User talk:Plantsurfer

Synthetic element

Hello Plantsurfer! I think you can not put an image with colors not described! You should specify all the colors or remove them... What happens to Bi, Th and U, why they are orange or red? With love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.141.72 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Plantsurfer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

BOOKSPAM

See user talk:83.215.123.233#BOOKSPAM Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup, and my apologies. I have restored your edit Plantsurfer 20:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

No biggie, I probably should have made my ES clearer. But then, there were many instances, got tired and just started rolling them back. Apparently, this has been happening often. Per the talk page ten years, the anon was blocked one year. I just did a search on the ISBNs and there are still a few dozen that need to be gone through. Referred to as WP:REFSPAM... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Tin

Hi,

Thanks for offering input on Tin. As a general principle, it is usually not considered productive to revert on-going efforts to improve the quality of articles. If a concern is raised about a problem with an article and you disagree with how one editor addresses the concern, it is preferable to offer an alternative rather than just deleting others' edits.

Thanks.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war in Papaver Somniferum, including the destruction of an entire section, with sources from the New York Times and Washington Post

Your recent editing history at Papaver somniferum 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.