User talk:Ace of Aces12

March 2022
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! — &#123;{u&#124; Bsoyka }&#125;  talk 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

May 2023
Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, USS Yorktown (CV-5), 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

SS Badger
Please see MOS:SHIP. We don't change articles back and forth in that manner without consensus. In the long term, I would expect the use of gendered terminology in relation to ships to be phased out in keeping with the rest of that section of the Manual of Style.  Imzadi 1979  →   10:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * “Phased out?” Pfft, not as long as sailors sail ships. Ships have always been referred too with female pronouns since the age of sail. In fact, many will get quite offended if you refer to their ships as “it.” Also, read that page, I don’t believe in that “gender neutral” nonsense. Ships are “she” and nothing will change my mind about that. Ace of Aces12 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here, see for yourself. This ship is linked in this article and is referred to with female pronouns. Almost every ship article I see follows this pattern. City of Midland 41 Ace of Aces12 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:SHIP, the pronouns in an article should be left as they are and not changed just to change them without consensus. Please do not continue to change them without a discussion that arrives at a changed consensus. Additional flipping just to flip them will be considered disruptive editing and may make you subject to loss of editing privileges.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ships
See MOS:SHIP. Please don't change it once established, and please read the talk page concerning "allison." It's not a misspelling.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I honestly didn’t know about the meaning of allison, so I accept that. But ships are always referred to with female pronouns and it’s a way to separate her from the bridge, which is referred to as “it.” Ace of Aces12 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Ships are not "always referred to with female pronouns." Just sometimes, and usually in an anachronistic sense. Please read the MOS on this - see MOS:SHIP, and stick to the precedent within the article, the same as we stick to whatever national variety of English is in an article, and don't change without good reason.
 * As far as "allision" goes, yeah, it's a bit of a pedantic distinction that's at odds with common usage, and I'd never encountered it either. But it's not a misspelling, and it's even bluelinked so you can see what it is. See the talkpage discussion.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
Your recent editing history at Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse 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; read about 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''You are already over WP:3RR. Please stop editing immediately and discuss on the talk page.'' Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)