Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 01:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you were even aware of this as you were not notified by me or anybody else, as far as I could tell. I raised a concern of sockpuppetry for another user and in my haste and confusion using the form I cut and paste your name from our discussion at my talk page, in error. I realized my error and cut and paste the correct ediotr's name but somehow your name was left in. I didn't realize it was still there and the sockpuppet report came back definitely confirming you are not DieSwartzPunkt. I must apologize profusely for that oversite as I have never encountered any bad interactions with you. I notified the SPI clerk of this and she said to delete your name from the list, which I did but there remians her statement that you too are definitely not sharing a body. I hope this has not caused any ill will between us and I regret this deeply. You do some nice work.

I would like to request something of further of you. When you do reverts or edits not to combine so many items into one edit. This gives other editors a chance to disagree with you or revert you edits in small chunks. I tend to do the same thing as it seems so many lines to do multiple edits. I have found the result is somebody doesn't like one word and the whole edit is reverted. There is usually some really good stuff that will stick in with the bad stuff. Now where do I start without an editwar? Just a thought. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed upset and lashing out at me. I would like to explain what happenned with the IPsockpuppet, in simple terms, without massive link research. You can check histories to verify this. DieSwartzPunkt and myself had a misundertanding about the consensus process on the Three-phase power talk page. He appeared disruptive and I called him on it. He felt I was disruptive also. Using an IP sockpuppet he placed a useless and unauthorized block code on my talk page. He also launched an ANI complaint against me using an IP sockpuppet address and the IP geolocate match many other disruptive edits in the same article. I reported the SPI to which he admitted he was at least one of the sockpuppets in question, also reporting that it was his mistake. He was instructed to be more careful, in future. Please do not attempt to disrupt editing and consensus by slinging mud in the article talk pages. You appear to be a knowledgable editor and I also know some shite and we can get some great article texts together. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Insult, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compliment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit convinces me – you have no experience of cycling, and yet you're still happy to edit way beyond the limits of your knowledge or research. This is not conducive to a good encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experience in cycling is not a requisite in encyclopedia writing. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either experience or prior research certainly is. You cannot possibly write about a topic you do not have any understanding of, and that you yet refuse to gain any understanding of. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My research doesn't indicate how his personal opinion on chain is particularly notable and I've heard is anecdotes. Where is reliable source that says it is notable to justify including that example? If we can't come to an agreement, we'll send it to RfC Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall Sheldon's opinions on chains – however that's not the subject of the section you keep deleting. Do you understand what fixed gear actually is? (It involves chains, certainly, but it's hardly "an opinion on chains") Until you do learn terms like this, it's difficult to see how you'll be able to make any credible or competent edits to such a topic. Fixed gear bikes are now a fashion item amongst many urban hipsters and their single-speed Apple MacBikes, yet it was Sheldon who was banging on about the things, pretty much in isolation, a decade or so earlier. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I buy your rationale that "noted" is an interpretation. The concept of notability is fundamental to Wikipedia and does not imply interpretation.842U (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I posted to Wikipedia:Third opinion, and another editor has chosen to help out on Talk:SHSH blob. If you're still interested, I'd like to invite you to join in with your comments as well. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and started a string on the edit-warring board. [5] CorporateM (Talk) 13:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DieSwartzPunkt could use some help putting together a new WP:RFCUSER on this subject. See here for details. I B Wright (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you finished providing feedback on the third opinion suggestions at Talk:IOS jailbreaking#Comments on recent edits? I saw that you didn't respond to all of it, but I don't know if you're planning to make more comments. If you're finished, I'll post to the third opinion editor's talk page to let them know that we're done with feedback. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello;

on the article page jelq you

a) removed ALL the listed references as "spam"

then

b) reverted the article to a redirect, to a page that DOES NOT EVEN MENTION THE WORD

without

c) discussing it on the talk page

in the time since i re-created the article, borth myself and another user have contributed to it, which suggests that i am not along in supporting the move.

your actions could reasonably be considered to be "bad form", particularly removing ALL the references. with all due respect, i would expect more//better practice from an experienced user.

