User talk:LinuxDude

Archives
Archive_1 Archive_2

Odd. Since I was blocked for reverting edits in the Royal Canadian Navy - the Canadian Government apparently agreed with me and renamed Maritime Command back to Royal Canadian Navy agreeing (implying Royal proclamation). Some fickle elements of the Wikipedia community may have successfully gotten me blocked but I have ultimately been vindicated. LinuxDude (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For using an IP to avoid 3RR, and for refusing to discuss the issue when asked, and continuing to revert. A civil response to my first reversion and addition of a reference would have been to add an edit tag questioning the edit, not reverting agian. - BilCat (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is using an IP to avoid 3RR. I always edit from the same IP.  Wikipedia logged me out and I didnt' realize it.  WRT 3RR, I removed factually incorrect information from the Royal Canadian Navy article.  Someone asserted that MARCOM represents the Royal Canadian Navy today.  Although this mistaken believe is common within Maritime Command, it is not supported by either government legislation or CF policy.  When asked to cite a reference, someone pointed to a navy government website, which is neither legislation or policy.  Again, serving members have affinity for Canada's Navy, but in fact, and according to the National Defence Act of 1968, Canada doesn't have a navy, and Maritime Command is merely the maritime component of the CF.  Also, and more interestingly the Royal Canadian Navy article acknowledges that the monarch is the Commander in Chief, who declared the Navy Royal, if some Canadian government policy established that Canada still had a navy, it would still be royal.


 * No problem, I've struck the part ab out IP's out. But you now over 3RR - this applies whehter or not your edits are the "correct" ones. Being "right" doenn't grant immunity from 3RR. You need to stop reverting, and try to gain a consesnus on the talk page to support your version. - BilCat (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes but it was MY correction, that is being undone (for the 3rd time). The 3RR rule does not prevent an article from being edited (its not to preserve the state of an article as is, in other words).  Rather it prevents an edit from being undone multiple times. In fact it is you who are breaching the 3RR. My edit was done in good faith to improve the factual correctness of the article.


 * I've only reverted you twice, and I stopped after your warning. And I'm sorry, but that's not a correct interpretation of the 3RR policy - the only exemptions are for reverting genuine vandalism. Proceed at your own risk. - BilCat (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And you feel my contribution to the article was vandalism? LinuxDude (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No. 3RR doen't prevent reverting, but it's intended to prevent edit warring. Two reverts are frowned upon, and one can be blocked for it if an admin thinks it was provocative or the like. But reverting over 3 times in a 24-hour period when vandalism is not involved is considered edit warring, whether you're upolding the "correct" version or not. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The 3RR rule is also to encourage others to 'improve' edits they think need improving. I don't see this happening here in this article.  I know people associate MARCOM with the RCN, and have asserted this is convention not policy, yet no one has bothered to refute that assertion with facts.  Likewise no one has taken my edits as they stand and corrected them or improved them.  I am happy to go to 3RR arbitration. LinuxDude (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good luck then. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not counting on luck, I'm counting on verifiable facts. You weren't quite even handed or honest when you wrote up your citation either. LinuxDude (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I most certainly was. Did you edit war against four editors? Yes. Did you violate the 3RR? Unquestionably. Where was my report out of line? Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the later edits where I left the contentious line stand, albeit with additional amplifications? Did you also point out that I was contributing to the article rather than simply restoring "what was".  No matter.
 * This edit summary by The Bushranger adequately summarizes the problems with your subsequent edits. Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked for edit-warring on Royal Canadian Navy. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Appealing a block. --  tariq abjotu  13:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Scythians. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

LinuxDude (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC) I wasn't done editing. I was in the process of adding citations when you reverted my edits. Furthermore, try to refrain from jumping to the conclusion this was vandalism until you see the edits being made (though I recognize it happens much at Wikipedia). Trying to reflect more recent scholarship in an article isn't vandalism.

Proposed deletion of File:Annales Ecclesiastici Titlepage.jpg


The file File:Annales Ecclesiastici Titlepage.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused and low quality"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)