User talk:LinuxDude

3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Royal Canadian Navy. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And you feel my contribution to the article was vandalism? LinuxDude (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of sixteen hours for edit-warring on Royal Canadian Navy. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 13:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Factual corrections, especially verifiable ones, were made to the Royal Canadian Navy article. Essentially I corrected the notion that MARCOM is Canada's Navy today. A Navy is defined by definition as a nations maritime force. According to Canada's own National Defence act Canada's Maritime force is MARCOM. When Canada had a Navy it was the RCN (established in 1910 but dissolved in 1968. The problem is that many serving members informally refer to MARCOM as Canada's Navy, and have an understandable sentimental attachment to the term 'navy', however this is incorrect with respect to Canada's own laws. In this case, the ban is the result of emotive consensus rather than confirmation of fact. It was my 'reasonable edits that were being undone. I simply asked anyone who was reverting my edits to produce one piece of either official policy or governmental governance to establish that it was a formal policy to consider Canada's maritime force its Navy. What was instead cited was references to MARCOM's websites which used the expression Navy, but this again only shows convention, not official policy. I think this is one of those instances where 'truth' is being voted into existence.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

The original block was too hasty.

Request handled by: LinuxDude (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, LinuxDude. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Annales Ecclesiastici Titlepage.jpg

The file File:Annales Ecclesiastici Titlepage.jpg has been proposed for deletion 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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} 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)[reply]

Archives