The problem is, I don't see your beef. I'm getting the same header both ways. If you're not, IDK why not. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You shouldn't be. The original link takes the reader to the general Winchester rifles page; the revised link takes them directly to the section on that gun, which is what is being discussed in the Henry rifle page, and of course is what is most directly relevant. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My error. I see you've adopted the revised syntax, merely eliminated the underlines, a preferable form. Issue resolved. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. I couldn't see what you were objecting too--& I honestly blew the 1st rv by not noticing the double. "#". :( Good to know it's not going to bring out the rv knives. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heaven help us! Do you know, is there a BOT that eliminates underlines in syntax? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If captions are full sentences, they require periods at the end of those sentences. — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please show me where that is stated in the MOS as I've seen it universally the opposite way, hence my good faith edits to that effect. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know of nowhere where it's appropriate to have a full sentence without a period at the end of it. — Cirt (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please show me that in the MOS, as it is the Wikipedia caption standard that that single sentence captions do not. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't think we should have full sentences without punctuation like that. IFF the captions were only sentence fragments, that'd be okay. But not in this case. — Cirt (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period." Please don't do this again. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has not been my understanding, as I have see the absence of a period ubiquitously in articles. This clears it up. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, engage in talk page discussion at Talk:Think of the children, rather than re-doing your edits.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you want me to say besides the original is sloppy and poorly written and it has been tightened up? If you have constructive suggestions for the revision, please make them rather than continuing to revert a good faith effort to improve the lede. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apology: I see we're are only talking about the Simpsons lede paragraph. We'll see what can be worked out. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:BRD, I've started several specific talk page sections to address your changes, which have unfortunately severely degraded the writing quality of the article. Please, I beg of you, engage in discussion on the talk page. You've repeatedly now added sentence fragments, incomplete sentences, sentences without verbs, and even removed references outright. Please, talk on the talk page before further degrading the article quality further, I ask you, please. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please show me at the Talk page what and where your complaints are. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added several new sections to the talk page with subsection headers indicating as such. — Cirt (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, understand I do indeed think many of your edits are positive and constructive and most helpful. It'd just be most appreciated if we could discuss a few issues with some of them, at the article's talk page. — Cirt (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, there's no question "Think of the children" is a meme (which include catch-phrases according to its Wikipedia page). I was surprised not to find a ready example of it regarded as such in citable form after you flagged it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would tend to agree with you -- but let's not add stuff we personally believe or think, per WP:No Original Research. Instead, can you find an example of this being referred to as a "meme" in secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V ? IFF so, I'd be most happy to add it to the article! Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried (using a variety of Google search parameters). Nothing but glurge sites mentioning it, usually as a flytrap to try to lure one there to create an ORIG entry at theirs.

I get the OR thing, obviously. I wouldn't have been challenging you to provide MOS corroboration for your insistences if I wasn't Wikipedia savvy on opinions versus policies and citable sources. The fact that "Think about the children" is a clearly a catch-phrase (that's what the whole Wikipedia page is about, and how its bandied as one), and catch-phrases are listed as potentially memes at the Wikipedia Meme page struck me as sufficient at the time.

Obviously every popular phrase isn't a meme, and common use doesn't make one so. A bus driver saying "Step to the back of the bus" is not a meme. However, if (hypothetically) in the American civil rights era the command became adopted by Blacks as a widespread form of dissent (complying or not) against segregationalist treatment, then it would (properly accepted the meme gatekeepers or merely mentioned authoritatively in the London or NY Times) be. That's why with all the memeophiles out there I was surprised not to readily find an appropriate mention to cite. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My personal opinion is that I agree with you that yes, it is a meme. However, I'd rather find a secondary source that says this. — Cirt (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Likewise, but I'm done with it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done with what? — Cirt (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking for an appropriate citation. I skimmed through the better part of ten pages of Google returns (that started sketchy, with rapidly diminishing returns) twice w/o anything that looked promising. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah okay sounds good. Perhaps if I have time I'll try to look through some archival news and research databases for "meme" and "think of the children". — Cirt (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be great. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, The moon is made of green cheese posed similar problems. I had to use lots of variants to build that article. Try google books and bing.com. Also Google scholar. Also do an intensive search off Wikipedia (not as a source, but for concepts and citations). Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you the Mr. (or Mrs.) Terse at the Think about the children page? While we were hammering out a compromise on the Simpsons thing I surveyed the page to see how tightly whomever was holding it to short sentences was doing. It had more short and fewer long than any page I can recall reading at Wikipedia (where all too often, even in feature articles, one can find them approaching the Magna Carta in length). Oh, please leave the discussion here: I'll know where to find it. Thanks. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote most of the present version of the article, along with help from Peteforsyth. I've found through my experience at WP:FAC and successfully getting multiple articles to Featured Article quality, that longer sentences, with lots of commas -- or hyphens and m-dashes, or just lots of commas, generally speaking, get eaten alive at Featured Article candidacy discussions, and, what ends up happening, is that, those long sentences, get broken apart by copy editors, or, the article fails at FAC. Also, let's please keep discussions about the article, at the article talk page, itself, please, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, my comments are a compliment. Second, I did not feel they were appropriate for the Talk page as written. Third, how did we end up back here? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait, I'm confused, which part was the compliments? — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was written in the spirit of "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter," attributed to Pascal, and "A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts," from Strunk's brevity-impelling The Elements of Style. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, why then, quite lovely, thank you very much, Wikiuser100, for the most kind words! Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're very welcome. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk)

You may also enjoy reading through this article: The terrorists have won.

It's quite interesting to find various uses of that phrase, over time.

— Cirt (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yikes! I'm all catch-phrased out. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks ever so much for The Copyeditor's Barnstar for my quality improvement efforts to the article, Think of the children.

Most appreciated !!!

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FunkyCanute (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response made at Talk page; substantial edits made since buttressing a previously existing article (at Wikipedia since October 2012) simply relocated to the above new page to reflect a change in the Lab's name by IBM. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiuser100, you are making a great effort in trying to tighten this article. Hope my edits/comments haven't been too ungracious. Rwood128 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you.

No, not at all.

Busy shaping up relocated "Backpacking with animals" into its own new article.

I thought that was a better idea than trying to work it into the opening sentence of the lede.  ;)

"Backpacking is the recreational activity of carrying one's gear on their back while electing not to use an animal for it." Hey, there's a start....

Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was a good idea. Rwood128 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating SS Sea Owl, Wikiuser100!

Wikipedia editor Lakun.patra just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great Work !!!!

To reply, leave a comment on Lakun.patra's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hello, Wikiuser100. You have new messages at Talk:Grand Central Terminal.
Message added 16:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Epic Genius (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop! You are doing the move all wrong!

