User talk:Falconjh

Welcome!
Based on your user page I'm guessing the standard "welcome" template wouldn't be totally appropriate here. I noticed both your edits (the pages are on my watchlist) and am glad to see those articles getting some much-needed attention. So: "Welcome, and Thanks!" (sdsds - talk) 03:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Berry
You're welcome. Thank you for your help. --Rubbish computer 14:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Cloudberry
Thanks for your excellent twinkle. --Gazprompt (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Template:Infobox pepper/testcases page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=677958358 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F677958358%7CTemplate:Infobox pepper/testcases%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fingerling potato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scab. 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) 10:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Fresno pepper
Thanks for communicating. Any changes to best communicate the topic is good for me. --Fb2002 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Kiwifruit B Class
On august 28 you changed the rating of the Kiwifruit page to B Class, and the tag still displays C class. If you want the tag to display B class the check list needs to be added to the function call. To help I copied the check list that needs to be added and filled out below. 104.2.168.238 (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * b1 = 
 * b2 = 
 * b3 = 
 * b4 = 
 * b5 = 
 * b6 = 

September 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Honey. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are in an Edit war and in a gang, yes I agree; I have edited the talk page, have you? Falconjh (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are following this, you should note that all your reverts of me, also includes reverts on the Bible quote from earlier that you picked up so that you were also continuing a prior edit war from earlier today; hence what I said was in fact true. You should also note that, while my wording didn't stand, the substance of my edit did. Falconjh (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You said I was 'way beyond' 3RR. Howso? Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that I may have been mistaken, Zefr was took over for you previously, so that you might only have three and he three: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honey&type=revision&diff=683272471&oldid=683224776 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honey&type=revision&diff=683333195&oldid=683332699 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honey&type=revision&diff=683333510&oldid=683333352 are yours; Zefr has the remaining ones, sorry for not catching that earlier; not sure what either of you have against Proverbs 16:24, though. Falconjh (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have proposed a form of consensus wording about the effect of honey on cancer, on the Honey talk page; please take a look if you're still interested thanks 85.211.107.238 (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Honey. 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: 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.Best to get consensus rather than try and ram a disputed change. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Please stop putting these on my page; I note that you don't put these on Zefr's page in all his edit wars, of which there are very, very, very many, if you really wanted diffs... anyways GANG much??? Falconjh (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't see Zefr trying to ram a disputed change. And, BTW from WP:GANG "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil". You're wrong about it: Zefr and I (and others) just happen to agree on this it seems (aka "consensus"). Are you persisting in accusing editors here in meatpuppetry? If so please substantiate; if not please withdraw. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Restricting to just honey for a moment, one can look at the edits of Zefr and his reverts and reverts of reverts even from the last two months and note that not once have you "warned" him, ever. So yeah, substantiated; please refrain from warning on my talk page, if I violate an actual rule then take it to the administrators and I will attempt to improve; otherwise I really don't want to hear about it from you on my talk page, but on the actual talk pages of the articles where the issue at hand are the actual edits in question. (And where Zefr's level of communication is ...) Falconjh (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't substantiate coordinated activity between us, which is what you're alleging. Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean that you didn't catch my prior substantiation of tag teaming via circumventing of the 3RR for both you and Zefr on your prior warning? The acting as if you guys own the article? That this very conversation is harassment and intimidation tactics? If you continue to engage in these tactics I will be reporting this ganging to administration. Falconjh (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. A disappointing response. Alexbrn (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry that I am not intimidated by your harassment. 1RR Falconjh (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about this, Falcon. Something is awry. I also received my first of a never-ending series of this type of warning, and serious harassment, from this group of POV pushers acting in a gang (for me, it was a result of working on the "March Against Monsanto" article). WP:OWN is apparently not a problem anymore. Someone tried to write an essay about this very phenomenon, and it was fought over like you wouldn't believe. It went up for deletion twice, if not three times. It's author is still fighting the consequences of speaking out. So, I don't know. I retired for a year over this very thing. It's a quagmire. I have nothing to say except that, I'm really sorry about this. It used to be so much fun to edit Wikipedia.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reason I am involved at all is because an IP editor on Honey tried to make an edit that got reverted, I checked out the rationale for the revert and it didn't hold up and the more that I have looked at even what is on there the reviews are being misrepresented and MEDRS is being ignored in order to promote what apparently the editors involved must consider is "good science" and "not fringe" despite the fact that the very sources they are using are the ones that are undermining their position regarding wounds and coughs, and why there isn't mention of the cancer research despite the sources in the talk I don't actually know if there wasn't already an admin involved I would add it in, as is I don't know how to escalate it to get the right eyes on it, one of the sources is unquestionably good and directly on the topic of honey for that, yet nothing. It is one thing to say that the topic is Fringe when there are poor sources that don't match MEDRS, it is another when there are good sources and MEDRS is being completely ignored in order to keep what has been "deemed" fringe and compared to "magic" off of Wikipedia and the very sources that are being used are being twisted in order to say other than what they do say, then it isn't the research that is fringe any more, but the view that is being promoted. Falconjh (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you move this information to the Honey talk page in a new section - I've left a request here for more editors to come and take a look. It's always a good thing to have more people looking at the matter, otherwise we're more likely to be reflecting the bias of a few.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Carolina Reaper Crossbreed
Hi, I noticed that you have reverted my edits on the crossbreeds of the Carolina Reaper. I am curious why you have done so, since the source published by the Guinness World Records (Confirmed: Smokin Ed's Carolina Reaper sets new record for hottest chilli) states that the Carolina Reaper 'is a crossing between Sweet Habanero and Naga Viper chillies.' The previous citation used (PuckerButt Pepper Company Web site home page), along with other citations in the article, makes no reference to the crossbreed members at all, and certainly does not state the crossbreed being that of a ghost pepper and a red habanero. Doulph88 (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Logistically it is impossible for the Carolina Reaper to be a cross between the Naga Viper and anything as it took 10 years to breed the Reaper (from the very sentence in the article that you are using to make your claim) and the Naga Viper was an unstable hybrid only a few years old in 2011; the Naga Viper however is based on Ghost Chile, or Naga Jolokia, which is what the Carolina Reaper is attributed as being crossed to in such places as http://www.superhotchiles.com/carolinareapergallery.html and others. In terms of 'sweet habanero' that is more correctly the common red habanero, they are saying that it isn't a breed of super hot habanero like the Trindad 7 Pot Primo or anything like it.
 * Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Doulph88 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jalapeño, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salsa. 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) 09:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Habanero
Please stop adding "In English, it is sometimes spelled and pronounced habañero, the tilde being added as a hyperforeignism patterned after jalapeño." to the Habanero article, it is not sourced other than a footnote of the less common spelling. It is certainly not sourced information that it is an example of a hyperforeignism based on miss-association with jalapeño. Your passage uses personal (or at least unsourced) opinion to propagate/legitimise an incorrect spelling/pronunciation. Also please don't message me anymore with your assumptions on my language abilities, hopefully you have better things to do. 149.11.144.50 (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:StringFunc
Module:StringFunc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Carolina Reaper
I undid you on this before I was aware of the talk page thread, but I stand by my edit. Material accurately sourced to CNN and CBS is not WP:OR as you claimed it was, and your removal was most definitely not a minor edit. Care to explain?

Nomination for merging of Module:StringFunc
Module:StringFunc has been nominated for merging with Module:String. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:StringFunc
Module:StringFunc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)