if you feel a continued interest in the article (which seems to fall outside of your normal "range of interests" @ wikip), please contribute your opinions on the talk page. :)

respectfully,

Lx 121 (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CFORK. From reading the article, jelq, its basically another word for the article it was merged into. You undid the merger that was done years ago. having two articles over the same thing or substantially similar things using a synonym serves no purpose. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as i've already said at least TWICE now, the "merged" article DID NOT INCLUDE ANY USE OF THE WORD ITSELF (jelq), making it completely useless as a redirect. what exactly is an end-user supposed to make of a "redirect" that provides no information about the word they are attempting to look up? the "merged" article also did not (as far as i could find on reading through it), include any adequate description of the technique. Lx 121 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note to both of you: I've removed those "references", since none of them meet WP:RS, and nominated the article for deletion. If we can find a few references in RS that verify the existence of the "technique", then I don't mind having an article (though a merger discussion could be appropriate), but note as I said in the AfD that any info about the actual process or its effectiveness could only be added with WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cantaloupe, I have been sorry not to see you at the chiropractic article for a few days. I thought that you were doing a good job of improving the article there; I hope I did not play any significant role in your decision to move-on by mistakenly insulting you or frustrating you? So far there seems to be consensus for most of the changes that have been made over the past 2 weeks. I am still attempting discussion at the talk page for 2 concerns (neither of them are concerning your edits), but one of those discussions has stalled. I made a specific proposal at the talk page a few days ago that followed a more general 'parent' discussion. Today I tried to briefly summarize my remaining concern at the bottom of the thread. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you would review the discussion and provide your objective opinion on the issue. Also, do you think I am approaching this appropriately? Thanks and Regards! Puhlaa (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion and article and both painfully long to read to play around with it casually, so I just haven't been working on it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your concern that the discussion is very tedious. I tried my best to summarize my concern and the relevant discussion here, in hopes that I could convince objective editors to at least have a look at the issue. If you are not interested, then I can understand that as well. Thanks and regards, Puhlaa (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cantaloupe2! I thought this might be of interest to you: User talk:Dreamyshade#MicroStrategy - here's a software company that's placed quite a lot of promotional material in articles, regrets the mistake, and is now interested in seeing neutral editors improve those articles. I imagine this might be a fun chance to apply your passion for NPOV to some articles where the consensus is that they're currently problematic. The paid editor is going to focus on rewriting Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy, but there are other associated articles and edits that need to be reviewed too - see my COIN post and especially this list of affected articles. Just a thought; no problem if you're busy enough already. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll prolly look into it after ANI dust settles down. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you get a chance, could you stop by here and help tie up a few loose ends to resolve the safety section dispute? petrarchan47tc 04:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Live-line working, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OSHA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, thanks so much for moving the Adderall page so quickly, I have no idea why that wasn't already done. However, wouldn't a more apt name be amphetamine salts, since the plural in "salts" implies the combo? Additionally, this is typically the term used in medical literature. Thanks again. Exercisephys (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A priori, "amphetamine salts combo" may make more sense. However, I'm fairly certain that "amphetamine salts" is used significantly more often, at least in the US. I'll poke through more medical literature and see what it uses. Exercisephys (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In some restaurants, managers or owners take a percentage of servers' tips. In some restaurants, servers are asked to give a percentage of their tips to busboys and kitchen staff." Regarding the above two sentences, the requirement in Wikipedia is not that everything BE sourced, but that you should be able to provide a source. For example, you don't have to provide a source for "Paris is the capital of France", because it is well known that you could easily provide a source. Tipping out is not some obscure custom that only exists in the restaurants I worked at. Will get a source for these.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking for more reliable references for the tipping article. You are right that the student newspaper editorial was not in line with the NPOV requirements. I think I might have found some reliable references for the tipping article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coaxial power connector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connector (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you why you don't use a Workpage do complete your work? You would have all the time in the world, without this conflict. I want to restore material which has footnotes to published books and magazines, yet you make the bizarre accusation that this material is "personal blogs"? Published books and mainstream magazines are not personal blogs. Obviously. Whenever I encounter someone on Wikipedia who claims that up is down and black is white, the only solution I can think of is to seek a block at AIN. That seems terribly extreme for someone who just wants time to work on an article revision. That's what Workpages are for, so why not use a workpage and avoid the entire problem? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful when deleting external links, like you did here. The link you deleted was actually a reference, just not one formatted the way we normally do now. The footnoting system on Wikipedia is not all that old; before it was added to the software it was not uncommon to cite websites by making an inline link. When deleting inline external links, you have to first evaluate whether the link is actually a reference that supports the text. This is even necessary with new contributions, since inexperienced editors may not know how to properly format a web reference and may use an inline link by mistake.

