User talk:Trackteur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome Trackteur!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,335,195 users!

Hello, Trackteur. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Jax 0677, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't vandalize   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks   Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

AJM's advice to new editors

• Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
• Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
• Search for the right place to put it.
• Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
• Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
• Be aware
  • that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
  • that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

• Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
• Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
• Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
• Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
• Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
• Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of formatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
• Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
• Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Amandajm (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop messing up the Grand Prix articles

Stop messing up the Grand Prix articles. The history of these articles have to be structured in a way that goes through history. What you're doing- organizing the articles in such a way that it lists the circuits used doesn't work, and the extent of the mess you've made is really quite impressive, I must say. Some of the titles you've used with nearly all of the individual years listed are also way way way too long as well. So you've been warned- if you do anything like that again, I'm reporting you. Try me, and you'll find out what happens. --Hmdwgf (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really impressed with the quality of your message. Cordially. Trackteur (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you're so funny. Hilarious- a genuine gut-buster. I was going to post this section before you posted that sad attempt at wit, but edit conflicts, oh how they annoy: Another thing- I believe you have tampered with these articles in a similar manner some time ago. That's right- I remember that. No one cares what you think these articles should be or what your feelings are towards editing- because they are not good or constructive edits. Once again- you've been warned. --Hmdwgf (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I will still not respond to your nonsense. Cordially. Trackteur (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal issues aside, you just did, and I don't want a response from you, just don't do anything like that again. This kind of thing has happened before in a similar manner and it's not appreciated. And you won't be able to respond to any person's nonsense if you keep doing the wrong things- you'll be banned. I hope you're gracious that I'm telling you that- the other edits you've done to other articles are constructive and good- unlike many, many other users. Also- try to keep your same edits to a minimum- you have a tendency to make a lot of edits to the same article in a small amount of time. --Hmdwgf (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop conducting an edit war. It can get you suspended from Wikipedia. If you have an issue bring it up on the relevant talk page, like Talk:Italian Grand Prix and discuss it. Please do not try and force your edit into the article, the back and forth can go on foever and the editors just get banned. Talk it up on the talk page. It is what it is there for. --Falcadore (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, the discussion is open. Cordially. Trackteur (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's hard for anyone to believe those intentions of yours when you were still edit-warring with Falcadore. That's a very frowned-upon practice not just on this wiki, but on any wiki on the internet. --Hmdwgf (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see and read our opinion here , Talk:Italian Grand Prix.. Trackteur (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You might find some help here

Some reading for you in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Specifically WP:OVERLINK and WP:LINKSTYLE might help your understanding of what should and should not be done. --Falcadore (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Your edit of the Mark Webber article on 24 March 2014, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Melbourne3163 (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I have removed some of the links you added to the Mark Webber article on 24 March 2014 as it constitutes over-linking. The guidelines regarding linking to other articles is to limit to one time in the Infobox and once in the main part of the article plus in tables if helpful. There is more information in this article: Wikipedia:OVERLINK. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to International System of Units 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:

• The system has been [[Metrication|adopted]] by most countries in the developed ([[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]] (OECD) world, though within English-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If I made ​​a mistake, thank you to cancel. Trackteur (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Operations Management

Did u even bother reading the operations management article? The pictures were next to the paragrafs they refered to. That's pretty standard on wikipedia, see history of physics for comparison.Lbertolotti (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, this may be a problem with my drive, with your other example history of physics I have no the same problem. Cordially. Trackteur (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help_desk#Issue_regarding_Images_and_textLbertolotti (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I just move an image file and now it is ok. Trackteur (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem now is that paragraph related images are way down from the paragraphs they were supposed to assist, I'll see if someone can solve this problem at Wikipedia:Help_desk.Lbertolotti (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, if you think that my modifictions are not good, do not hesitate to remove. Trackteur (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well actually I opted for using the gallery feature, see if the page display is better now.Lbertolotti (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I saw your change immediately canceled by a nasty contributor, I will cancel the change because now there is no more image file. Trackteur (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

