User talk:Heaviside glow

November 2015 newsletter
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – March 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – April 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Omphalitis of newborn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Umbilical vessels. 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) 09:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

History of agriculture
Hi, I see you've again inserted an item into the lead of what you agree is a major and complex article, when there is no corresponding item in the body of the article. The WP:MOS is quite clear about this: the lead is meant to summarize the contents of the article, and of course claims there are meant to be cited. The lead is (therefore) not the place to introduce new facts or claims. We therefore don't want to add "citation needed" tags to the lead - neither the claim nor the citation would then be in the correct place. If you want to discuss camels in the body, that's up to you, but the lead is not the right target. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I really don't see we need to argue about this, as the article is not using refs in the lead. What I propose to do is to move the ref to the article body, as for every other ref in the article, and we can mention camels in the lead if you insist. I actually think it's a bit strange, as camels have never been used for significant amounts of ploughing or other agricultural activity; though they have been used to provide milk and meat for the wandering peoples of desert regions. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As transport, they were revolutionary. Heaviside glow (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but that's transport, not agriculture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Still more important than alpacas. Nobody even knows what they are. Heaviside glow (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, either a McEnroe job or a severe case of otherstuffitis. I diagnose a need to go down the pub soonest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit war notice
Your recent editing history at Quinine 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. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Each of my edits are different and more than 24 hours have elapsed between them. Are you sure you want to escalate? Heaviside glow (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)