Note that Wikipedia:External links (and WP:ELNO) explicitly does not apply to citations/references.--Srleffler (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CFORK. In the mid 2000s, this style was a common form of SEO tactic to generate leads and publicity by cross linking anything remotely relevant to the topic. If the same link can be found in "category", its not appropriate to blast it all over again in each article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point. This wasn't about the removal of the See also section, or about any large-scale cross-linking. Rather, you deleted one specific inline external link that was, in fact, a reference that had been created before the current footnoting system existed on Wikipedia. Before deleting inline external links, you need to think about what role they serve in the article. Links that are, in fact, references supporting the previous sentence need to be converted into proper footnoted citations, and should not be deleted.--Srleffler (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please clean-up the references section. Thanks --Frze (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will over the next few days. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gujarati cuisine may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• relatives traveling long distances to attend.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}} These days{{when?|date=August 2013]], sweets served as part of a ''[[thali]]'' are more typically made from [[milk]], [[sugar]], and [[
• * ''Bateta nu Shaak'' Curry)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hey, i am rather sensitive to and intolerant of CoI editing (feel free to check my contribs, of course), but getting into an edit war over the COI policy page is a sure way to poison the well, so to speak. talk it out, make sure everything is well-established and understood, and then make the changes. there is no other way. sometimes that's disappointing, but that's how it is. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and if your rationale and changes are good, i will be more than happy to vocally support your changes. but as of right now, insufficient talk/understanding. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That just appears to be another way of saying you'll lend hand to changes that you find agreeable. Note you said "changes" as "good" which appears to be subjective evaluation on personal value or perspective you intend on preserving. You say my argument in talk is "insufficient" yet you've only provided ambiguity and rhetorics devoid of any real argument on contents. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

institutions change slowly. I saw your changes and did not revert the first time, preferring to see if someone else did. they did. they acknowledged your good faith actions. but despite this, instead of engaging on the talk page you have seen fit to re-institute the changes that were reverted. for better or for worse, this is a community. if you choose not to respect that there are many people of good faith here, then i would not be surprised if your changes were dismissed entirely. i don't think i want that to happen, and this is why i am attempting to engage you directly. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey C2. Re the proposed merge I had put on Air conditioner inverter, that discussion was closed with no consensus, as noted on the Talk page there some time ago. That is why I removed the Proposed merge tag from the article, which you reverted.

Unless someone re-proposes the merge, that tag really doesn't belong there, as the link leads editors to a page where no active discussion is going on. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the point is C2, in order to avoid a revert war, which I absolutely refuse to get into with you due to your previous uncivil behavior, and generally disruptive editing on that particular article, YOU should be the one to revert your own reversion. No merge discussion tag is warranted in that article, since the previous discussion was closed with no consensus, and no merge discussion currently exists at the merge discussion link goes to. You broke it; you fix it. N2e (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on the article (tags). Per WP:TAGGING, Could you please specify your concerns on the talk page? Then we can discuss them, address them, and remove the tags. Thanks, I look forward to working together to improve the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official technical term is pay per click, not cost per click. --Jonhope123 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cantaloupe, your edits to the guideline have been reverted by six editors, which means your changes don't have consensus. The way forward is to start to argue your case on the talk page, rather than continuing to revert. Please see WP:BRD, and more importantly WP:3RR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 01:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cantaloupe2. You have new messages at UseTheCommandLine's talk page.
Message added 06:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

[ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed your recent interactions with User:UseTheCommandLine, and to me this warning seems to be exactly the kind of tit-for-tat accusation that featured prominently in your RfC. You should also be more careful about accusations of disruptive editing; for example here I cannot tell what "disruptive editing" you claim to undo; the link you removed in that edit had been in the article for years and was not among the links you had removed earlier that day. Since the admin closing your RfC suggested arbitration you should try and avoid this kind of behaviour lest matters escalate. Huon (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow the edit history? When you visit the link, you get

"Item Not Found Return to the Previous Page The item you've requested, /cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/1999/01/20/FD36414.DTL, was not found."

I located the identical page on the paper's page and replaced it with a good URL that works.