See that Wikipedia:Help_desk#Thinkers_pictures_on_main_subjects_pageLbertolotti (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Please stop re-adding the portraits of people, to Operations management as they add nothing whatsoever to the readers understanding of the subject, as has already been explained to you at the Help Desk. Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Operations management. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Don't keep adding the pictures without discussing it. Several editors have agreed that they are not needed in the article. We don't need pictures of every person mentioned in the article. Meters (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think they have a point, it's better to focus on expanding the history section with more detailed information and cover more historical milestones, and then when the history section is filled with more text, we can consider re-adding some thinkers pictures, so that the operations management article can become more similar in format to general subject articles like economics or sociology.Lbertolotti (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Automotive industry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sell (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) 08:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the message, I was not aware of this error, this is rectified. Trackteur (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Signpost

Hello! Trackteur, You are invited to subscribe to the Signpost, a community-written newspaper about the English Wikipedia and larger Wikimedia community. Please join us! Herald 14:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chevolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alberto Gutiérrez (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) 08:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at United Kingdom. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at United Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NebY (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 16:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hill of Tara

Just because the article is entitled Hill of Tara, doesn't mean that all links to it must be worded that way. piped links to preserve the readability and flow of a sentence are perfectly acceptable. If it is to be worded "Hill of Tara" it at least needs a definite article, but in the context of the article "Tara" is better. The article is titled "Hill of Tara" to distinguish it from other things called Tara, but the settlement is usually referred to simply as "Tara". --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Palo Alto Unified School District may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• was the president of [[Indiana University Bloomington|Indiana University]] and Stanford University]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Prohibition shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You have been repeatedly warned about edit warring. The message does not appear to be getting through. RashersTierney (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendations. Cordially. Trackteur (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Igneous rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cooling (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) 08:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendations. Cordially.Trackteur (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Manual of Style

I would ask that you please read the Manual of Style that articles need to conform to. Your edits to Prohibition have unfortunately been in contravention to the MOS, which in itself if fine, but you keep reverting other editors when they restore the MOS versions, which is not so fine. Additionally please use edit summaries on all your edits as per Edit summaries, almost none of your edits leave a summary forcing people to go into them to figure out what has changed when a summary would allow people to know what the edit was about. Canterbury Tail talk 10:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendations. Cordially. Trackteur (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Lorenzo de' Medici

What makes me think I'm being followed? Amandajm (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

May be, you have some fantasies, I do not know exactly what the problem is. Trackteur (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Trackteur; - try with some patience. Some of us do love our shares of field historic nicely plowed, without too many patches of foreign crops for disturbing the sense of good day's work achievement. Wait sometimes just a day or two, do not please exceed your involvement without enough of a good reason for tales. --Askedonty (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi! I see you're fairly new here. Everyone knows it's hard to get started, so well done for sticking at it. I'd like to draw your attention to WP:BRD. If you make a change to an article and it is reverted, your next step is not to make the same edit again; that's called edit-warring, is generally frowned on, and if kept up can lead to trouble. Instead you can start a discussion on the talk page of the article and try to persuade other editors that the edit you want to make is a helpful one. If an editor has explained in an edit summary why your edit is not a good one, as I did at Florence, you can quote that as a starting-point for the discussion, and show why it is wrong. In that particular case, I've started the discussion for you, though it really isn't important enough to be worth discussing. Anyway, please take BRD to heart. Good luck, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the advice now that you have opened the discussion page of this article, expect further notice as you required. It's me who proceeded to rename the article Uffizi in Uffizi Gallery. Thank you wait until the end of the discussion before undo a new time this last change. Good luck to you too. Trackteur (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and undid it. I suggest you wait until you have a lot more experience here before you move any more high-profile pages without discussion, as you did with both Uffizi and Crimea. You can request moves at WP:Requested moves, and try to persuade other editors that your ideas are correct; you'd need to make a strong case for either of those two. There's a lot of advice to you on this page; please try to take notice of some of it. You don't want to get to the point where your edits are seen as WP:Disruptive. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Michelangelo: David

