User talk:Alterrabe

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --TheNautilus 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I notice you have a lot of interest in Otto Warburg. At Orthomolecular medicine, I've moved your Otto Warburg sentence into the early History and requested a citation. Since he is not well known to many in English speaking countries, several selected links or references in the sentence might be useful.--TheNautilus 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Saw your talk on the Nautilus's page. There are pictures available of Warburg at the History of Medicine The Stroll 04:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) I have no idea of the picture you uploaded, as it not posted on the page. I just put the code in the the page for his picture. You need to place the name of the image that you uploaded in the code at the top of the page,for the image to appear. Most of the images at NLM are in the public domain. I have only come across one questionable photo, and I contacted the photographers family, and all they wanted was credit for the photo. NLM has clarified the status of the images since I did this a number of years ago. Next to each image is a link that you can see if there is a copyright or any resitrictions. Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain. Click on "View Authority" and it will tell you if there is a copyright. I just checked all his pictures and there is no copyright. However, the NLM requests that credit be given to the library for the image. Hope this helps. The Stroll 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)The Stroll 16:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Started a Dean Burk article, left a stub. have fun.--TheNautilus 12:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dean Burk
FYI - HHS / NIH Press release 1/24/2007

--News National Cancer Institute

Positive results of a phase III cancer clinical trial in an uncommon form of leukemia were released today. The results showed that adult patients with previously untreated acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who had standard chemotherapy to induce remission of their disease, and then received the chemotherapy drug arsenic trioxide to maintain remission, had a significantly better event-free survival (more patients free of leukemia) and better overall survival than those who received only standard chemotherapy. The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, and was led by one of its Cooperative Clinical Trials Groups -- the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB).

NIH News ReleaseThe Stroll 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I need some help with the images on dean Burk's page. The Stroll 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Meet Fyslee

 * Re ,. Meet User talk:Fyslee, chief Wikipedia proponent (AFAIK) in/of Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, NCAHF articles and their various "interests" here. A critic of most things chemical, unless specifically blessed by Steve, frequent epithets for LP.  You just walked into Fys' pet POV fork from Hair analysis, which was blessed just the same way the Athenians persuaded Socrates to take that last drink, so he will definitely be watchful.  The closer you get to QW favorites and references, the more objective he can get.


 * WP:RS is a policy about what counts, and what is desired, as Reliable Sources at Wikipedia. Orthomed has been seeded with three very negative references, two containing, directly counterfactual or seriously misrepresented material, the other less so. Nevertheless, they are a testament to conventional "something", and Quackwatchers' might, that they are still so prominent despite a lack of peer review and being full of dated, biased, misrepresented material. I have not really pushed the issue to completion before, simply getting the worst POV out of new readers' faces (review the edit history, Talk & archives to see what I mean).  Fyslee doesn't seem to understand that Barrett's hair analysis reviews did not account apples to apples on techniques for interlab comparisons and variations before penning his condemnation(s), widely flaunted everywhere by QW et al as "quackery".