By copying the content of Jägermeister to Jägermeister (drink) and then changing the original to a new article you have caused two problems:

1. The history of the drink article is now in the wrong place
2. The several hundred places that link to the original article now link to the wrong thing

I am going to attempt to revert this as much as I can, but will likely need to call upon admin assistance so it won't be done in one fell swoop. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted your changes to Jägermeister and requested the deletion of the copy at Jägermeister (drink) (which has no links to it other than this one). The correct way to move a page is not to copy and paste as you did but to use the "Move" tab at the top of the page. In this case, however, I don't think that would have been the correct thing to do either - anyone looking for Jägermeister is almost certainly going to be looking for an article on the drink and not a German to English translation of the term. Certainly, anyone following existing links from other pages to Jägermeister would have been surprised by the dictionary page. Your article, should you wish to create it elsewhere, is still in the history of Jägermeister here. I do not believe it stands as an independent article as it was little more than a dictionary entry. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richard is right here, and I've deleted the other page you created. If you want a page to be moved to a new title then you have to use the move tool rather than copying and pasting the content. Copying and pasting creates legal issues - Wikipedia's licence requires content to be attributed to the author, and copying the content prevents this by destroying the edit history. This applies even if you want to do something else with the original title of the page. Hut 8.5 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which page did you delete? The page on the hunting master? On what grounds? It is a legitimate page, with citations, acknowledged (but not yet categorized) as a stub. All it needed was to be retitled to conform with the consensus at Jägermeister Talk. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page that was deleted was Jägermeister (drink) which was the copy you made of Jägermeister before changing it to the hunting master page. Although your changes to Jägermeister have been reverted, the text of the hunting master page still exists in the page history even though it is no longer a page in its own right. If you want to recreate it in a new article you could do the following: go through the history of Jägermeister to the content you wrote (direct link), select "edit", copy the markup and abandon the edit, then paste the text into a new article. This would be a valid use of copy and paste. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the advice. This has certainly been a whole lot of hullabaloo over a bit of confusion over how to use Move (which I've successfully used many times), where somehow I got the misimpression if I moved Jägermeister to Jägermeister (drink) I'd get locked out of using the Jägermeister page for the subject of the term (the hunting master). The combined route of a move, disambiguation page, and page referencing hatnotes on each resulting page did not congeal, and once the reverts started it was too late to stop the momentum. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears that part (probably the root) of the problem is that Jägermeister can only be moved admins (which I've only just realised): it's been protected as you can see here and to have it moved you'd need to request it at WP:RM. Were it not for that I suspect your attempt to move the page would have been technically straightforward - a redirect would have been left behind and you would be able to change that redirect to your new article. Speculating a little, I believe you are correct in the point you made on the article talk page about a bot fixing up the links (in the case of a move rather than a copy and paste recreation of the page) - I'd guess, though, that that would only work if the redirect was left in place until the bot had finished its work (hopefully someone will confirm). I still believe that moving this particular page would be the wrong thing to do; I don't know if you are yet persuaded, but my earlier suggestion for retrieving your new article assumed you'd leave Jägermeister where it is and create the new content somewhere else. Wherever you recreate it, you might want to add a link to it at Master of the hunt as well. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Letting things simmer down and take their obvious course at the Jägermeister Talk page before any work on a new one. Odd that the Jägermeister page is protected as an administrators only move considering it already has usurped the term "Jägermeister" for the liqueur. Must be a history of attempts to make what I still believe is an appropriate move behind that restriction (which at this point I utterly do not care to explore or pursue), as where else would one move the existing page to (and for what reason) but one indicating the liqueur element. The whole thing is a flytrap I never intended to get caught up in. Way too many of them here; drives uncounted good editors away the encyclopedia can ill afford to lose. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think things have overboiled - apologies if it seems so. This was as an exercise where you boldly moved the page, I reverted and we all discussed - i.e. WP:BRD. There was a bit of a moment when a tiny part of Wikipedia was broken by the cut and paste move but it's clear now how that happened. I believe we're all on good terms! You are right; there's a lot of traps at this site which undoubtedly does have a negative influence. I'm reasonably convinced, though, that there's equally a lot of people here who enjoy the game - I just hope it's the right people. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No joy from this experience, I can assure you. And I certainly don't come here for "games". The net effect being one straw closer to breaking this camel's back.

Thank you for the apology. Nevertheless, the collective energy could have been better spent improving the existing article; instead, efforts already made doing so went out with the bathwater, and the whole thing is too radioactive for me to want to have anything to do with the page at this point. Which honestly is quite out of control, much more a "fanpage" (as are its spin-offs) than the appropriately treated subject of an encyclopedia. Which any reasonable observer one step removed can see, but that's not what we're dealing with.

The whole thing is lose-lose as far as I am concerned, and I haven't any more time or effort to waste on it. This civil dialogue excepted. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikiuser100, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Lukeno94 just alerted me to another copy and paste move at Oldsmobile 4-4-2 (this edit). This obliterates the edit history, and no attribution was given in the edit summary. Now I have to merge the histories of the two via a deletion and restoration process, and that's a huge hassle. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you comment on "Image resize" at Talk:Maß please? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We use "other animals" to mean animals other than humans. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Other animals" is listed as a "suggested heading" at WP:MEDMOS. Thank you for pointing out where this is indicated. I disagree with the use, but I'm not going to fight it. Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 1269th Engineer Combat Battalion, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/w/h/wha3/1269/history.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to End of World War II in Europe 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:

• Centre in the Prague Offensive, forcing German units in Army Group Centre to capitulate by 11 May). The other forces which did not surrender on 8 May surrendered piecemeal:
• 1993_v2_p2_e.pdf |title=Yearbook of the International Law Commission |year=1993 |volume=II Part Two] page=54, paragraph 295 (last paragraph on the page)))</ref>((efn|Although the Allied powers

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pontoon bridge may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• File:Bailey Bridge over the River Maas.jpg|thumb|Bailey Bridge supported by pontons]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Red Army may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

• Workers-Peasants Red Army|the army of the U.S.S.R. between 1946 and 1991|Soviet Army|other uses|))))

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Wikiuser100, thanks for creating 1269th Engineer Combat Battalion (United States)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Need more footnotes in the history section. I added cats and fixed the bare url for you. Nice article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Frank Gifford‎‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 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. —Bagumba (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear User:Bagumba. I am not a new user, am familiar with you and your editing for years, and placed three notes on a new user's page trying to avert the above threat...which as you well know will always be won by whomever reverts first and pushes the editor they are challenging to back down. That is what happened. We need an impartial administrator to sort this out, as it is clear User:Lootbrewed is not about to back down on anything less than 100 edits into their Wikipedia career (when this started out) and you have already declared your impartiality above. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additionally, in spite of your notice above I was not to my knowledge involved in an "edit war" per Wikipedia policies; on the contrary, I was very much seeking to avoid one, posting no less than three preemptive comments on the involved user's Talk page prior to your differing notices at both our pages in an effort to prevent one. There were more than three reverts at the page, but none violated the three revert rule I was seeking to avert being invoked. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I responded to your separate request at User_talk:Bagumba#Request_for_Administrator_intervention. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wikiuser100. :)

I'm finally getting around to processing your OTRS ticket for 1269th Engineer Combat Battalion (United States), and I really appreciate your going to the trouble to get verified license for that.

