User talk:Martinvl

Hello, Martinvl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Stwalkerster (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Archives

/2009, /2010, /2011, /2012

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at [[1]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Alex79818 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions here are unacceptable. You cannot simply rearrange views like you did here to suit your own agenda. Others have contributed in context, and you corrupted the whole sense of the discussion. It is not fair to all those others concerned. MeasureIT (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formal WP:3RR warning. MeasureIT (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. I was mostly annoyed at his edit summary, which is typical of this person. When I left the note on his page, I knew he'd come back and say that you had moved the comments in the first place so he was innocent etc, so I criticised you in the note as well. I don't have a problem with moving the comments, just with him spouting bad faith all the time. Now that I've left that note, he has specifically not got any permission to move my comments, so he can't do it again. Thanks for the ANI heads up, cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you (Bretonbanquet) mean by "so he can't do it again"? I never moved any of your comments, that was Martinvl. I restored them to their original positions. MeasureIT (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeasureIT (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, why are you even bothering to speak to him? What you're writing will have zero effect on the way the SPI case is handled. You're just wasting your time. You're free to do so if you wish, I just thought I'd point that out. (FYI in England if you think a kid is lying you might say "you're telling porkies" to him) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at History of the metric system. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I notice that User:MeasureIT has requested that his block be lifted. May I draw to attention the following:

• I did not actually make a fourth reversion during the 24 hour period.
• MeasureIT failed to give me advance warning that he was placing a 3RR notice, just as

• he failed to notify me that he was this issue on the Fringe Theory notice board,
• he failed to notify me that he was raising the issue on the Original research notice board
• he failed to notify me that he was the issue on the Conflict of interest notice board.

• MeasureIT’s record on this article, such as the tone of language used in this edit had much to be desired, especially when he stated that he was restoring NPOV.

In short, since MeasureIT was doing all that he could to needle me, I was the victim and he the perpetrator. If you see fit to lift his ban I request that mine be lifted simulatanteously.}

Decline reason:

This block is not about another user. This block is about you edit warring. You have not substantially addressed this in your unblock request. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks for advice, in particular this subsection. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have raised questions about your recent edit to "History of the metric system" in the talkpage section "Talk:History of the metric system/Archive 1#Recent edit by Martinvl". Please, as I have asked you many times before, consider discussing your views there first, and attempting to reach a consensual agreement, before making further similar changes. Discussion is certainly more likely to be productive than is constant warring. Thanks. MeasureIT (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metrication in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chapel Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is of sufficient importance to have a section, then the contents of that section should be summarised in the lead per WP:Lead. It is also of benefit to those readers who understand usage such as kph to see it in the lead. Removing it from the lead might be seen as a POV action, as though there was an attempt to suppress such usage. We need to ensure that our articles give a robust appearance that we are not being selective about which common expressions we approve of! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry - sarcasm doesn't travel well and I should have been clearer! Apologies. All I'm saying is that we probably shouldn't say it's a credit card when it isn't, if only because it will upset sad people with OCD, i.e. me! I agree that a fifteen-paragraph explanation might be a bit excessive, on the other hand ... oh, I really don't know. Do you think there is some concise form of words that makes it clear somehow but doesn't actually say it's a card. Does "plastic card" work?? Sorry - not good editing from me. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reflection I think that your second version with quotes around it pretty much does that. I might just shut up now! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. When I photgraphed it, I deliberately avoided having credit card (privacy and all that). It was only when I blew the picture up (and it was too late to retake it), than I realised that the text could be read. I didn't know that my camera was that good! Martinvl (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Yes, it's a good sharp image. :) Nice one. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• Hi Martin. Well, we've been through this drill before.... GaramondLethe 20:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Arctic Kangaroo 07:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Martinvl. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 08:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Arctic Kangaroo 08:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the same subject, ... see M25 Talk page! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than reverting, whinging and throwing about bad faith accusations please come to these talkpages and discuss your continual insistence of adding unencyclopaedic content to these metric system related articles:

• Talk:Metric system
• Talk:International System of Units

212.183.128.236 (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested page protection at SPI. Garamond Lethet
c 22:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Garamond Martinvl (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection? To protect the page from what? What are you afraid of? 212.183.128.211 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid of wasting more time than absolutely necessary dealing with a banned user. Garamond Lethet
c 23:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all means argue your opinion on the content, but please don't persist with these ad hominem personal attacks. You may get yourself into trouble with the administrators behaving like that. 212.183.128.202 (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of the 3RR rule at International System of Units. There are discussions on the talkpage about that section, take the time to read, and digest, the opinions of others, and add ideas of your own. We should try to talk this one through, rather than attempt to impose our will. 212.183.140.4 (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 212.183.140.48 (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I've issued a couple of rangeblocks for DeFacto and his obvious socks:

• 23:00, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 212.183.140.0/26 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)
• 22:54, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 212.183.128.128/25 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)

It's under 200 IP addresses. I'm tired of dicking around with those. I'm sure he'll pop up again somewhere else since he doesn't seem to have anything better to do. Sad. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I am sorry if I inadvertently lent any credence to the silly copyvio claims at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Document transcriptions on lobby group_websites and elsewhere. And if you feel the UKMA links to these documents are a more reliable or permanent source, please revert my changes to Metrication of British transport. Kind Regards Mcewan (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mcewan, No problems at all - in fact I am glad that you found the citations - wheh I looked for them on the .gov.uk a year or two ago, I coulkd not find them, so I used the UKMA site. User:DeFacto has been hassling me for two years now so now this is one less thing that he has with which to hassle me. Martinvl (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of refactoring your comments on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto to make it easier to navigate to the appropriate pages. I hope you don't mind. Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - anything to keep him out of our hair. Martinvl (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just pinged Toddst1 re Bill lC. Garamond Lethet
c 21:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He doesn't really have a clue about the article he is trying to write. Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whacked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M606 motorway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hull and Halifax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martin, nice job on the road junction list templates! This is just a courtesy note to keep you informed that I fixed a couple of minor technicalities which I spotted with them and their docs. Best, 178.109.28.112 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martin. In the spirit of WP:BRD, with your Bold edit to introduce italics into the mile column of UK road junction lists having been Reverted, you should not change it back again whilst there is an ongoing Discussion. Wait now to see if there is a consensus amongst editors for such a change to be introduced. 178.105.26.216 (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was made on an old version of the page and reintroduced errors and bad use of bold/capitals, ref placements etc. Please be careful to work on the most recent version of a page, or place an appropriate template telling other users that you're making large changes. Also, if you now believe a consensus exists to do this, are you going to remove the colour code key from the footer of every UK roads list? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will be - I have already started. I am also making corrections to J2 as per Google maps. Martinvl (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, could you show me where the consensus exists to do what you're doing? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RJL Talk page (today's discussiopns) Martinvl (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the bit where you waited just five hours before starting your mission? Typically we allow discussions to go on a little longer than five hours before rolling out mass edits and modifications to the manual of style etc. What's the rush? Remember, there is no deadline here. Besides, the discussion continued after your declaration onto the possibility of using a template instead, which would have no ACCESS issues. Have you considered that? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this edit demonstrates that you are becoming disruptive. I notified you above that you had used an old version of a page to roll out your changes, and asked you nicely to be more careful. You weren't. If you continue to edit in this fashion, we'll need to discuss this disruption in more detail. And to think I defended you when Rschen7754 had mentioned Arbcom. Silly me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are the one who was being disruptive by removing a perfectly clear citation and then stating that a citation was needed. I use the word "clear" rather than "reliable" because the citation stated exactly how I came by that information, no more and no less. You have every right to question the reliability of the citation, but not its existance, especially when you deleted it. Martinvl (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're missing the point. Your edit removed a series of other edits by other editors. You need to be careful when you edit pages. Make sure you use the most recent edit. And I have no idea what you're talking about here by the way. What is this "clear" and "reliable" issue you have? You have made a number of disruptive edits, please stop doing it. By the way, if it helps, citations should be from reliable sources. Make sure you use reliable sources when you "reference" things. Although an editor of your experience surely must already know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me exactly which edits you are objecting to, and while you are about it, would you please also tell me why you reverted Gareth Griffith-Jones' work of 09:22?