The URL was also in the page twice, as a reference, then as an EL. I thinned it down so that there is only one copy of it. What I was referring to as disruptive is the inserting back the OLD DEAD URL that does not work, and in incorrect format after a working one had been put in place Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except UseTheCommandLine inserted back a different URL, namely http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/17/FDBL1JVVMI.DTL&ao=all, one that worked and that you had already removed again in a different edit. Also, he did so before you added the working URL for the other article. So yes, I did follow the edit history. Huon (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Help:Minor edit:

When to mark an edit as a minor edit ...

• Obvious factual errors (e.g., changing "Nixon resigned in 1874" to "Nixon resigned in 1974")

Updating the count of stores and providing a source is, in fact, a minor edit. Note also that Help:Minor edit exempts edits that "differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable." It's a number. The number is easily verified from the provided reliable source text. Note also that inserting boiler-plate warnings onto existing editors pages is generally frowned upon. Better to write a personalized message if you find yourself in dispute with an established editor than to risk escalating the situation with a templated message. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the part about when NOT to mark as minor, which includes adding/removing sources, as you did. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding or removing "references", plural. I only added one. As an aside, that number was previously not referenced at all, I suppose I should have just left it unsourced. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree the changes you made are "obvious factual "like the Nixon example, or "a bicycle is a human powered vehicle with 20 wheels..". Something that is unambiguously wrong under any reasonable view. You should have just made the change as a normal edit and not a minor. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you'll have to live with disappointment then. As per usual, we disagree. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now you've resorted to following me about the wiki to articles you've never touched to continue your campaign. Please read Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. Stop, immediately. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article in which we're both editing contains source which references Walmart and the two articles are immensely related. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. If you're saying you refuse to stop, please let me know, WP:ARBCOM is right over there waiting for this. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" The edit you made to Walmart was about presentation of view on Winco. Therefore, I deny that the allegation you're making had occurred. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're WP:WIKILAWYERing. Stop it. You stalked my contribs for no good reason except to cause me distress. There was no violation of policy nor unambiguous error to be corrected that justified your action. I must take your responses so far to be indicative of your intent to continue to stalk my contributions; I will give you one last chance to say you'll stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these edits, my understanding is that you don't revert an edit if it is mistakenly marked as minor. Instead, you do a dummy edit. To edit war over something so minor (contextual pun intended) is silly. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some users have their settings set to ignore minor edit. This edit is so that the editor who did this can re-do the change as to not become hidden under the filter for editors watching this page and have the settings set to ignore minor changes. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cantaloupe2. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I looked through some of your recent ones. Let me make some random suggestions, if I may.

1. You've removed a lot of spam and COI; thank you very much for that.
3. My philosophy is that — if a page can successfully be deleted — I don't fix anything, I just tag it for deletion. Schrödinger (company) has only a couple hundred employees; it's probably not notable. May I suggest you tag it with {{notability}}. You can use Twinkle's handy drop-down menu, which lets you select "notability|Companies" with just a few more clicks. Next: WP:CORPDEPTH says, "Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." A "company snapshot" in the BusinessWeek "company insight center" is perhaps just a directory listing combined with a non-independent company description. The Portland Business Journal articles are probably mere local coverage. The journal articles seem to me to be merely of limited interest. I was hoping for coverage in media not merely of limited interest of circulation. If you search for evidence of notability and don't find any, then PROD or AfD would be appropriate. If an AfD of yours ever gets relisted due to lack of response, feel free to contact me.
5. Some of the other articles Gsmith8 (talk · contribs) has touched might also have notability problems: at least the Jaguar article.
7. My philosophy is not to warn COI users on their user talk pages at first: warning a user alerts them to the fact that you've reverted their edits. But if they persist, then I do tend to warn them. Warning them using warning levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 in order makes it easier to get them blocked if necessary. Watch out for sockpuppetry. Remember, if a user edits under a mixed combination of one username plus one IP, that's still sockpuppetry. Warn the user, then open an investigation if applicable.
9. The text you removed in this edit seems to me to have been true and correct. You called it a "personal reflection" and removed it; are you sure, in retrospect, that this was wise?
11. Why not use Twinkle? It makes article maintenance tagging and other tasks easier. If you do install it, I recommend you visit your personal Twinkle preferences panel and enable the CSD-logging and PROD-logging features. These features create logs like this one in your userspace.
13. WP:Popups is also very useful.
15. I tagged MarkMonitor with {{overquotation}}, which I feel is a good fit for the current problem there.
17. I've been recently experimenting with a custom tmbox about biased edits. You can see it at the very top of Talk:Army of Freshmen. It is CC-BY-SA + GFDL licensed, so feel free to do with it what you like. Eventually it should perhaps be made into its own template. It would be very unwise to use it on article pages. Since it describes future events; it only makes sense to use it on talk pages. I don't know whether or not it's effective in encouraging Wikipedians to fight COI edits, but I hope it is.