Please don't move pics that are above the line. It is done in order to fit the pic in, without creating a huge break underneath the image, or pushing a major heading out of position. If you are editing on a vertical screen, you may not be aware of the layout problems that occur on wide screens. I'm very particular about layout, and generally try to avoid gaps. It all becomes mor difficult when the image, like the statue of David, is tall. There is a problem which the MOS for picture layout does not address, because the instructions are devised very simplistically for absolute beginners. Amandajm (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, I do not have a wide screen and I moved just to put it in front of the relevant section. Trackteur (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

When positioned under the relevant heading, it has the effect of causing a great big gap in the text. That is the reason it is above the content. It is a matter of being pragmatic. It can't be optimised for a vertical screen, so it is made to work as well as possible on an ordinary laptop. Amandajm (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Washington, DC

Please stop making non-grammatical, awkward edits to Washington, DC. I've had to change several back in the past few minutes, having already raised at least one of them on the Talk page. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You really need to ease off on that article. Your most recent edit, removing "President" from a sentence discussing George Washington, removed an important piece of contextual information, and with no explanation at all. JohnInDC (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Your recent editing history at Washington, D.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. JohnInDC (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiklinks

Please take a look at WP:Wikilinks#What_generally_should_not_be_linked to make sure you are not adding unnecessary or unwanted wikilinks to various articles. JohnInDC (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Washington, D.C.. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to ease up in your editing of that page - several of your edits have been ungrammatical, or incorrect, or unconstructive, and have had to be reverted. By way of example, we have this ungrammatical addition; this clumsy construction, this edit, which removed an important modifier, these edits, in which you mis-identified the role of these persons at the time of the actions being discussed and - this edit again restoring the incorrect information. Your recent edits are not sound, and you need to stop. JohnInDC (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

More generally, you have only been an editor since March, yet in that short time have amassed a pretty substantial collection of warnings and critical comments here on your Talk page. If you want to be an active and capable editor, I strongly suggest that you slow down in your editing, take the time to read up on various Wikipedia policies and procedures (several of which have already been pointed out to you), and learn a bit more about how to edit constructively. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Federico I Gonzaga, Marquess of Mantua. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. JohnInDC (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit garbled a straightforward sentence and appeared to change its meaning. Please take greater care with your edits. Continuing to make destructive edits, even if you are acting in good faith, risks getting you blocked. JohnInDC (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the last warning you have - among other things - removed colloquial names for various capital regions without a source and with the perfunctory explanation that they were "unnecessary"; here you added an unnecessary maintenance tag. You make some good edits, but a lot of bad ones, and other editors (as well as bots) have to follow you around and check each one to make sure they are sound. If you keep this up you may well end up blocked. JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing

Please stop changing the wordings of things. I keep having to revert your edits because they are either wrong, badly expressed or (in the case of shoving a bracketted bit into a leading statement) in the wrong place. You need to read what you are editing much more carefully than you do. The Avignon edit was a stuff-up. The changing of St Peter, the man, to St Peter's Basilica, the building, was a stuff up. Creating links is a useful thing to do, if you do it thoughtfully. Amandajm (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This sounds familiar. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Great power (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Strength

Pythagoreanism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roma

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Corrections are in place, thanks. Trackteur (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Capital region‎‎. 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. NebY (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Romanesque architecture

I have just left you my New user guide at the top of your talk page.

I have just found a change that you made to Romanesque architecture about ten days ago, that I have just discovered. You will notice that one of the sections of my guide for new users concerns images. I'm going to tell you in detail why I removed the image, so that you are more aware of what to look out for.

• Typical Romanesque architectural forms
• 
  Portal, Church of Santa Maria, Viu de Llevata, Catalonia, Spain
• 
  The vault at the Abbey Church of Saint-Foy, Conques, France
• 
  Cloister of the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano, Rome
• 
  Bell tower of Angoulême Cathedral, Charente, SW France
• 
  Window and Lombard band of the Rotunda of San Tomè, Almenno San Bartolomeo
• 
  Cluny Abbey in 2004

• The heading says Typical Romanesque forms. You added a picture where the foreground building is about 600 years too late.
• Every image in the set shows a detail of a building, not a whole building. A door, a vault, some cloister columns, a tower, a window. Your image didn't follow through with the theme of the gallery, which is quite easy to see, if you look.
• Every image in the set is a similar shape (vertical, not square or landscape). This isn't essential, but it does look good that way.
• The headings all tell you what the picture represents "portal, vault, cloister...." and the exact location.
• It doesn't date the photos, because it is a study of forms, not the history of a particular building.