• I know that I removed the coloured blocks - the general consensus of WP:RJL was that they should go (you might not be privy to this posting that I made in connection with the coloured blocks).
• I know that I corrected the destinations for the M3/M25 junction to reflect those currently displayed on Google Maps. Reverting this change is totally unjustified.
• I know that I reinstated my citation of 2009 and removed your "citastion needed" flag - I believe that your action here was unjustfied and I am willing to submit this action to arbitration.

In short, I think that you are the one who is being disruptive. Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? Do you actually read the posts you get? I showed you two edits you made which over-rode edits by others. The second was after a warning which you clearly disregarded. Stop doing it. Cheers. (FYI, I've reinstated the work that Gareth did (which you'd blown away in your first edit, as it happens), so bonus there, eh?!) Incidentally, with regard to your anecdotal "source", please do "submit this action to arbitration", it's nonsense, and I look forward to seeing how you could possibly defend it against our policies and guidelines. Obviously, it would be courteous of you to let me know when you instigate such arbitration. In the mean time, I'll start referencing everything I do with something like "sourced in situ" or whatever nonsense..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not blow away any of Gareth's changes. If you check the history of today's changes, you will notice that all of my changes were in the subsection "Junctions" while none of Gareth's were in that subsection. Martinvl (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you just over-rode all the other edits, most of them mine, as I demonstrated to you twice in diffs in this very section of your talk page. Stop disrupting Wikipedia. Let me know when you start arbitration. In the mean time, stop disrupting Wikipedia with your incorrect self-belief, your rolling out of a "consensus" after five hours of discussion, your inability to understand we have no deadline. Calm down. Slow down. Relax. We'll get it sorted, but it doesn't have to happen in 20 seconds. 20 days, or so is fine. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to use hidden notes in templates, at least ensure they show up on the pages you're using them on please. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. Martinvl (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're rolling out templates (without consensus I might add) with hidden notes. You are then not bothering to expose those notes on the pages in which you're rolling out the templates (for which you don't have any consensus). That means you have N1 etc, but no corresponding notes. This is very bad. Please fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit template:RJLUKhdr and tell me if the documentation is sufficient, or would you prefer a full example somewhere template:RJLUK for example? Martinvl (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit every place you're implementing your non-consensual templates and ensure you expose the notes to the reader. If you don't understand how to do this, perhaps you shouldn't be meddling with templates and rolling them out when you have no consensus to do so. And actually, hiding these notes away in templates when editors then need to add a bunch of other wikicode at the end of the page is really a bad idea. Consider what would happen if they already have their own notes which aren't using the same notation.... terrible idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are designed to automatically display notes that are relevant to distances only if the RJL has distance columns. Likewise, they are designed to automatically display notes if the carriageway letters are displayed. In this way, the reader is not exposed to notes that have no relevance to the RJL concerend. In addition, the editor concerned can add his own notes to the list of notes in the footer box if he so wishes. While applying the templates, I am checking for things such as other editor's notes - I have not come across any yet. I will cross that bridge when I see notes by another editor - whatever I do, rest assured, I will not destroy them.Martinvl