While I've processed it, I just need to be sure you're aware for future use that citation for such content requires more than simply acknowledging it as a source. You need to acknowledge the reuse of text, even if modified, explicitly. Wikipedia:Plagiarism talks a little bit about how and why. In this case, it's especially critical to do so, because without acknowledging the source and the limitations on license, we are releasing the content under GFDL as well as CC-By-SA, and we cannot do this. The two licenses are incompatible, and the author only released under one. :)

If you incorporate such text in the future, you can use ((CCBYSASource)) or ((Dual)) to acknowledge the copying, depending on whether it is CC-By-SA explicitly or licensed under both CC-By-SA and GFDL. That provides the necessary attribution and helps protect our copyrighted content donors from inadvertent misuse or misattribution.

Thanks again, and sorry for the lengthy backlog there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Wikiuser100: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. North America1000 00:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Happy New Year elves)) to send this message

The article Hammonasset (people) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Hammonasset is not actually a tribe; it's a region, a plantation, a chapter of the Order of Red, etc. "Hassamanisco" was a village

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yuchitown (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

Hello, Wikiuser100. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wikiuser100: I was reading the article at Mercedes-Benz M180 engine and clicked on a section heading in the table of contents, only to be taken to the wrong section. It was only after reading that section that I realized that it was the wrong one. When I opened the article in the editor I discovered it was because of all these anchors – one for each subsection subsequent – had all been placed at the first subsection with this edit: http://enwp.org/?diff=647202595 I would like to do one of these instead:

• keep the anchors, but put each one at its subsection, or
• remove them all

I notice you do not edit much anymore. So, I’ll wait a week or so for a response, after which I’ll go ahead and choose one option and post on the article’s talk page. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 16:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is probably going to seem fussy, but... I saw in your edit summaries recently on the Irving Oil page you use ibid. to mean "ditto". It doesn't. It means "in the same place" (ibidem). My Latin is too rusty to say, but Google Translate has the correct phrase as ed iterum (do again). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Id., it is. Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Illegitimi non carborundum. Keep on truckin' to Weidman, Michigan. Maybe The Incredible Dr. Pol can fix you up. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, I did not see this till tipped off by my email account right now (among a queue of nearly 100 in the one Wikipedia notices are sent to). Thanks so much, User:7&6=thirteen! Shame, though, the illegitimi did. Seems it always works that way for me. Bad mojo. Drives me away for months at a time, some times a whole lot longer.

I did very much appreciate your steadfast contributions during the tiffing. It was good to see someone was being able to contribute without being undermined. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Been there. Done that. I empathize with you. But steadfast determination in the face of adversity can work. I find that working with these three projects helps my frame of mind. Here, there and here. Good to successfully thwart the deletionists when they go overboard. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((notice|((Graph:PageViews|365))|heading=Daily page views |center=y |image=Open data small color.png)) I've been putting that on some of the talk pages of articles I've worked on. Gives you a feel for the utility of your efforts. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your trio of posts at Talk:Gram staining, Talk:Gram-negative bacteria, and Talk:Gram-positive bacteria, about Gram- versus gram-, and noted the lack of more than a handful of respondents. I've opened the matter more broadly at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Inconsistent capitalization of eponym in same context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wikiuser100. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dartmouth College shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly multiple editors are trolling changes to this page and piling on, without any complying with the challenge established: show that the change is not valid and commonly used grammar in American english (used in an article on an American subject) or stop reverting. What do you propose? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're an experienced editor so you know that if multiple editors are reverting you, you need to start a discussion on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you've changed the first mention of the name of the article with the comment as per MoS. Please would you tell me where to find that instruction in the MoS. I've been hunting since you put it there without any luck. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, User:Eddaido. I wish I could give you a ready cite at the MOS but I have not had reason to keep track of the standard in the decade or so since first being exposed to it. As it was stated then, the rule was that an article's initial passage should state in bold the name of its subject as it is listed in the article's name. A preposition such as "a" or "the" could precede it if it made grammatical sense, like "A dog is a four-legged canid...", but popular nicknames or formal structures should not displace the name as stated in the article title being first.

I remember that. This seems to be an up to date version here. In view of that note do you agree we can revert your amendment?

The guidelines are wildly different than the last time I had any reason to review them. Wildly. I'm over the suggested change, regardless that I disagree with it.

If there is some imperative that the 1st instance of a name include a specific suffix in order to distinguish it from another very similar item or article then that suffix should be included in the article name. Thus, as it was understood at the time, either the Rolls-Royce Holdings article should begin "Rolls-Royce Holdings is an automobile maker...," or the article should be entitled "Rolls-Royce Holdings plc" and begin "Rolls-Royce Holdings plc" is an...," if it is critical that the entity being a plc be stated immediately.

Rolls-Royce Holdings is just fine as the article name, the plc indicates its legal status in a way not shared, I believe, by USA.

"Rolls-Royce Holdings is an automobile maker...," Good Grief!! There are some other small amendments you've made to other Rolls-Royce articles which will have to be corrected. I will try to explain in the edit summaries but please start a discussion wherever you disagree with my change.

Hey, chill! I gave you an illustrative example of how the lead guidelines used to work. That's not how the actual page reads. It's still a lousy run-on sentence I did not write.

I was registering surprise that this very big business should be thought to make cars, no offence intended. Untrendy exclamation because I don't know the current equivalent. Can we just see how it goes with my changes to small portions of your work?

Thus the options at this point would be to leave the introduction as is, with the article name and initial statement of the subject congruent, followed by the corporate entity's formal name (in bold, in parentheses), or move the page to the current redirect Rolls-Royce Holdings plc and so state the subject's name in bold to start the article.

No, just a return to the previous arrangement please.

Whatever. Why do you feel a need to persist?

As you know, consistency at Wikipedia is ephemeral at best, and trying to enforce rules of style according to a changing MOS is like cats herding cats. Thus you will find every sort of variation, abuse, error, misunderstanding, and whim in place of the above (at least once-) established standard.

Agreed

What is your understanding of this subject, and the closest current expression of it in the MOS you have found?

here

As I indicated above, it is wildly changed. All cats are out of the bag at this point. I do not believe the wild liberties granted are well founded, not for an "encyclopedia anyone can edit". I have been reading encyclopedias, well written sets of every manner, now for a sixth decade, and own dictionaries that weigh as much as small children. They all manage to begin their articles and entries by stating an entry's name, in bold, then continuing immediately into a cogent sentence or definition. That should be the goal, not undermining it.

Might it be brought about by the WP preference for common names to articles rather than the precise accuracy of conventional reference material?