 * Fyslee apparently is claiming that the journal you cited is not adequately peer reviewed for the article & its author. But he makes mistakes and has bad hair days. WP:V defines a source that someone can verify. When these things occur, read the quoted policies, consider others that might apply, and then look closely to decide whether you are being smoked or bluffed.--TheNautilus 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I suggest to you both is WP:AGF. Shot info 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do assume good faith, even great faith, on the part of some other editors. This is a frank educational & familiarization discussion.
 * Alterrabe, the speedy PTC indicates this may be one of those "bad hair" (literally) weekends with Fys, you have to persist to exist here.--TheNautilus 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And I recommend WP:NPA. BTW, User "Fys" and "Fyslee" are two different users.  I suggest you use the correct name to avoid any unfortunate errors.  Shot info 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, was I talking to you (earlier, at the outset)? WP:NPA?? Jumping on an obvious contraction and familiarity as a source of error? Recognizing that a specific subject, hair related articles, might be drifting into contention? You are quite free to trawl elsewhere for business or stimulation.--TheNautilus 09:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, did not realise that the behaviour was similar hey I'Naut :-) Shot info 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Otto_H_Warburg_with_Warburg_manometer.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Otto_H_Warburg_with_Warburg_manometer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU ≈ talk 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS
Please review WP:V and WP:RS, which discusses who, and what, are reliable sources on wikipedia. Blogs (unless they are very specific blogs) and anecdotal evidence from celebrities, are not reliable sources. WLU (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OP
I've re-worked Orthomolecular psychiatry, have a look and see if there's any changes you want to make. Further discussion should take place on the talk page so other editors can see it. WLU (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC Orthomolecular psychiatry
FYI, I've put in a request for comment on the section we were discussing in December, on the Orthomolecular psychiatry page. It's on Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry. WLU (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Alterrabe, and thanks for your email. By a '600 page book by a Nobel laureate' you must be referring to the book by Pauling and Hawkins (1973). Though P. could be the most prestigious person to entertain OM ideas, that book is over 30 years old, and a lot of medical work of that era is no longer relevant. I was hoping for something more recent that is also scholarly. Otherwise the OMP article risks looking like a historical review of what was formerly thought. Are there any books by Abram Hoffer that you consider scholarly? EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS and quotations
Hi,

Have a gander at MOS:CAPS - section titles shouldn't be capitalized beyond the first word, unless it's a proper name. Also, I generally don't quote from sources if I can avoid it, most readers probably aren't interested in the exact p value, and unless the actual quotation is somehow important or controversial, I don't think there's much reason to include it. I had thought there was a policy, but all I've found lately is Quotations. Which I thought was deprecated. Knowing stuff like this makes it easier to integrate text without producing a jarring style and prevents most experienced editors from thinking you're a total noob - the hallmark of people's first 100 edits is usually the excessive use of capitals in section and page names. Thanks! WLU (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars
Hi,

Note that you normally put barnstars on user's talk pages, and they move it to their user page - otherwise they may not notice it for a long time if they don't notice it popping up on their watchlist (unlike a talk page, you don't get a message if your user page is changed by someone else). Thought you might want to know. WLU (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, that's not really a minor edit. These are wikiquette points which don't make a substantive difference, but it does help you understand and work within the community better.  WLU (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit of edit countitis
Hi Alt, I noticed this post had the comment 'I find it tiresome to deal with editors in whose eyes I seem unable to do any right' and thought I'd provide my ¥2.17 (at current exchange rates - CAD$0.02). Orthomolecular psychiatry is not a mainstream medical approach. Further, it was historically rejected, for arguable reasons. This means that it unfortunately doesn't get much traffic in what is seen as the mainstream medical sources. This makes it hard to write about on wikipedia, because it misses out on what is seen as the premiere references - scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. It's also controversial. On top of that, there's obviously some merit to at least some aspects and subjects of the approach. This makes it a very confusing issue for wikipedians to deal with, particularly given the extra mile required by WP:MEDRS for medical claims - something OMP and OMM can almost never meet because it's been so thoroughly rejected by mainstream medicine.

I can see why you'd find the endless challenges tiresome (and irritating, which you're dealing with admirably). In part, this is an artefact of experience - I've more than 16K worth of edits, Ed has around 6K, Fyslee 13K, Nau <700, and I think each of those numbers correlates with familiarity with policy and practice. I'm not saying that I am right (in particular, my citation of OR/SYNTH, my biggest sticking point on the page to date) and that you should fold before our terrifying well of wisdom, I'm saying that editors tend to converge on certain interpretations of policies, which may or may not be supported by the actual wording. There's also something to be said for editing thousands of pages and getting a gut sense of how most good articles are worded (and more, how specific wording can be attempts to write around content policies). I think you've got a sincere group of editors working on a difficult subject, and you're one of those editors. Just because you're working with other editors who have a lot of edits doesn't make them (i.e. me) right, so let's keep working to try to get a good page that accurately describes the subject.