BTW, if editors wish to add their own notes to the structure, all that they need to do is to add the parameter notes = Y to the template RJLUKfooter, and if the RJL has incorporated distances, even that will not be neccessary.(talk) 18:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well the least you can do as you roll out these templates which have no consensus whatsoever is to implement the notes yourself. It would be unfortunate if, in the rolling out of these templates without any consensus, you fall foul of your own advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I have been doing. While rolling them out (and deliberately choosing minor motorways such as the A308(M) which get 12 hits a day as opposed to the M25 which get 700 hits a day), I have been tuning the templates quite a bit. I have also been very careful to ensure that at all times, articles will read sensibly. Martinvl (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this edit which was finally corrected by this kind edit? Hiding notes in templates is a very bad idea. And rolling them out without any consensus is worse. Please stop, find a consensus for your version of these templates before continuing on your one-man crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was an error in RJLUKfooter template which I will correct this evening. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can show anyone the consensus you think you have to roll out these new templates? Note, if you can't, then I guess you won't mind me reverting all these edits back to the previous status quo? Also, you have a number of answers to comments of yours at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. It would be useful to see you replying there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently preparing a document to get some proper feedback based on the experience I have gained on rolling out over the smaller motorways. BTW, I have fixed the M67 problem. Martinvl (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous. Looking forward to your responses at the MOS. By the way, you might like to fix your errors at A308(M) motorway as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, notes still not showing. Hence why you should not have hidden notes in templates. You've proved it perfectly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On my terminal everything seem fine. BTW, are you looking at the RJL footer? Martinvl (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On your "terminal"? How retro. No, there are no notes showing on that page. Once again, another example as to why you shouldn't be using hidden notes. Please reconsider. Alternatively, I'll undo all the RJL templates you've been implementing without any consensus. How about that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I can see them. Obviously nowhere near where normal footnotes go! Brilliant idea. Not. I suggest you remove this half-baked idea entirely. Footnotes belong in a footnotes section, not special hidden notes from templates being displayed in a hidden style in another template. Overly complicated and in no way beneficial to our readers. By the way, plenty of comments waiting for you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding the UK RJL templates to articles, there is no consensus to do so. You have many, many comments to respond to at the MOS page. If you try to implement these templates again, I'll remove them. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Château de Beaumesnil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry V and Beaumesnil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on M4 motorway. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Our other kid (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you blanked the template that is being used by so many pages, but I reverted your changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error on my part. I had copied it into my sandbox, corrected and tested the error, copied the corrected version back into main space and then in error blanked the corrected version, not the version in my sandbox. I have now reinstated my corrected version and double checked it against the article Pope Francis. Martinvl (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your good work was just undone. Perhaps you want to take a look. --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, thanks for the warning. Martinvl (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Martin! Thanks for that.
Sincerely,
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 10:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martinvl. I have opened a thread at ANI in which you are mentioned; you may wish to comment here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Your recent filing suggests that the main issues are editor conduct or behavior. If this is accurate, it may be best to close this filing and suggest formal arbitration. If you feel that there is predominantly a content dispute the filing may move forward. Thank you and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also failed to list User:Our other kid who made various content edits you disagreed with to the M4 page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

xx

User:Nilfanion is from the UK, before you go labeling everyone who does anything related to "our" RJL as American... --Rschen7754 06:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) Martin, why do you insist on keeping this subject alive? It's not doing you any favours, and is just aggravating people. Your DRN thread was extremely problematic, in that it focused on contributors, not content, so it was never going to go anywhere. You can try arbitration if you really want, but if you do that, the drama level will explode, so can I please, please, please suggest you ignore this subject and go and edit something else? We could really do with reviewers for Articles for creation submissions if that sounds interesting to you. Anything will do, really, as long as it doesn't have junction boxes. Oh, and Rschen, stop rising to the bait. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages. Its important to be able to work out who is saying what...--Nilfanion (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin,

I'm celebrating the end of the beginning of grant-writing season by getting back on wikipedia and putting my first-ever article up for peer review. Turnabout is fair play, so you're more than welcome to contribute if you find the topic at all interesting. If it's not your thing, no worries.

Best,

Garamond Lethet
c 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garamond,

I read the article - I am not really competant to make any comments other than maybe a bit about the layout - I recognise that often you have to make compromises with what you have, so maybe what I have written is being a little over-pedandic.