Thank you for not just reverting the change and potentially inciting an edit war. That is very much in the spirit of civility as sought (but painfully inadequately practiced) here at the encyclopedia, and a very admirable display of patience. My hat is off to you. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am indeed flattered. I'm aware you've been around here for a while and unlikely to make silly mistakes and that's why I wrote to you. I will go back over your other Rolls-Royce revisions in the next day or so. I will try to explain in the edit summaries but please start a discussion wherever you disagree with my change.

Why don't you start a discussion before making changes? Why does the onus fall on me to defend future changes (or reversions) when you do not argue persuasively in favor of your desired changes first?

Ummm, I'm following your example but I'm planning to give reasons in the edit summary. The Silver Shadow represented something of a sea change for Rolls-Royce yet it seems to be becoming reported as a mere change in the shape of body.

So far as I'm concerned what has happened is that I quibbled at a number of your changes then decided to wait until you were finished (hence this talk) - very glad you dropped your mist insert which was entirely and wholly new to me — there is of course something we call Scotch Mist — but I am sure R-R management would have included many who spoke German if not actual German citizens.

If you are unhappy with changes I make please just say so and we can work through the matter on the article's talk page. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you don't mind my insertion of responses on this page, it seemed simplest.

No, fine.

Thanks again for your colleagial manner discussing these issues. It is a fine example of Wikipedia at its best. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:LEAD the lead is generally kept to 4 paragraphs.

Per WP:MEDMOS the lead is generally written to follow the order of the body of the text.

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear User:Doc James. Thank you for completely undoing what in a quick comparision of versions appears to be all the edits I made to the lead of the Gout article under cover of citing two WP:MOS recommendations for how to structure a lead. Recommendations. They're not Thou shalt nots.

I quote:

As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section); and:

"It is also reasonable to have the lead introduce content in the same order as the body of the text." (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles)

NB: these are the same MOS pages you cited above. in which passages you indeed conscientiously used the terms "generally" for each.

That means the changes I made were fine. They improved a poorly written lead. Thank you for recongizing that a similar quality of improvement had been made to several captions and retaining those edits. That said, there was no need to change the lead back, either on the basis of good editing or the MOS.

It had been a while since I had been to the Gout article. Upon going there I thought, "Geeze, this is a confusingly written lead. I don't remember it that way. Though it indeed was more comprehensive, it's not nearly as direct in explaining what gout is right off the bat." So I went through the edit history searching for when I might have been to the page and made any edits, which took me, I believe, all the way back to 2008. Shazam, the lead was clearer then, right off the bat. So I basically restored the 1st paragraph and worked from there.

Instead of reverting the Gout lead under unsubstantiatable adherence to WP:MOS recommendations why didn't you contact me here or at its Talk page and suggest we get together on improvements to the edits I had made, not summary revert the entire lead? You've been around long time. You know how that works. You know how all this works, you're an administrator. I can cite WP:Bold and all kinds of junk to play that game, too. Didn't. Am not going to here. Or at Talk. I'm just throwing down that challenge. You made summary reverts of improvements to a lead on unsubstantiatable grounds, and restored the lead to being less clear and less direct. OK, I'll move on. Nothing to see here. You're a good guy. An actual doc. Do way more good than not here - albeit not in this instance. I have a life to get back to. This game just wears me flat out. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wikiuser100. You have new messages at Ibadibam's talk page.
Message added 21:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Ibadibam (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Despite the name, no part of the former Ravenna Arsenal (Camp Ravenna Joint Military Training Center) is in Ravenna or Ravenna Township. Ravenna is simply the largest city nearby, plus most of the land is in the Ravenna 44266 ZIP code. The village of Windham, Ohio was greatly affected by the arsenal (and borders it), as were several adjacent townships in Portage County (Charlestown, Paris, Windham, and Freedom), all of which lost significant portions of land, along with a small part of Braceville Township in Trumbull County. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wikiuser100. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I'm reaching out because you've previously been involved in helping maintain The Jimmy Fund. I work for a communications firm that represents the Pan-Mass Challenge. I've posted an edit request for some updates to the Pan-Mass Challenge section of the Jimmy Fund article, which currently contains no sources. If you have a few minutes to take a look, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template ((PD-notice)) after your citation. I have done so for Bagaduce-class tugboat. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Wikiuser100, I invite you to discuss recent edits at Talk:Sail components#Referring to square sails is too limiting. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A VW beetle did not have unibody construction. If you disagree please may we discuss this. Eddaido (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When did I ever claim it did? All I did was put the Hebmuller cabriolet image that was already at the Coachbuilder page into a gallery while cleaning up the article's organization. The idea of culling it did not occur to me. As I understand it, the Beetle was built on a chassis/floorpan, which is why so many were readily customized into dune buggies when that fad erupted, and why the car served as the basis for so many "conversion kits" into faux MG-TCs and suchnot.

If you are only asking as a courtesy before deleting that image, thank you very much. Way to go! Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies! Got myself the mistaken impression you'd added the statement. I see you've now eliminated it. Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was confusing when I began some edits a year or two back, as the images of the Citroen, Lancia, Hebmuller, and a pair of Alphas - none of them unibodies - were all nested under the Unibody heading in the article. That's why I broke them into a separate gallery not under it. All seems well now. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Jones Point, New York you included material copied from Hudson River Reserve Fleet. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea what you were talking about. I just cut and pasted some content from one Wikipedia page to another, including a cite, re-organizing and paraphrasing content as suited. Nothing is plagiarized, and nothing calls for attribution. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whenever you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, you have to state in your edit summary at the destination article where you copied it from. This is called "attribution", and it's required under the terms of our CC-by-SA license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I studied the changes made at the Jones point and Hudson River Reserve fleet pages and still cannot grasp what you’re talking about, or see any evidence of it. I’m familiar with having to atribute content via license, having helped a World War II veteran transform part of his memoirs into a Wikipedia page on his combat engineers unit. But I have no idea what you are driving it. Please clarify.

Meanwhile, I am desperate some for some help on licensing related to those pages. Some terrific photographs of the mothball fleet are being used at the crotonhistory.org website, so somehow they got whatever license was required from the New York state archives to be able to use them.

I’m away from my office right now and don’t have ready access to the URLs, but could really use some handholding to be able to choose the right one so I can download some photos from the archives, upload them to Commons, then utilize them and Wikipedia. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia is okay, but you have to include in your edit summary information about where you copied the content from. This is so the original authors of the prose get credit for what they wrote. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Copying without doing this is a violation of our licensing terms. Please see WP:copying within Wikipedia for a full explanation of what we have to do and why we have to do it.

