User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Refrigerator may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • As a result it is common for these types of commercial refrigerators to have energy consumption of >4kWh/day.{{cn}}
  • * '''[∗'''[∗∗∗] : min temperature = {{convert|-18|°C|°F}}. Maximum storage time for pre-frozen or frozen-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Berlin Brandenburg Airport, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.  
Your edit here to Berlin Brandenburg Airport was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed ( is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the nature of the site linked, and the reasons for its blacklisting, perhaps a gentler warning template is appropriate? An editor unaware of their past history of self-promotion gets smacked awfully hard for linking to what is, by all appearances, a legitimate news website. (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


Broom icon.svg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! PureRED (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Polycarbonate edits[edit]

With respect to this edit references are good but a reference is not needed for a readily obtainable fact. (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid I must respectfully disagree. Every statement on Wikipedia is subject to verification; if an editor challenged a statement that the sky is blue, then a reference would need to be provided according to policy. (There are indeed four references for that fact on the sky page!)
In this particular case, an esoteric physical property like a Vicat softening point is both very unlikely to be known by the casual reader and extremely easy to find in a handbook. (I'd have cited the CRC Handbook if I had my copy handy.) By providing a reference, readers can be assured that the number hasn't just been made up, and can also learn what kind of handbook contains that data. Without a reference, you are asking other editors to take you at your word, when there exists a population of vandals who specialize in erroneous changes to numbers in articles and cover them up with misleading edit summaries. (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess I am too trusting of other editors. (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)