Martinvl (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M25 motorway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M26 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Generally the article is decent. It is simpler to understand than the main article (and sensibly leaves out most of the minutiae about redefinitions of metric units), but not by all that much, because (to me) metric system is fairly accessible anyway. I'm not very familiar with introduction articles and don't know how distinct they are supposed to be from their more complicated parent articles, but I don't see a whole lot of distinctness in this one. The difference between the two articles that struck me most is the detail about the definition of the second changing after they used solar eclipses to determine that Earth's rotation is slowing down. That's not in the main metric system article, which strikes me as odd—I'd expect parent articles to be more detailed than introductions—but not necessarily "wrong".

I'm not sure what you mean by "whether it is worth developing", but in terms of quality the article is a solid start, and the main thing I wonder about is whether it's distinct enough from the main article to justify the effort. A. Parrot (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A. Parrot

Thank you for your comments. I think that at the moment the "Introduction to" articles are still developing - my rationale abpout including the earth slowing down in the "Introduction to the metric system", but not the main article is that this is a concept that could be understood by the non-scientific readersip - using that level of detail in the main article about all the base units woudl result in a huge article. Martinvl (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martinv1, sorry I invaded your space. I've answered your message on my page. EdithLovely (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martinvl, I just reviewed an article you nominated for GA, Metric system. The comments I left regarding this matter can be viewed at this page: Talk:Metric system/GA1. Please let me know if you are finished before 1 week from today. Regards, --12george1 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy- Thank you for reviewing my nomination for Washington to become a good article. I wasn't sure with your decision- are you placing the article on hold or quick failing it? If you are placing it on hold, could you be a little more particular with the problems. Thanks again! PrairieKid (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prairie Kid

I have had to fail the article. May I suggest that once you have fixed the problems that I have identified (too many lists) and dead links, that you resubmit for peer review and wait for a review before you submit for GA status. I saw the article in the peer review section a few weeks ago but real life prevented me from reviewing it. Martinvl (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't want to create a stub for du Toit (if someone else wants to: Have a look at the sitelinks of Wikidata item Q1401026), like I don't want to create a stub for any of the other key people of the Genootskap (the article counts eight founding members plus one "spiritual father", du Toit just being one of the founding members). But the current linking is incorrect: VIAF does not have an entry for this organisation (or at least what I had removed was not this entry), it just has an entry for this person. We do not have any personal information about du Toit in this article, and there's no reason to link his personal entry here rather than the entry of anyone else. --YMS (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually resurrected an old entry for du Toit. IMO, it should never have been removed. Martinvl (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I just asked a question over on WP:RED about personal names. As an editor of this guideline if you could help me find an answer I would much appreciate it. Thanks. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from calling references advertising if they are certifying that 'Stephanie Weller' the teenage model and beauty brand owner is actually from Fleet. Many editors are fed up of your constant reverting and you will be blocked and reported if it is to carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashikotchneva (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am her agent but I'm no fool. I'm in the middle of writing her article at the moment actually and once I have, I intend to put her back on the list but if it makes you happy then I wont use her business website as a link :)

Under Wikipedia rules, people (or their agents) should not write their own articles, the rationale being that if they are notable enough somebody else will write the article in a neutral manner, if they are not sufficiently notable, Wikipedia does not want the article. Before spending more time on the article, may I respectfully suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Autobiography. The latter also applies to an agent writing an article. I also suggest that you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today to see the sort of grilling that articles get. You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, in particular the section highlighted by the shortcut WP:NOPAY. Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that you search for her name on Google - ignore anything in Facebook, LinkedIn and You-tube. Also ignore her own website. Check to see what is left. That is the material from which you can build an article. I did a trial run and I found no relevant material. Martinvl (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re this edit, I apologise if my recent proposals have caused you undue stress or paranoia - that was not at all my intention. I'm not actually a newbie - I have been operating as a mere IP address for many years and only decided to create an account because certain functions, such as nominating articles for GA, are unavailable to unregistered users (which is also why I have jumped right in to proposing stuff despite my apparent lack of article space edits). I'd be happy to go through the check user procedure if it would put you at ease (if this is something I am even allowed to request). CurlyLoop (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CurlyLoop,

