Sb pete

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Sb pete, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!  DoctorG  (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Artillerie-Inrichtingen has been accepted

Artillerie-Inrichtingen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

June 2018

Your recent editing history at MAS-36 rifle 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. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

On another note just came across this which appears to be hounding an editor you disagree with and is disruptive. Please don't play tit for tat because you don't agree with something another user has done on another page. It can often be seen as a violation of policy as the goal would appear to be making editing unpleasant for another editor. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Cameron11598, I hardly think it was an edit war. Rather it was a case of the worst form of wikipedia editor. One who takes issue with another's sources (in this case, mine) and deletes their entire work rather than discussing it. Then keeps doing so in the face of good faith attempts to make the citations meet their interpretation of wikipedia guidelines. They also did this clearly without reading any of the content, merely attacking sources in an ad hominum way. Not attacking them as being wrong or malicious, mind you, but for being "not to standard." This in spite of one of those sources being a museum and others being published magazines and journals. I tried to engage in a conversation with that individual, but simply had my work deleted in its entirety. And at no point did I simply revert their changes - I made good faith efforts to address their stated issue, but again had my work deleted and then my account threatened. It is editors like that one that result in situations like the museum curator I spoke with about the edit in question who refuse to allow their photographs to be used on wikimedia because of malicious editing. These sorts of self-appointed wikipedia edit police are, frankly, a cancer. Sb pete (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Freikorps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)