Regarding the photos at crotonhistory.org, this is a WordPress blog. It's a type of webpage that anyone can create with little or no technical knowledge. There's no indication on their page that the photos are there with permission; there's copyright violations all over the Internet. Please assume that all content you find online is copyright unless you can prove otherwise. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I indicated, I am not at my desk now, but I believe from a look at the archives that the material may be downloadable with the proper license. That is where I’m stymied. But can’t address it further at this moment. Yet very much need some help, as the differences in those licenses are extremely opaque to me. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You shouldn't upload anything unless you know its copyright status. crotonhistory.org is not a good source for images to upload, because they don't provide us with a source or copyright information on any of their images. Don't use these images. Please refer to the Commons:Hirtle chart for information on how to determine the copyright status of an image or document. Copyright is very complicated. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made it very clear twice but I’m talking about legally downloading from the archive site with a proper license, which ever it is. New York State archive. And I have twice asked for help. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, please post a link to an image you would like to download and I will attempt to determine its copyright status. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, User:Diannaa. Here you go:

• The NYS Archive website: http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/
• The website's general copyright statement: http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/About/Copyright
• The page for a sample image: http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Detail/Object/Show/object_id/25871
• Another example: http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Detail/Object/Show/object_id/25872

It's been a few weeks since I did the search to find a group of photos of the Hudson River Reserve Fleet there, and I no longer remember the parameters I used (and they don't display). Here is a link to those search results so you can navigate around. The images are on pages 2 and 3 of the set: http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Search/Index?search=hudson+river&s=&target=ca_objects.

Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Detail/Object/Show/object_id/25871 : The photo was taken in 1946 by an unidentified author. There's no specific license or release stated. We have to assume that the photo is copyright and not available to us.
• http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Detail/Object/Show/object_id/25871 : The photo was taken in 1946 by an unidentified author. There's no specific license or release stated. We have to assume that the photo is copyright and not available to us.
• Since the Hudson River Reserve Fleet did not exist until 1946, photos of it will likely still be under copyright unless they were taken by a US Government employee in the course of their duties. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, User:Diannaa, an image made available for "educational and research purposes" does not include Wikipedia? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it does not, because our CC-by-SA license permits our content to be used for any purpose whatsoever, including for commercial purposes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Firebrace. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Imperial State Crown, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Firebrace (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nonsense, all. Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 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 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. SounderBruce 03:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, there, User:SounderBruce, you need to take a chill pill.

I make one valid edit at a page you don't own, restore it without a revert, and you lay an edit war template on my page. You're pretty full of yourself.

Your peremptory attack is unwelcome and violates both WP:Civility and WP:Bullying. You want some templates on your page?

I'm going to restore an improved version of my edit to the Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway page. It improves the lead. There is no need to muss it up with the route being both scenic byway and a Blue Star highway before it explains the reason it is designated what it is.

You've been around a long time and made a lot of edits. You know how this works. Lose the threats. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attempting to hide a revert (but still doing the same content changes) is a violation of WP:3RR. Please discuss this on the talk page, per WP:BRD, and explain your reasoning for trying to bury the lede. SounderBruce 01:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Reaching out because you've previously worked on The Jimmy Fund. I've created a draft article about Billy Starr – founder of the Pan-Mass Challenge (the primary source of the Jimmy Fund's revenue) – that's been in the AfC queue for nearly three months. I have a COI – I work with the Pan-Mass Challenge – so I'd like a second set of eyes on the article before it's published. If you're up for taking a look, I'd appreciate it so much. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my suggested changes, establishing the Challenge's relevancy as the grounds for Starr's, as well as other organizational and language cleanup.

I see that articles on him have twice previously been deleted. I am still not convinced he deserves a stand-alone bio as opposed to a mention at the Challenge page, but others with far fewer credentials have managed to surmount the WP:Notability standard. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for your edits! You really made the draft better, and I so appreciate your time. I am of the impression that the rejection of the previous article drafts is due more to the quality of the submissions than the notability of the subject. Not sure if you're interested in helping this process along any further, but as far as I am concerned the draft is in great shape. Thanks again. Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simply because a government-sponsored source was used does not imply superiority. Nonetheless, note how your edits were incorporated to refute the observations in Höhne's work and employ something similar in the future, vice wholesale deletion. You risk disruption of a page and an edit war with less professional/careful editors. Mach's gut.--Obenritter (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the changes you made to Mercedes-Benz 300 SL but are you sure that all of the following should be deleted?

"Like the W194, the 300 SL borrowed its 3.0 litre overhead cam duplex chain, 2 valves per cylinder engine from the regular four-door 300 (W186 "Adenauer") luxury tourer introduced in 1951.^[1] and featured an innovative diagonal aluminium head that allowed for larger intake and exhaust valves. Compression was set at 8.55: 1 for the Coupe and 9.5:1 for the Roadster.^[2]"

--Akrasia25 (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad you liked the changes User:Akrasia25, but none of that key content was deleted. It was completely integrated into the first two paragraphs of that section. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Do you think that it would be rate as a GA article now? What other changes do you think would be needed if not?--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot say, as I have not read the entire article since last substantially editing it in 2018. It is twice the size now, has many more images, and a somewhat reorganized order/flow. I'll see if I can make some time to give it a go. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Wikiuser100. I am employed by a communications firm, and I have been working since May 2019 to improve a draft of an article for a client, Resideo, a public company operating in the climate control marketplace that formerly was a division of Honeywell. In response to feedback from Wikipedia reviewers on previous drafts, I have made improvements on sourcing and, I believe, I have removed all promotional language that may have been biased. Before I submit this for approval, I would appreciate any feedback from you that would further improve the article, given your interest in these kinds of companies. I understand I am working in a conflict of interest/paid editing situation, which is why I am asking for your help. Here is a link to review it in my draft space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nellie04/sandbox Nellie04 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wikiuser100: I recently submitted the Resideo draft for review, and it was denied due to questions about notability. Would you mind taking a look at the draft and recommending areas where I could improve the sourcing? I would really appreciate any insight you can provide. Here is a link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Resideo. Thank you. Nellie04 (talk)

Thank you for acknowledging your mistake. If you wish to expand the caption, feel free. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mistake? What mistake. You must have meant to post this at someone else's page.

Seriously.

And I don't need your permission to expand any caption, thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never know whether anyone recieves my messages so l left 2 this one and another. Just wanted to say could you clear up the one sentence on her love life concerning she also had affairs with women when there is no evidence or source notes ; l understand the source is The Dailly Telegraph paper but that means nothing as it pages read like a gossip paper. Are their real sources or Just second and third hand stuff? I only asked because in the future if that single sentence is left hanging there someone will leave made up names or other names of actresses and its likely to be fake.

Thank you Andrew Dock Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC):Reply[reply]

The Daily Telegraph article is cited five times at the Cappucine page, apparently credibly. In the absence of countervailing evidence we cannot simply pick and choose which parts of it we wish to give credence to. If you can provide cited content that can rebut the claim that offends you, perhaps it can be altered, or at least counter-cited. Absent that, it stands. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Automotive Barnstar
		For the work that you did on the Mercedes-Benz 300 SL article

--Akrasia25 (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, thank you very much, User:Akrasia25. Glad it was appreciated. Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning.

I had edited some of the Waylon Jennings information about his time in Scottsdale at JDs. I included the name of the contractors, the correct spelling for Musil, and names associated with his initial record. All of that information was deleted.