Thank you for your posting. There is no need for anybody to request a Check User procedure - it is time consuming and the now-banned editor who is behind the trouble seems to have found a way of IP-hopping thereby making a Check-User irrelevant. Martinvl (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.106.95 (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today the discussion was closed against having any UK-specific derivations in RJL. Please undo your revert. --Rschen7754 06:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion that I saw was about coordinates, not about UK-specific formats. Martinvl (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to see [2]. --Rschen7754 06:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read that and I have posted a request to Nathan Johnson to reconsider his analysis. Martinvl (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were 10 supports and 2 opposes. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting "no consensus" from... can you enlighten me? --Rschen7754 06:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proposed redefinition of SI base units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, this wasn't a neutral notice. Please don't do anything else like that, because it risks compromising the RfC.

I'm trying to understand your strength of feeling about this, but failing so far. To my eyes (admittedly, completely unfamiliar with these issues), the table for the M5 in the current version seems clear enough. Or is that not the main issue?

It's worth noting that the page says (bold added): "When creating or editing junction lists for a particular country or state, check with an appropriate road-related WikiProject for that region. The various projects may have adopted practices or preferences regarding some of the optional provisions presented below." And the MoS main page says: "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

This means that, if the style changes were to cause inaccuracies on any article you had written, you could object to having them imposed on that page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi SlimVirgin

Thanks for your posting. Please look at:

• this version dated 27 April 2007. The comment was "(moved Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Exit lists): moved out of WikiProject space per User talk:Northenglish#WP:USRD/ELG) (thank)"
• The article for the British M1 for the same date.

Anybody can see that the two articles a poles apart.

Now look at M1 motorway#Junctions. Quite clearly the layout of this Road Junction List has been developed from the version of 2007 which followed the British pattern. Martinvl (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think discussion about statistics and summarizations are completed, and you can put back or review the "Numerical summarizations" section. --Krauss (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - I disagree with the sentence "Summarizations based on statistical methods, however, are original research by synthesis, as they involve the reinterpretation of data." Statistical methods do not, in my view, always involve reinterpretation of data. That sentence is therefore misleading. Without the bit on how to handle statistical data, the entire addition loses its core. Martinvl (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war on Fahrenheit. Leave the article as is until the discussion on the talkpage (which you have contributed to) has reached a consensus. Dissimilar name (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we need to discuss objections here or here, or conclude/vote here, thanks. --Krauss (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the metric system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quadrant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I had to block your account for 24 h for five reverts within 24h in History of the metric system. Whatever you cause is, please ALWAYS discuss it at the talk page rather than edit war.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