One advantage that I think the three higher-count editors have is experience dealing with both sides of this kind of issue - trying to add information that is continuously challenged, and trying to alter or remove information that doesn't seem to work on the page for a variety of reasons. I find it's given me sympathy for both sides and makes me want to try to come to a good consensus that's in line with policy and the MOS as a result.

You do an excellent job of editing and justifying your edits given your experience, far in excess of what one would assume given your low total number. I hope the frustration doesn't lead to a departure. WLU (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cade?
Hi,

Regards this remark, I'm reluctant to give tacit agreement when I'm not sure what I'm agreeing to! I checked through your contribs history for the recent past and couldn't see anything relating to those letters (an acronym? A name?) but sometimes I'm dense. There's a little bit of dyslexia going on as well. Could you clarify for me so I can comment if warranted, even to say 'go ahead'? If you wish to be discrete, I do check my e-mail and can use that to look into what you're saying, even if I dislike responding about wiki off wiki. WLU (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewording
I was trying to reword the piece that contained the phrase "so small and the that with the odds of" into something that was a bit more clear and grammatical. The new version tries to make the same point but in language that is more approachable for a general reader. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Thanks Tim Vickers (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal
Really? That's weird, I did a preliminary scan and the wording was identical for the first sentence. If the WSJ is more comprehensive, we should use that one for both citations since it's almost the exact same information (doubtless both wrote the same article from the same Associated Press source) unless there's info captured by the USAToday citation. I'll replace USAToday with the WSJ article. WLU (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The way the article is used in the page, it justifies a single sentence "One scientist investing clioquinol theorizes that the cause of Alzheimer's is a copper and zinc buildup in the brain, and pursued and investigated clioquinol in the belief that it removed copper from the brain". There was a second sentence, but Tim removed it.  This sentence isn't even accurate according to either source as I read them, so I'll be re-wording.  However, based on my re-wording, there's no real difference between using USAToday versus the WSJ.  And while USAToday is linked to the magazine's website, the WSJ is a link of convenience to a plumbing company.  Given this, I think the USAToday is the more credible link and a better one to have on the page, particularly given its use.  Of course, it's possible I'm missing a key point to this, so feel free to re-edit.  WLU (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Horrobin
Hey Alt, is this a slightly dry-British-wit way of saying that BLP doesn't apply because Horrobin's dead? It made me chuckle :) WLU (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ascorbate
That AMA guide to alternative medicine gives a broad overview of all the forms of "nutritional medicine", as they say "There seems to be a continuum of beliefs ranging from promoting dietary supplements beyond the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs), to elimination or addition of specific foods to "treat" specific conditions." Yes, ascorbate is a substrate of ascorbate peroxidases, that's covered in the specific articles on this vitamin. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not all orthomolecular medicine involves grams of vitamins! That's the extreme fringe of the topic. Yes, I've heard of the warburg effect, but we now know that it is mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes that are the cause of cancer. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? The article on mutation explains the facts as I know them, but I'm sure that, to quote Mao, in alternative medicine "a thousand schools of thought contend". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pyroluria
Hi there, since this is not an accepted medical diagnosis, and no mutations associated with this hypothesised disorder have ever been identified, we can't describe this as a human genetic disease. Diseases such as gout and phenylketonuria, which are genuine diseases, can be treated to some extent by manipulating the diet, but this involves reducing the amounts of some nutrients and isn't anything like orthomolecular medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Genetic diseases seems unrelated to OM, since this is a form of treatment that does not use genetic tests to try to diagnose its patients as sufferers of genetic disorders. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility
I agree completely, has somebody been insulting towards you? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, in your post here did you mean "orthoolecular" or "orthomolecular"? Is this a term I haven't come across before? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment
Your argument is quite convincing, this could have been an honest mistake or erring on the side of caution. I've removed that point. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Slashme (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OM papers
Hi there, As I said to ImperfectlyFormed. If you need a copy of any paper please e-mail me through my userpage and I should be able to get you a Pdf. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular
Hi there. I've been trying to find a form of words that might cover the same ground as that pseudoscience box and be acceptable to everybody involved. I think most of the editors on the page would agree that OM isn't as unreal as homeopathy or therapeutic touch, but is obviously seen as not mainstream science. Could you live with "This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific." diff? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hal Huggins
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hal Huggins, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Basically non-notable person WP:BLP1E