I see your name and AnomieBOT there 2:28 10-23-19. All of the information was correct. I know about the contractors - that was my father and his partner. I was young, but actually worked in the construction of JDs. In addition, several years ago the Arizona Music Museum verified the information by documenting in an interview with the wife of the partner. I also reviewed the recorded lease agreement and the names on the "At JD's" record (of which I have 3 copies). The information verifies the spelling for Musil and the names of the lessors (the partners) to Musil.

What do I need to do to have the information stay?

Thanks

Lpphoenix (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings. Thank you for the above background. I have corrected the proper spelling of Musil at the Jennings page.

As for the contractor names, while a biographer writing a book on Jennings may wish to include them in such a work, they are non-germane in this context. The Wikipedia Manual of Style policy on the verification of facts in its articles (Verifiability) holds that just because an item is verifiable does not guarantee its inclusion in an article. it also must be germane. The contractor names In this context are not, a record producer’s is.

Thank you for your good faith enquiry in this regard. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the correction - Waylon had it spelled wrong in his book, and I am surprised he did not list the names. It is a shame in a sense because you are dealing with people that helped start his career. I have autographed records from him thanking my parents for "all they have done" for him, so I just wanted to acknowledge them.

When they did the interview with the partners wife, I saw pictures I had not seen - Waylon at the build site for JD's, etc. At that interview, just to put it in context, my friend from kindergarten stated "Waylon would come over to the house and play - I would go in my room, close the door, and listen to rock and roll." It was just part of our lives. I was at some point the custodian there, but honestly think it was after he left and the club became Scenes West.

I do other things that are related to history, so I appreciate that when some of these fine details are lost in our time, they are lost forever.

I would suggest (based on writing that I do) that you indicate that the spelling of Musil's name is documented (there is a JD's album on ebay at the moment that shows it) for example, otherwise people will think it is wrong in the text since that is what Jennings had in his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpphoenix (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings User:Lpphoeni. Regarding Wikipedia biographies, I understand and am sympathetic to your feelings about history "getting lost" when details small and large slip through the cracks of permanent documentation, so to speak. However, what you share is, once again, appropriate for inclusion in a privately written, commercially published biography of Jennings, or posting at a Jennings "fan" page on the Internet, but fails to meet the bar of relevance at Wikipedia for its "encyclopedic" style biographies.

Many folks, understandably, misconstrue the term "encyclopedic" as all-inclusive when it comes to the level of articles. It applies instead to the breadth of the publication, which attempts to gather and concisely represent a broad cross-section of the information most important to mankind. To make this possible, articles must convey only what is essential and, ideally, no more, than required to fairly represent a topic.

These distinctions are obviously misunderstood by a great many Wikipedia contributors - by no means all of them new or unregistered. They do not grasp that Wikipedia is not a giant repository for all information on all subjects, regardless of relevance. This is particularly evident, and noisome, in the "In popular culture" sections, which become flytraps for every sort of trivia, and require constant culling to only relevant, cited content. A battle that is, regrettably, lost more than it is won in a culture that increasingly is unable to distinguish between say Mozart writing a concerto, or its being played at a historically important coronation or royal jubilee, and a fleeting snatch of it being "sampled" in some hip-hop song, perhaps screeched back and forth by a record needle.

Regarding the proper spelling of "Musil", I have located and cited variously at the Jennings and Waylon at JD's pages three ostensibly sound references which include it, and which distinguish between J.D. Musil as club owner and his son James D. "Jim" Musil as club manager and co-producer of the At JD's LP.

If this does not square with your understanding of their respective roles, please clarify. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes sense.

I did not think about Jr. as the record producer, but when I look at the album you are correct. It does show "James D. Musil Jr."

Thanks for the follow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpphoenix (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are welcome User:Lpphoeni. Perhaps you might be interesting in contacting a Jennings biographer to volunteer your anecdotes to them. Good luck with any other contributions you may make at Wikipedia. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rombout disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Rombout disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article IBM Research – Africa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article IBM Research – Australia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article IBM Research – Brazil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of cars with Coke bottle styling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cars with Coke bottle styling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Pontificalibus 16:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IBM Research – Brazil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Research – Brazil until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IBM Research – Australia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Research – Australia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IBM Research – Africa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Research – Africa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re New Croton Reservoir. I don't think empoundment is a real word. Could you restate what you're written. Thanks!--regentspark (comment) 20:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is. It is the spelling I grew up with. This iPhone won’t let me capture the URL of a Google search for it, but you can put it in and see its use. Considering the other more ungainly spelling is more popular, I have changed it to avoid any conflict. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your addition to Clevite has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is nonsense, @Diannaa:. Hysterics. Overreaction. I reworked those passages to a reasonable extent. There are a few strings of words that are the same - as they were the simplest and clearest way to say something, leaving them that way. Don't be slapping threats to block me on my page, administrator or not. You want me to rewrite something some more, say so. You and I have history working together, over an extended period of the two of us trying hard to find a legal way to add copyrighted images to the Hudson River Reserve Fleet and Jones Point, New York articles (but were stymied by the inability of the public domain website they were posted at to identify who had originally taken the images), so it's not like I'm some vandal or recidivist miscreant. I've been here for a dozen years and around 50,000 edits. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely a huge, square keep, not a round tower. Just found and corrected your change to Romanesque architecture. I have to say that when you make a small, but significant, change to content, which is wrong, and it is immediately followed by some useful changes, then it can go unnoticed, sometimes for years until a person with the right knowledge comes along, notices, and corrects it. Please check your facts unless you are absolutely sure of them. The large square tower in question is clearly visible in the images, and is one of the best known sights in London. Amandajm (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC) @Amandajm:. Hey, save your scoldings. You want to educate, fine, do that. Browbeat, no, can it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Motor_torpedo_boat#"They're_called_motor_torpedo_boats_because_they_have_diesel_engines"

Are you going to reply, or do I just take it to WP:ANEW? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not accuse another editor of edit warring while edit warring yourself, i.e. not leaving the article in question at the consensus GA version, not using the talk page, not addressing all concerns, and reverting unrelated edits. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: I apologize if I reverted any unrelated edits; it is a pet peeve of mine when others do it, and is the first time in nearly 50,000 edits I am aware I have done it accidentally.

I see you are willing to strike a compromise course at the Tesla page. In that spirit I have replaced a non-germane passage with a germane one, cited as it was at the Tesla Coil page. I am not sure how to convert that citation style to that used at the article. Can you please help with that? Thank you. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thrupp & Maberly. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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; 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. Eddaido (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You don't know me, I've seen your name on trucks before me. I want to explain this. I did it as drop-by house-cleaning, I am not editing and have no problem with you at all. Eddaido is afraid that I helped to chase you away and kill a discussion. Sorry if I did. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this edit to the article "Mary Philipse". I have just modified one of the citations to use the custom template ((cite DNB)). As you can see it is far simpler to use and understand than using ((cite book)) for accessing wikisource DNB articles. It has the added advantage that it populates some maintenance templates for use by editors who are part of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography.