For the record, I disagree with this block, given the fact he was reverting an obvious ban-evading sockpuppet and had previously taken all the appropriate steps to have the socks identified. Wasn't his fault if no admin could be bothered to process the SPI for several days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let us finish the ANI discussion, as a result, I may unblock them.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked you, but, given that this is not your first block for edit warring, in the future, please discuss rather than edit war. Even if you are completely convinced you are edit warring with a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 965 AD, King Edgar decreed "that only one weight and one measure should pass throughout the King's dominion"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Imperial and US customary measurement systems. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great northern tilefish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article International System of Units you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of FishGF -- FishGF (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've added an External references section in the article Kilometres per hour, that you considered could be spam. This was not the desired effect as it can be useful to readers of that topic, it adds value and it has been clearly added under the External Links section. Having an External links section or External Reference section is a common practice in other articles that It had also been positive to my browsing experience on previous occasions in different articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.9.124 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion packages such as the one that you added are two-a-penny on the internet - why should your particular package be preferred above anybody else's? Martinvl (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article International System of Units you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:International System of Units for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of FishGF -- FishGF (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martinvl, I see that you are making sterling progress with the points I raised in my review. However, I thought, after reading the message sent on my behalf above, I had better point out that, regardless of what that auto-generated message above implies, I put the review on hold prior to completing it because of the poor and incomprehensible state of the section about the United States. When that section is fixed I will continue the review - there is no promise of a pass yet - I have yet to complete that review and a review in respect of all the other criteria. FishGF (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article History of the metric system you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of FishGF -- FishGF (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Martinvl. You have new messages at Talk:Hectare#File:Comparison_land_area_units.svg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 19:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion in your last edit related only to hand held flags. See the article Royal Standard of Scotland for the references confirming such. Regards. Endrick Shellycoat (can't log in). 217.43.209.130 (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wuppertal Suspension Railway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the easiest way to avoid non-free images being deleted from userspace articles is simply to comment them out by placing a colon in from of "File" whilst they are not in article space. Otherwise they will be deleted; a bot creates a list of non-free usages outside articlespace every day and someone will usually come round a fix the problem. Having said that, I don't think that particular image passes the criteria anyway; we don't really need the cover of a book to tell us the book exists (it would be reasonable in an article about the book, but here it fails NFCC#3a and NFCC#8). Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the book cover. Otherwise I will be removing it again. Werieth (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it, but if you see it there again, it is because I am working on the article and am making a set of related changes in various parts of the article. I would rather do have a dozen edits in my own space than in article space, so do not ever edit my user pages without my express permission. If in doubt, ask an Admin to do it. Martinvl (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt work that way, if you need to use an image for formatting you can use File:Example.jpg for formatting purposes. I often go in large removal sweeps without paying attention to who's user space Im removing it from. NFCC#9 isnt something that can be ignored, When I see violations I remove them, Period. Werieth (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One day you are going to burn your fingers badly, especially if you do supplementary edits at the same time. Martinvl (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International System of Units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meridian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martinvl, excuse the intrusion, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to have an obsession with articles and topics associated with or related to the metric system. Your relentless, even ruthless, quest to promote that system at every opportunity, even in defiance of sound and logical argument, leaves me wondering if you have a conflict of interest here. Would you mind putting the record straight and confirming in unequivocal terms whether you are, or have recently been, a member of a group or an organisation (such as USMA or UKMA) that campaigns in aid of introducing the metric system into the US or UK. Before you answer, note the contents of the section entitled "Campaigning" in the above mentioned WP:COI, which states that 'activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest.' R.stickler (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you are know on three reverts at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Please do not revert again, or you may be reported and blocked from editing. Kahastok talk 07:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to have a look at my latest suggestion to use in Falklands-related articles the WP:UNITS as per non-science UK-related articles. Just to say although I would still support my original metric then imperial stance I can also see that this thing will keep going round in circles hence my compromise suggestion. Would appreciate your comments and understand at some point we need an agreement but this would align the article with UK use and remove discussion to a more general forum. Also please forgive some of my ignorance on the players in the game and the history of the dispute. MilborneOne (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Martinvl. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Your relentless, even ruthless, quest to promote the metric system at every opportunity, even in defiance of sound and logical argument, followed by you ignoring my gentler approach above, led me to place this template. R.stickler (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the record straight on this request as your actions and contributions very closely mirror the agenda of at least one campaigning organisation. R.stickler (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kahastok talk 21:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article International System of Units you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:International System of Units for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. FishGF (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzEdit (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Systems of measurement. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page for the article and retract your edit to the article. I though we had settled it, as three of us have worked it out and agree that it is exactly 2 ppm less. If you don't get that answer, you are not using a correct method. note that 1/0.999998 is not 1.000002 so the direction of the comparison is critical to it being exact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHart93 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you seem to have some sort of metric above imperial measurement thing going on. That is up to you however that doesn't mean that you have a right to revert miles first to km first especially when it goes against WP:MOSNUM, which at United Kingdom it clearly does. Also your attitude at Talk:United Kingdom quite frankly is poor and has only elicited a similar attitude from myself in response to your attempts at being a smart-ass. I will desist from responding anymore in like if you would be kind enough to stop as well. Try to argue your point without trying to be condescending. In regards to square miles first, at the talk page I pointed out one highly notable, and you'd expect to be credible source that does it so: Encylopedia Britannica. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long, I had suspicions but couldn't put a finger on it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I guessed it when he put the first message on my talk page, but is seems to me that DeFacto has sussed out that CheckUser returns negatives if the sockpuppet only works on pages that have not previously been worked on by the sockmaster which is why I did not file a SPI complaint. Martinvl (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit my comments on talk pages without permission. If you want me to move my comments, go to my talk page and ask. I believe that this edit substantially altered the meaning of the comment, something that you are not allowed to do. Kahastok talk 19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I do not believe your statement closing this RFC is an accurate reflection of the consensus, and I do not believe that you are an appropriate person to close it as you were the one who opened the RFC. Could I ask you to reconsider the close? The alternative is to ask for review as per WP:CLOSE. Thanks, Kahastok talk 06:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not re-open closed discussions/sections - that's not how ANI works, you do not get to specify sections where only you can post. GiantSnowman 11:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make a FINAL warning about a) WP:DISRUPT and b) WP:EW. More of that crap on ANI will lead to a block. ES&L 11:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) FYI, I am an administrator. If you re-open the section again then you will be blocked for disruption. GiantSnowman 11:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user rights of a user can be found via Special:ListUsers: e.g. to determine GiantSnowman's rights: [3] NE Ent 11:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea to have checked my alternate account while you were at it too [4] ES&L 11:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It won't have made any difference, he made his final revert after I told him I was an admin. GiantSnowman 11:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for repeated disruption at ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

