User talk:GeeTeeBee


 * Older discussion can be found under User talk:GeeTeeBee/Archive 1

Canadian Military Pattern Truck
Are you comfortable now about my intended change to Empire? Waiting on you. If you have any doubts I'd much rather you explained your concerns more fully so no more reverts. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep the discussion on the article talk page — not here. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, came here because you had gone quiet. I see, looking at said talk page, you still need to get a better grasp of the subject though. Eddaido (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "I had gone quiet" ? — B.S.! — You had gone quiet since 7 May. The last post in the thread, at the moment you started this section here, was by my hand. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

General Motors
General Motors built three major tactical trucks, plus commercial models. You know CMPs. The Chevrolet K4100/7100 series is very close to the CMPs. Same "stovebolt" engine, axles (GM built their own "banjo" axles), you know vendor parts.

The K7100s are basically 2-axle GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6x6 trucks. The CCKW has a larger Stovebolt. Early CCKWs had Timken "split" type (obsolete) axles (like the Ford CMPs), some later ones used the GMC banjos. And a quarter/half of CCKWs were built at a Chevy plant in St. Louis.

Three major types are so close that they could have been sold at the same commercial dealer. The CMPs have ugly cabs and single tires (more on them later?). The K7100s kept the standard commercial cab, the CCKWs switched from the same commercial cab to the (Studebaker designed) open model. Mechanically any "wrench" (mechanic) can walk up to any model and use the same tools to change the same parts. The only real difference is the CCKW's tandem rear axles.

Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You wrote a lot about the difference between the properly standardized Ford and Chevy CMP's, versus the half-baked Dodges on the CMP talk page — stuff I'm fully aware of, and I'm not happy with the current compromise on that article page. My request to the other editor, to include a citation to the book he mentioned, has gone unanswered thus far .. If you want to edit, jump right in — you're far more knowledgeable on trucks than me, and you ref too. I always start from the WP:BOLD principle, so anyone else is free to do the same. I've ordered a copy of Pat Ware's book — waiting for it to come in the mail. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Jim Allen
Is there some conflict of interest you'd like to get in the open? There seems to be some history of adding promotional material for Ray Cowdery from this account. Adding links to unrelated links to other wikis looks promotional; please explain. Kuru  (talk)  14:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been stalking GTB recently and I am sure that there is no COI. GTB buys books, they do not sell them. If they use something it is because they like it, NOT because there is any financial advantage. Maybe RS, but not any COI.
 * I believe your entire post was rude, accusing, and probably insulting to someone who has done a lot of good-faith editing recently. Sammy D III (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's great to hear. Walk me through the addition of the external links at Jim Allen (4x4 writer), Steven Zaloga, David Doyle (writer). Given that they're repeatedly linking to an re-creation of his recently deleted article on an open wiki, on articles that have no direct relation to the author, I'd like to hear the logic. Kuru   (talk)  15:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that he has a COI by linking to other things he has done for profit?
 * David Doyle wrote the best source I have ever had in its field. GTB also uses it. Doyle has also published tabloid crap, but he has published a lot and is very knowledgeable. 100% RS. GTB has absolutely no connection with Doyle except as a customer. And as an article creator for a RS author that he thinks is important.
 * I looked back a little at Jim Allen. Some "See also"s to articles that existed and an outside link that doesn't work. I assume that Zaloga is similar. EDIT: Jim Allen, David Doyle, and Steven Zaloga are all respected automotive authors who have published work on Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, and "Jeep" 4x4 trucks. All three often cover the same vehicles and components.
 * Why so negative? Could trying to stretch crappy sources (this editor usually has excellent ones) be mistaken for a COI? Have you checked their contribs? Good faith?
 * What does this editor have to gain other than views on good-faith articles? Sammy D III (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be more specific, as your response does not seem to be linked to my question. My objection was to the addition of external links to an external re-publication of GeeTeeBee's now-deleted article on "Ray Cowdery" on the three articles listed above. If there's a small group of niche editors who want to create articles about their favorite marginally-notable authors, I really don't usually care. In this instance, the persistence of promoting their (GeeTeeBee's) self-created material looks problematic. Hence, a request for information. Still looking for an answer. Kuru   (talk)  18:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "to articles that existed and an outside link that doesn't work".
 * I now see that you two are edit-warring, I am here about COI only.
 * You are still talking about crappy sources, not money. You have it circular, using Wikipedia to source Wikipedia, but COI? RS.
 * Damned with faint praise, by the way. Can you see us down here? Sammy D III (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, (slow head shake). Another one of these pompous old-timers. They appoint themselves more important than anyone else and take off on some crusade. Demand that people defend themselves from accusations that have no basis in fact. I don't know what their success rate is, but when they get it wrong they are unable to accept their mistakes. They say "it's your fault that I was suspicious of you and attacked you for my own personal reasons". Probably some personal insults to show how much more important they are than you. They simply can not bring themselves to say "oops, sorry". Common decency...

