talk page, using the instructions in WP:Guide to appealing blocks. A template is available: {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here ~~~~}}. If you use that template, your request will come to the attention of other administrators. They will be able to look into it and see if the block should be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 43388

UTRS appeal #43388 is now open. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Wow! Attacking another user. Sure fire way to merit a decline. You will need to address your behavior, and stop puffing yourself up. Frankly, you have created the impression of incompatibility. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not_compatible_with_a_collaborative_project) You will need to address your behavior. Please describe how you were disruptive and what you would do/not do if unblocked.

The behavior is detailed here-- (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1017993570#User:Osmand_Charpentier_reported_by_User:Tercer_(Result:_Indef) ). Please relate your pre block/post block behavior to information left on your talk page and the Guide to appealing blocks. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks ) Thanks

UTRS appeal #43388

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]