There are other similar templates for other encyclopaedias on wikisource such as ((Cite EB1911)) and ((cite CE1913)) to mention but two of may (although they are probably the most used). There are corresponding attribution templates for use if text is copied from the PD articles into a Wikipedia article (as allowed under the plagiarism guideline -- see the section WP:FREECOPYING), they have the same name but drop the cite eg ((DNB)), ((EB1911)), and ((CE1913)). -- PBS (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PBS:. I don't know why this is being done - and strongly oppose it, and similar moves recently observed elsewhere in the encyclopedia. It is strongly anti-user. ALL of the pertinant information is available in the original citation format - full title of the reference, its dates, pages, and soforth. The vast majority of it is taken away in the new format. Why? How does that help the user - as afterall they are the foremost aim and concern of the encyclopedia? It does not. I am inclined on these grounds to revert it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What information do you think was removed?

Before:

• Chichester, Henry Manners (1894). "Morris, Roger". In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900. Vol. 39. London: Elder Smith & Co. pp. 105–106.

After:

• Chichester, Henry Manners (1894). "Morris, Roger" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 39. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 105–106.

--PBS (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I clicked on the reference, or even open the section up in editing mode, all that was being displayed was “DNB” and “Vol 39”. That was it. .other copy whatsoever in either location. That is why I beefed. Yours, 19:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The template fills in the fields that do not change from use to use (such as editor, publisher, book's name). It works out the correct date from the volume number. So all that is needed is the title of the DNB article (|wstitle=) and the |volume=.

 ((Cite DNB |wstitle=Morris, Roger |volume=39))

As the Wikisource article has the name of the author and the page numbers those can be added to make a full citation:

 ((Cite DNB |last=Chichester |first=Henry Manners |wstitle=Morris, Roger |volume=39 |pages=105–106))

All the rest is done through the template:

• Lee, Sidney, ed. (1894). "Morris, Roger" . Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 39. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
• Chichester, Henry Manners (1894). "Morris, Roger" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 39. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 105–106.

The other two templates, that I mentioned above, work the same way, as do a host of others. -- PBS (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please present your case at Talk:Toyota_Century#Lede_image. Edit summaries are not a suitable discussion when there is conflict. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  22:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Stepho-wrs. I referenced the edit summaries (so that you would be aware of them) – and gave a complete and sufficient one for my current edit (completely independent of them). Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss at Talk:Toyota_Century#Lede_image where all interested parties can see it, not hidden away on another talk page.  Stepho  talk  21:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I just mentioned you on the talk page of the subject article, have a gret day.Jarhed (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your note. Thank you as well for your very helpful edits. (Strudjum: talk)

@Strudjum: You are very welcome. Thank you for the acknowledgement. I may as well say it here as go back to your Talk page, but you appear to be a fine Wikipedia citizen and a valued contributor to the encyclopedia. Are you at all interested in being cloned? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wikiuser100: Thank you again, Wikiuser100, for the acknowledgment. I have been a Wikipedia citizen and enthusiastic supporter for many years now, and I do strive to create and edit pages with the utmost care, doing my small part in making this great evolving resource better each day. Although I work predominantly in the silent and pre-Code eras of film, I also enjoy film noir as well as other topics outside the realm of motion pictures. Recently, I noticed that the page on Born to Kill (1947) seriously lacked content regarding its production, critical reactions to the film, and the public controversies that swirled about it after its release. I have enjoyed researching and adding information and references to that page and to working–albeit it indirectly–with colleagues like yourself. We Wiki citizens are mostly just faceless pen names and numbers to one another, so it's nice whenever we can touch base directly like this. Stay well and thrive in 2021! (Strudjum: talk)

@Strudjum: Indeed, I see your professional background and interests well represented in your contributions here. That is certainly a diverse set, all of which subjects can profit greatly from the work of a well-informed and conscientious editor like yourself. An assessment grossly incomplete without acknowledging your exceptional citizenship here, the single most essential quality too often in scarce supply.

As I indicated above, I am heartily in favor of mass cloning of contributors like yourself.  ;)

As for me, I am fundamentally a drive-by editor, using the encyclopedia as an information source and making improvements and enhancements as I run into the need for them. I also create new articles as the impulse strikes me, typically historical, but also including vehicles, science, language, and other subjects as need or impulse arises. Assuredly we will run into eachother again. I look forward to it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carbonated water, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Anthony's Nose (Westchester County, New York)

added a link pointing to Philipse Manor

Peekskill, New York

added a link pointing to Bear Mountain

Shanta Pathak

added a link pointing to Tanganyika

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you added the fact to several articles, including Carbonated water and club soda, that carbonic acid has a high ph. All acids, by definition, have a low ph, and the ph of carbonated beverages is somewhere between 3-5 (see https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-and-nutrition-quackery/carbonated-water-bad-your-teeth, for example). I would suggest correcting this info anywhere else you have added it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad you're cleaning up Alto saxophone. I don't think King Curtis belongs on a short list of jazz alto saxophonists, though (not really a jazz guy and primarily played tenor). But maybe you know more about his career than I do. - Special-T (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, User:Special-T. Thank you for your enquiry.

Though perhaps best known for his tenor work in rock-and-roll, Curtis played also played soprano and alto - the latter of which he recorded on throughout his professional career. See: Old Gold (Tru-Sound ‎– TRU 15006 / 1961) (along with tenor), It's Party Time With King Curtis (Tru-Sound 1962), Trouble In Mind (Tru-Sound ‎– OBCCD 512-2 / 1962) (both also with tenor), the King Curtis Octet, Sweet Soul, Get Ready, Live at the Fillmore West, and Blues at Montreaux (all also at that same discography, some also with tenor).