What? The microphone is "hot"? Sammy D III (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You're right, I am having trouble seeing you through that haze of indignation. I'll try again. This has nothing to do with "crappy sources". The material I removed was an addition to the external links section of an article; not a reference. These links are expected to be on-topic, and to include material that adds to the depth of an article. In this instance, the link was added to several articles without any explanation. I removed the link with the summary of "unrelated" or "not clear how this is related to the topic". In the case of Jim Allen (4x4 writer) the link was again added without comment, then removed by me without comment. I queried here, looking for an explanation for a clearly mis-aligned link. Often, this occurs due to some random COI - not a financial COI, but maybe a buddy who also likes the same topic matter. The previous pattern of edits joined with a link to his own self-published material indicate that there is some deeper issue that I'd like to understand, instead of edit warring.


 * If you're capable of supplying this rationale it would be pretty helpful since he hasn't, but spare me the invented drama and "old-timer" conspiracy drivel. Kuru   (talk)  22:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that this is called a tangent, when you steer the discussion away from the original topic. The topic here has always been whether there was a COI. I have always been talking about money. "buys" "sell" "financial advantage" "profit" "customer". You just threw "maybe a buddy who also likes the same topic matter" in, but it doesn't matter. The editor almost certainly doesn't know any one of these authors without Amazon.
 * Nit-picking about sources, refs, and links is just more distraction. I don't care about them other than how they relate to COI. I personally don't think that Doyle should have an article, but I know that these links/refs/sources give GTB no advantage outside of Wikipedia.
 * That post was "queried"? "Often, this occurs" "previous pattern" "indicate" are your subjective opinions, not facts. Whether they were valid or not is immaterial, they brought you to a false conclusion (even if it was only "may have") that you will not acknowledge was an error. You rudely call the editor a whore and will not apologize for your error. How can you possibly think that GTB is shilling for these established authors?
 * Why should GTB answer your demand for them to defend themself? Don't pretend that post was polite. They have every right to tell you to... Not answering might be the polite thing to do. They could be just laying back, chuckling, waiting for the dust to clear. Remember, they know who I am.
 * I am going to stand behind my "Sigh, (slow head shake)..."hot"?" post for now. You can easily prove me wrong, the words are "oops, sorry" (to GTB, of course, not me). Sammy D III (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * None of this is a tangent; it's the precise reason for the question. "Almost certainly", "profit", "financial advantage", "customer" are your own suppositions explicitly introduced to support your position that this is some kind of irrational persecution.


 * Your claim of "nit-picking" is my similar way of avoiding your own deliberate attempts to confuse the question. I don't care about your talking points of which authors are reliable sources or "respected automotive authors"; I care about the action I questioned. "Shilling" and "whore" are more of your own inflammatory inventions. Common decency, you say.