Personally, I like feedback and advice. Please feel free to provide it to me anytime. I have not watchlisted your talk page, so if you reply, please either use {{talkback}} or move the conversation to my page.

Cheers,

—Unforgettableid (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You wrote this about "inverter compressor article" we created few mounths ago : "A lot of contents were added by Danfoss PR editor to promote the technology to make itself look good which does not promote objective exhibition of inverter driven compressor in encyclopedic manner. The whole page looks like a sell sheet." So I want to answer to you that Danfoss is a major contributor and has close connection with the subject which helps having experience, knowledge and credibility. Variable speed technology applied to compressors exists for several decades and nobody did the article before. That is why we made the decision to write this article and to spend days on this. Other manufacturer write articles in Wikipedia related to technology. The aim of this article is not to be promotionnal. We refer to several articles which have varied editors. We are open to remove and modify what Wiki wishes if it helps to lift the blocking points...!!! So please answer, we are open to discuss about it and improve the article ! Thank You ! C Capucine (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  v/r - TP 18:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community block per the consensus here.--v/r - TP 18:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Andrew Dressels [sic] own CV advertising blog. This is Wikipedia How dare you put your own pic up as bike mechanic when all you've done is work in a bike shop for 17 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.42.194 (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hav [sic] a class one nutter attempting to lay claim to all the cycling entries. Rewriting articles to put your name to. adding a picture of yourself working(allegedly) on a bicycle. how can you claim to be a mechanic with a mere 17 months experience ?. Those like myself who pick up on this are then personally attacked. Walter Mitty without a doubt. Clearly the foundation should go the special extra mile and in a change of policy ban the likes of you and your opinions. Much of then [sic] are only that. Wiki is to be factual and you know little. I bet you haven't even got a bike you fraud 92.22.42.194 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

These comments must be from the person that used to edit under user:Cantaloupe2, right? Why else would they be inserted in this ANI notification section, be so full of typographical errors, and be so bitter? The change in the link to the old Administrators Notice Board discussion from "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cantaloupe2.2C_assuming_bad_faith.2C_Wikistalking.2C_misinterpreting_policies" to "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cantaloupe2.2C_hits_nail_squarely.2C_on.2C_its_head" is particularly hilarious.

Anyway, as to your "points":

• Do you know what is the required time for a person to work as a bicycle mechanic before they may be referred to as a bicycle mechanic? I haven't seen that spec. I suspect, however, that working full-time at a bike shop, drawing a paycheck from a bike shop, and lasting more than a season at a bike shop, would be sufficient.

• Do you know where it is stated in the wikipedia policies or guidelines that uploaded images should not contain the likeness of the uploader? I haven't seen that either. I do know, however, that the easiest way to have the necessary rights to an image, which seems to be the main thing wikipedia cares about, is to create it yourself, as by taking a photograph.

• How on earth do you construe "working on articles in which I have an interest" as "attempting to lay claim to all the cycling entries?" How do you think I have laid claim? By having my userID appear in the edit history? You realize that happens automatically, right? And if an editor edited many articles, in an attempt to improve them, for example, their userID would appear in the edit history of many articles. Is that what you mean by "lay claim?"

• I know enough. I know I need to find reliable sources to support the assertions I make, and I know I need to be civil and avoid edit wars with other users. I know it is not a good idea to edit under an anonymous IP address to evade a block and make baseless accusations against another editor in good standing on their own talk page. What more do I need?

• And now, the best for last: do I even have a bike? You'll love this part. Several of them are pictured in the appropriate wikipedia articles, because there isn't even a rule preventing editors from taking pictures of their own bicycles and uploading them. Can you imagine?

Cheers, enjoy your indefinite block, and be careful to avoid sock puppetry. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted this article as "pollution", which seems weird. Care to discuss at Talk:Power_inverter#Stand-alone_inverter_article? Slava Ukraini fellas (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]