If you are interested, you can also see (a picture of) and hear Curtis playing the hell out of the soprano in one of his most famous songs, Soul Serenade at that link at YouTube. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As part of an effort to buff up Wikipedia's treatment of the etymology and usage of "Manhattan," I came across the Manhattoe article largely authored by you. I'm trying to understand how it fits in. First, I can't find the term "Manhattoe" in the primary or secondary literature, only "Manhattoes" and, very rarely, the singular "Manhatto." Second, I don't understand why the term is particular to the southern tip of the island. One sentence reads: "Located at the very southern tip of today's Manhattan Island, it was known by the native term by both the Dutch and the English who wished to displace them." The citation includes a quote which, to the contrary, uses the term to refer to the whole island: "the town situated on the island commonly known by the name of Manhattoes." Other similar statements in the article cite a paper titled "The Standards of the Manhattoes, Pavonia, and Hell-Gate." This paper introduces the term as follows: "The Manhattans (or Manhattoes), an area comprising present day Manhattan, and parts of Brooklyn, Westchester County and the Bronx." The paper goes on to use the term "Manhattoes" in preference to "Manhattans" following the usage of Washington Irving, its primary subject. Outside of Irving, "Manhattoes" is pretty hard to find, which brings me to my third area of confusion. Is this article arguing that the term "Manhattoes" has a history clearly distinct from "Manhattans," "Manhattes," etc. also in use by Dutch and English? The citations don't seem to support this. So it seems that the topic is not "Manhattoes" per se, but the name of Manhattan, along the lines of the Name of Toronto article. Do you agree? Unendin (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction. I do now see a few instances of "Manhattoe" in the secondary literature, mostly misquotations of previous secondary literature. In any event, that's not the major point. Cheers! Unendin (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Busy - in and out of ER - distracted, playing catch-up. Please don't do anything for now. Will get to your enquiries as soon as possible. Thanks. Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Plenty of surrounding pages to busy with. Unendin (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know it is still dogma in some circles that "science fiction" is a pejorative term to be reserved for crap; but I hope we're not getting into one of those arguments. Science fiction need not involve "talking squids in space", time travel, aliens nor space travel. Stories of the future, especially those involving drastic cultural changes such as portrayed in The Iron Heel, 1984, etc. are at the core of what science fiction does. SF is by definition the literature of changes from the quotidian and the mundane, whether for good (utopian) or evil (dystopian) or mixed (LeGuin's The Dispossessed, which she herself subtitled "An Ambiguous Utopia"). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's social science fiction, the subgenre where social theme is stressed over technology. There is a consensus on that. We should both be able to walk away on that. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I'm glad to see The Iron Heel get some of the attention that it deserves. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that there are nuclear wars and a two-headed mutant involved, I would never have thought to put Canticle into the social science fiction category! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed nuclear war is what precipitates the story - which is not at all inherently science fiction. The story is an allegory, a cautionary tale. It's not all robots and wookies, Good Guys and Bad Guys (like generic Westerns gussied into Space by popular franchises since the 1970s, even if token considerations are paid to "confederations" and future political infrastructure). It's about what happens to society in a post-apocalyptic future, not technology. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Douglas A-26 Invader. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Discuss the matter on the article talk pageNigel Ish (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you care to discuss, as you suggested, at Talk:Locking pliers#Trade names? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, User:Martinevans123. Thank you for the invitation. Busy now, but will meet you there when can. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that you recently put the globalise hatnote on Launch. I appreciate that the article is currently a disorganised mess of facts about all the disparate types of boat called "launch", but I was wondering if you can identify any particular element of a better article on the subject that is currently missing? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, User:ThoughtIdRetired. Actually, that is the first time in nearly 14 years I ever inserted the globalize hatnote in any article. The page is so short, and though there are photos of launches from the U.S. and Iran, and nods to the origin of the word and an example of the craft being used in 1513 in Malacca, the body of the article is overwhelmingly dominated by references to British use of the term - including in two specific headings for it, disambiguating civilian and military. (Further compounded by the generic term motor launch also having been coopted to apply only to Royal Navy vessels.)

Certainly the global usage of the term, or the type, is much broader than that - and deserves expansion.

The only specific usage I am aware of that deserves more is represented by the Mathis lake boat in the article's first image, once highly popular with many examples preserved today. These were both electrically powered (by batteries) and early gasoline engines. Well, that expansion and how the term (and type) was/is used in other navies. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your answer – this is another of those articles where the subject is as much a problem as the article – something along the lines of Yawl (which I have had a go at fixing) and Cutter (boat) (still a work in progress). One difficulty is that particularly in the 19th century, the Royal Navy was so large (something approaching as big as all the other navies combined – I need to find the reference for that) that its practices and terminology rather overwhelm the rest of that part of history. Similarly the British merchant navy was a large proportion of the world's commercial shipping at the time. Then by the end of WW2 there were a huge number of naval motor launches in Allied navies. It may just be that in the English language Wikipedia, the commonest use of an English boat name is in English-speaking places.

The problem is finding sources for the "other" examples of launches – particularly illustrations. You point out the Mathis launch, but I cannot find anything more than the vessel pictured ("launch" is a rather exasperating word to search for in a maritime context). I have some pictures I have taken of a historic steam launch (but that is UK centric, again). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ThoughtIdRetired. I hear you. You may find some public domain images with Google image search, which focuses on Elco launches. At the least it opens the door to that extensive use of the term "launch" for electrically powered boats, utterly dominated (historically) by Elco in the US. (Check out that page.)

I have another image search or two on my phone I can perhaps forward that may be helpful.

An important improvement that needs to be made on the page - which you may wish to take a crack at - would be better defining what a launch is, and what it is not, and why. A very plastic thing, I realize, but something that direly needs to be addressed. Even as it will likely lead to a "horizontal" expansion of the article (assaying how the term is commonly used). Being defined as an "open motorboat" (twice cited in the article's five-word lead sentence) is simply wrong. It can be one, but obviously manifests in a variety of other ways, both civilian and military.

As for the image of an English steam launch, I would not worry about including it, as it gives an example of one of the four historic/extant means of powering one: electricity, steam, gasoline, and diesel. (With some electric ones also adding solar panels for propulsion/battery charging.)

Good luck! Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that - I think I have the formula for defining maritime terminology where one word has several different meanings (see Yawl and Cutter (boat) mentioned above), though still a challenge to tackle the problem. Launch was not really on my "to do" list – and I have a substantial backlog of editing targets – but I reckon it is now. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You accidentally opened a duplicate requested move at Talk:Mohicans, as someone else had converted your technical request into an RM minutes earlier. I've removed the duplicate RM; you can take part in the discussion at Talk:Mohicans#Requested move 9 January 2022. Lennart97 (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on HMS Warspite (03). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. You are edit warring on the ledes of the articles for all of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, reaching 3 reverts on HMS Warspite, with no attempt to discuss the issue on article talk pages, despite having been reverted by multiple editors. In addition, altering somone's username in an edit summary like you did here is entirely unhelpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this stage, I'm not gonna get into a pissing match with you over a fairly trivial stylistic point, but I will say that I've had multiple FACs using that exact language, so I'm not sure how much other editors appreciate the subtleties that you're trying to add. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your concession on this, User:Sturmvogel 66, as we've worked together and through various editing challenges over the years without conflict.

The first point is that the sentence at issue is the lead sentence of the lead, and thus demands a declarative description of the most salient point of the article. What was the (Warspite)? A Queen Elizabeth Class battleship. What is it secondarily (if even that, in order of precedence of its relevance)? One of five ships of that class.

This principle is fundamental to journalism, academic writing, etc. What first; what else later.

Secondly, the sentence structure (challenged initially by another user is in fact perfectly sound. It is no different than a simple compound declarative sentence such as, "John was first in his class, and second in the school." Or "John finished first in his heat, and third overall in the race."

I appreciate your forbearance here, and look forward to working cooperatively again with you in the future. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your points, but I don't agree that they're actually an improvement in how the text reads. At any rate, we'll probably be discussing this again whenever I get around to improving the articles enough for a GAN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't use the term "Colonials" to describe the American side in this war. It's offensive. Tapered (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]