User talk:Lambsbridge

Reference errors on 9 September
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) 00:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Moldova–European Union Association Agreement page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=680275813 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ 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%2F680275813%7CMoldova–European Union Association Agreement%5D%5D Ask for help])

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement
I've rewritten it a bit more in the hope of clarifying without confusing. --OJ (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been edited a couple of times since, but definitely a good idea. It's easy to forget what needs clarification when you're really into something.  Thanks! Lambsbridge (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Help me!
I'm getting close to an edit war with an IP editor (no 24 hour rule violations, so I think we're technically good?). They keep editing the Accession of North Macedonia to NATO page to say that the UK House of Commons approved the relevant treaty on 16 October 2019. I've reverted a few times becuase that isn't true, and provided sources on the article talk page published by the UK parliament that show that they certainly didn't approve the treaty on that date, and that they generally don't vote on approving treaties at all. Despite trying to signpost my talk page post, I can't get them to engage at all - they just keep putting back the incorrect information. I think they're acting in general good faith, as they cite a Macedonian news article that suggests that supports their edit, but unfortunately this is an area with a lot of sloppy journalism - even when journalists are talking about their own country's legal ratification steps! I don't want to turn this into an edit war, but all of the dispute resolution mechanisms I can find either require discussion (which I can't get the other editor to engage in), a conduct issue (I'm not sure this is quite that), or both. What can I do to make sure the article stays accurate without engaging in unproductive behavior?

Lambsbridge (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * While the IP editor hasn't commented on the talk page, some other editors have. They provided suggestions on how to proceed, though apparently they haven't implemented them yet. If you agree with those suggestions, you can implement them; otherwise you can discuss the issue with those editors until you reach a consensus and then implement that. If the IP editor goes against that consensus, the page can, if necessary, be semi-protected; see WP:RFPP. Huon (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I see the other editors' posts now, although I could swear I've looked there since it says the comments were made, and I didn't see them.  I'll see if I can get that consensus now that there's some more people involved, and hopefully we wont need semi-protection.Lambsbridge (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Brownout (electricity" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brownout_(electricity&redirect=no Brownout (electricity] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)