GiantSnowman 11:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

An accusation of misconduct was made against me by User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) at here. WCM went on to enter into vote-stacking to back his case. I made a perfectly reasonable request that the ANI request be closed without further comment to his actions. Since the so-called community discussion was turning into a Ochlocracy, it needed some structure to it, otherwise in would be extremely difficult for an Admin to make a fair assessment of the situation and there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice against me. I therefore put a structure in place to ensure that my defence was not lost in a WP:wall of text.

• Please look at my complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Defence by Martinvl. Please also note that I made this request yesterday, but to date no Admin has seen fit to action it, in particular my allegation against User:Wee Curry Monster of vote stacking. Please note that without the structure that I was proposing, this perfectly legitimate request would have been even hidden from a casual check by an Admin.
• Please compare the ease of navigating around the ANI from an administrator's point of view with and without the heading that I added.

I am sure that you will find that the headings make it much easier for your to find your way around and to ensure that the accusations made against me could be handled in a fair manner. This is explained further in the response that I made in the section “Defence by Martinvl”. I look forward to:

• The ANI in question being closed without further comment on account of vote stacking by Wee Curry Monster
• The 48 hour ban on me being lifted.
• A reminder being sent to User:NE Ent, User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:Beyond My Ken that in future they should not take matters into their own hands so quickly. In this instance they have unwittingly been aiding and abetting vote stacking.

Finally, you wrote "It won't have made any difference, he made his final revert after I told him I was an admin." For the record your posting was made at 11:12, mine at 11:13. I had not read your posting stating that you were an Admin before I posted. Had I realised that, I would have changed track immediately. In practice, the one minute difference between posting times can mean anything between 1 second (1st posting at 11:12:59, 2nd posting at 11:13:00) and 119 seconds (1st posting at 11:12:00, 2nd posting at 11:13:59). Therefore, this was a case of "letters crossing in the post". Martinvl (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; the block expired days ago yet this request is still showing at WP:RFU. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It doesn't really matter - your behaviour at ANI, as well as your comment that "Had I realised that [you were an admin], I would have changed track immediately", implies that you would have continued to edit war with non-admins. GiantSnowman 13:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, "the person reverting me was not an admin" does not appear to be one of the valid exemptions from being blocked for edit-warring. Is it a new addition that I am previously unaware of? ES&L