71.112.240.132

October 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have failed to make a persuasive argument to support your POV; instead, you have offered nothing but reflexive denial and escalating ad-hom attacks in response. Because this is all you apparently have, you've chosen to quickly dive for cover offered by the warning template. I wish I could state otherwise, but, there it is, for all to see. BTW, WP "Talk" is the furthest thing from *true* consensus; it's nothing but a fish tank limited to those those who feel inclined to jump in when the afternoon nap routine becomes a bore. "Consensus" you say? Don't be silly. For this (and other reasons), WP will always be more a source of entertainment governed by small-minded curmudgeons with cute little barnstar badges, than a reliable source of accurate information. Steamroll on, BilCat. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Cyanoacrylate, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

November 2021

Your recent editing history at Cyanoacrylate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:71.112.240.132 reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: ). Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It appears you feel that it is appropriate that you can freely edit WP articles without reaching a consensus, while denying others the same right (as you edited Cyanoacrylate to lock in British English, just two days ago) with the weak and incorrect claim hat DMY date format was exclusively of British usage and somehow, that meant that the article was always intended to be written in British English. And apparently lacking an argument to counter mine on the subject, you resort to this. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

---