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CultureDrone (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's better - the previous version of the article didn't really indicate notability. One minor point though - personally speaking, I'd rephrase the introduction to give more weight to his being an author of multiple works, rather than saying that he's notable simply because he's a dentist with controversial views - that's a dubious reason for notability at best. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

An appeal to your editorial skills in cleaning up article
I have added some source material regarding Hal Huggins' unscientific and unethical practices, which is the real reason his license was removed, to the talk page. Someone has tagged the article because of its multiple policy and style violations, and I'm hoping that you will show yourself to be a good enough editor to respect NPOV by cleaning it up and using the sources to provide the whole story. When that is done, the tag can be removed. -- Fyslee / talk 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that you and Fyslee have differing opinions on this subject, but you need to find a way to maintain your civility when discussing the subject. Just because you don't agree with criticisms about a subject does not make them "derogatory information or vilifications".  Please try to ratchet back the rhetoric in the future.  Shell    babelfish 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pfeiffer Treatment Center


The article Pfeiffer Treatment Center has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Unduly promotional.

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 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 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. Huon (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, I'm Toddst1. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Michael W. Mosman seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Federal Judge BLP Edits
Hi Some of your recent edits of Federal Judges Collyer and Mossman have language in a style that may not meet WP:BLPSTYLE for biographies of living persons. While it may be ok to cite Mr McCarthy's opinion (I will leave that to other editors to decide), it should probably be balanced by the citing of differing opinions. I have removed statements about the warrant application that cannot be verified from your edit. Since the released documents are heavily redacted it is impossible to make factual statements about their complete contents that reach WP:V and WP:BLP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger.chum (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Janice Turner
Hello! I noticed that you added unsourced information to Janice Turner relating to a controversy surrounding an editorial she made about Tommy Robinson. I reverted it because I wanted to steer clear of WP:BLP issues and also because numerous IPs had added libelous/biased content to the article also relating to the Tommy Robinson situation, though I am convinced that your edit was in good faith. Please re-add the information with reliable sources or discuss it on the talk page. Thank you. --Leugen9001 (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Hello, I'm Domdeparis. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tobias Ellwood, 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. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of twitter as a source
In your edit on my talk page you suggested that because the twitter account belonging to George Papadopoulos is a verified one that it could be used as a source on the information that you added to Tobias Ellwood's page. This I am afraid is not the case, as per WP:SELFSOURCE twitter can be acceptable under certain circumstances:


 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:


 * The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
 * It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
 * It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
 * There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
 * The article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

I have bolded certain parts to help make it clearer why you must not add this information based solely on a tweet. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * yes, you’re right. Alterrabe (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Martin Dempsey
In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles relating to living or recently deceased people
Doug Weller talk 19:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Pé de cabra moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Pé de cabra, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 20:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pé de cabra concern
Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Pé de cabra, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Pé de cabra


Hello, Alterrabe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Pé de cabra".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anatole Taubman


The article Anatole Taubman has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG fail - almost all of the roles seem to be small parts, not sufficient to pass NACTOR, and WP:BEFORE did not turn up significant reliable coverage of him in reviews or other sources."

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 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 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. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - Sanctions for biographical articles and articles related to complementary and alternative medicine
--Hipal (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Your recent editing history at Boeing C-17 Globemaster III shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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. BilCat (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Biggin Hill Airport
As you are no doubt aware, your addition of Category:Civilian airports with RAF origins was reverted. I've started a discussion re the scope of this category at Category talk:Civilian airports with RAF origins. Please feel free to comment there. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)