 * While I'd love to continue, let me try a different tack. I've re-read my initial comments, and I can see that I started with wording that looks like an accusation, and was far too terse. I apologize for that. I'd still like to understand the reasons for adding that link, as above.  Kuru   (talk)  03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that last paragraph, pretty much what I was looking for.
 * Please read my first reply and the first sentence of my next reply. That has been my only position, that GTB was not doing anything here for money. Again: That has been my only position, that GTB was not doing anything here for money. Anything other than GTB taking money (or friendship somehow) has been a tangent to me. I think you are trying to pull me into your (plural your) links and I don't want to go there.
 * Thanks for talking. Sammy D III (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Tommy Robinson (activist)‎ that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 07:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Notification
--MONGO (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Your recent editing history at Collapse of the World Trade Center 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&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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. David J Johnson (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You appear to be trying to promote a textbook used in a single university as a major source of - something to do with the collapse of the WTC. We can't tell what it says about the subject, and it is presumably a book whose primary subject is a general treatise on structures rather than a specialty book, since you call it a textbook. Please stop edit-warring it into the article, and please start using the talkpage to explain why it should be included, possibly as a significant dissenting point of view. Right now you've made no case at all for inclusion. One book used at a university that appears to include some passing mention of the topic of the article is a bit scanty, and in any case it must have received significant attention in mainstream secondary sourcing to make it a significant dissenting view.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sfetcu
Per recent discussion at the reliable source noticeboard, Sfetcu is not a legitimate author, these books are scraped from Wikipedia content. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, at least on your second scrape you distinguished between Sfetcu and Cowdery. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rolls-Royce Limited, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goldfinger ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rolls-Royce_Limited check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rolls-Royce_Limited?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution
In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template after your citation. I have done so for Lend-Lease. 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) 20:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lend-Lease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Expeditionary Force ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Lend-Lease check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Lend-Lease?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Renaming of categories
Please see my proposal to rename categories Category:Military vehicles 2010–2019 etc Hugo999 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Crumple zone into Mercedes-Benz Ponton. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Land Rover Discovery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rover ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Land_Rover_Discovery check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Land_Rover_Discovery?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Front-engine, four-wheel-drive layout, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Differential ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Front-engine%2C_four-wheel-drive_layout check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Front-engine%2C_four-wheel-drive_layout?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and deprecated sources
Hi there, I've reverted your edits to Stella (solar vehicles) as you failed to provide a reliable source. Please note as per the several linked discussions here, the Daily Mail is not an acceptable source. Continuing to reintroduce this in spite of the consensus is considered edit warring. Praxidicae (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me, but when Wikipedia's own rules start to become somewhat contradictory, it also begins to become difficult to adhere to them.
 * My starting point is always the five pillars, including WP:5P5: "there are no firm rules". Please read it, if you're not familiar with them.
 * Another leading guideline for me is to be WP:BOLD. Considering this popular news source has printed the cited number twice, and it has sofar gone uncontested, I gave it the benefit of the doubt, and included a "better citation needed" tag for good measure.

--GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
 * Thank you,, for awarding me a barnstar, in recognition for these contributions !
 * Might I inquire by what procedure barnstars of this type are appointed to wikipedians ? — Do you, for instance, have the authority to award this unilaterally ? — Or was this decided through a group discussion, and did you act as the chair or spokesperson of a committee of any kind ?
 * I greatly appreciate this token of recognition, but I find it somewhat arbitrary, compared to other contributions I made to Wikipedia, since I joined in 2007. So I'm just curious. Can you shed some light on the barnstar awarding process for me ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rear-engined, front-wheel-drive vehicles


A tag has been placed on Category:Rear-engined, front-wheel-drive vehicles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello, I'm Ahunt. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Monocoque, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Four Year Plan
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Four Year Plan. 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: 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. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2021 (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.
 * I;ve started a discussion on the article's talk page. Please stop edit warring and make your arguments there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Volkswagen Kübelwagen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kübelwagen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US military utility vehicles
Template:US military utility vehicles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cavalryman (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US Mil. Support Rides WW I–WW II
Template:US Mil. Support Rides WW I–WW II has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cavalryman (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hilary Doyle moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Hilary Doyle, is not suitable 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.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Irish military historians


A tag has been placed on Category:Irish military historians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Irish military writers


A tag has been placed on Category:Irish military writers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Hilary Doyle
Hello, GeeTeeBee. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hilary Doyle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Hilary Doyle


Hello, GeeTeeBee. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Hilary Doyle".

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! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Fordson/Ford Thames
I got in a stupid fight with some rookie deletionist about Ford UK trucks, of all things. Everything Thames seems lame, the Brits could use some help (not me). Just a thought, no need to answer. Sammy D III (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yaw.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2022 (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) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roads_in_the_Netherlands&diff=next&oldid=1112155932
Hello GeeTeeBee, noticing your revert, imho the bot didn't do anything wrong here, seems like there is some consensus of having these  ’  replaced by  ' all over Wikipedia. :-) Lotje (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Lotje, I thanked you for your edit on 8 Jan 2017. Rather late, I admit -- ;-) -- But it has nothing to do with the 24 Sept 2022 edit by Citation-bot. -- The only reason why I reverted that edit, was to be Able to revert the deletion of 20,298 Bytes (litterally HALF of the entire article !), in the 22 Sept edit, preceding the edit where the bot did its work. Regards, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

22 Dec 2022
I think the last sentence, "I must reiterate...re-added", is largely for you. They're still talking down, but I think some is just formal Tower-talk style. They're not shouting. Good luck. Sammy D III (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of David Doyle (writer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Doyle (writer) 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 Articles for deletion/David Doyle (writer) 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 until the discussion has finished. SWinxy (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Jim Allen (4x4 writer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jim Allen (4x4 writer) 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 Articles for deletion/Jim Allen (4x4 writer) 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 until the discussion has finished. Schierbecker (talk) 00:38, 6 August 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Bognor (carmaker) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bognor (carmaker) 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 Articles for deletion/Bognor (carmaker) 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 until the discussion has finished.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)