User talk:Openshack

Don't get personal
You can revert but don't try being personal by calling me bad. WP: Personal is what your remark would fall under DragonofBatley (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually it was tongue in cheek but you didn't catch it. In one summary you said, "oops my bad", but because that was a revert of my contribution, I thought. "yeah YOUR bad" as in continuing to use the informal "bad" in its noun form, "my, your his bad, her bad" and so on. But to clarify, I never meant "YOU ARE" bad and I am sorry it came across like that, and just to reiterate, I never meant anything personal even in original summary. So I send unreserved apologies to you. --Openshack (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi yeah only just saw your post on the noticeboard. Yeah that's fine I accept your apology and I wasn't able to catch onto the noun bit. It came across like a personal attack. Yeah listen I know you probably mean well with your edits but to rectify a couple of small things:


 * 1: Bury isn't part of Manchester city centre. It like Bolton Rochdale and Salford has its own centre and coverage. The article does talk about it's proximity in the geography section but the town is seperate to Manchester city but not the Greater Manchester county which covers it and Manchester.


 * 2: Salford is a city and is the main settlement of the wider city of Salford. It is similar to Doncaster Milton Keynes and Colchester in being a city and it's district having city status. I did provide two sources rectifying the city part, including one about the history of Manchester and Salford.


 * If you wish to discuss these places further and such, I do heavily recommend talk page to help discuss and build concensus. Going out on a complete removal of content is extreme. The city issue was discussed a lot and it was agreed that both the settlement and district would use city as Salford isn't classed as a district but city from 1926 onwards with Ordsall and Pendleton.


 * I hope you can contribute more as I welcome new members to talk but when mass removing or reverting. It's always best to discuss before removal of established material and sources.


 * Thanks and happy editing. Also apology accepted DragonofBatley (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay for some reason I was somewhat confused about what Salford actually is in relation to the wider "Manchester" area. Back in the 2000s (noughties) we often chatted about it on the terraces of Old Trafford as the friends I had - half were Mancunian and the other half (like me) all come from somewhere else in the UK, and Man Utd are famous for their, shall we say "eclectic" origins of their supporters. One from Manchester, the next from London, the the third from Iceland, and, you get the point. So I won't make any more similar edits to Manchester-based articles. But one thing about me if I be allowed to say it. There really is "only one" of me. And I am not woke either. But to explain myself in a "woke-friendly" parody. I was assigned male at birth, and then when I was about 15 I came out of the closet and told my parents, "Mum, Dad, I got news, I'm Cis"! So I don't use terms "they" about single individuals. I know Wikipedia marches on an "all inclusive" crusade, but with the language perfectly adjusted to using "he" where gender is not known, "if anyone rings, tell him I'll be back at 8" etc, I think that to apply the so-called "non-binary" on a person until proven "one or the other" is a trifle bit over the top. Anyhow, thanks for accepting the apology and I am glad we're on the same page over Manchester/Salford. --Openshack (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
Your recent editing history at Solna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ponyo bons mots 19:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ to .-- Ponyo bons mots 19:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)