Yes, Cluny Abbey is important for the establishment of the Cluniac order and the spread of their type of building. That is why it is mentioned in the text. But a general image of the site that mainly shows a building in an entirely different style is not the tiniest bit relevant to discussing the form, structure, and style of Romanesque architecture. In fact, it is very counter-productive for someone who doesn't know the subject. You may not be aware of this, but the greater part of the ancient abbey church at Cluny has gone. Further down the page is an image of that tower that is peeping over the top of the later building, in the section Towers.

Let me suggest that you take a good look around that page, read the headings of the sections, and the captions underneath, and understanding how images can be used thematically to enhance an article. Amandajm (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Trackteur (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bernadetto de' Medici (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Giorgio

Harpers Ferry, Iowa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 2000 census

Population density (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Standing stock

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these indications, errors are repaired. Trackteur (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fertilizer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Europa and America. 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) 08:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these indications, errors are repaired. Trackteur (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Climate change DS alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestions will be welcome at Global warming but since you're new to the page and have made several unhelpful minor tweaks today, please discuss the next one(s) at the article talk page first. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heavy metal (chemistry), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. 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) 09:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your indication, error are repaired. Trackteur (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alabaster 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:

• ] 1.5 to 2), while the calcite kind is too hard to be scratched in this way Mohs hardness 3), although it does yield readily to a knife. Moreover, the calcite alabaster, being a [[carbonate]],
• alabaster "alabaster"], ''Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary''<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Other suggestions include derivation from the town of [[Alabastron]] in Egypt.{{sfn|Chisholm|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your indication, error are repaired. Trackteur (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Giorgione may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

• [[Image:Giorgione 029b.jpg|thumb|250px|{{[[The Three Philosophers]]'', [[Vienna]]. Attributed to Giorgione by Michiel, who said [[Sebastiano

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your indication, error are repaired. Trackteur (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm Kendall-K1. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Water turbine because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to do here, but you should check your edit with the "Show preview" button before saving the page, to make sure you haven't corrupted the table. Use the sandbox if necessary. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, excuse me for these mistakes. Trackteur (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Water turbine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abrasion. 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) 09:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your indication, error are repaired. Trackteur (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peak oil may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• [[File:Revisions to US Oil Reserves 2011.png|left|thumb|Although US proved oil reserves grew by 3.8

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your indication, error are repaired. Trackteur (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

CGIAR is not an acronym

Hi! just to tell you that i renamed again the CGIAR article, because as you can see in the CGIAR Branding Guidelines, since 2008 "CGIAR ceased to be a consultative group. Therefore, ‘CGIAR’ is no longer an acronym that stands for the ‘Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research’. Consequently, ‘CGIAR’ should never be spelled out or translated, but promoted as a recognizable name in itself".

Greetings, --Jyon-DM (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your information, greetings. Trackteur (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Page move

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Shooting of Michael Brown, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. – JBarta (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, the discussion is open to the page of this article. Trackteur (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ferguson unrest

Please don't accuse me of "attitude", as this implies that you are failing to assume good faith. My point stands that a) this is en:Wiki, so it does not make sense to provide references in French if equivalent references in English are available; and b) it particularly doesn't make sense to use a French-language ref that describes a CNN report in English when, if CNN made such a report, you should be able to link to an English-language reference at CNN. Note that a reversion doesn't necessarily imply you have done something wrong or that anyone thinks you have, only that someone (me in this case) thinks it could be done much better. I would have done it myself – IF I could have found the particular CNN report that referred to 37 states. I assumed you had the URL for that report, since you were the one mentioning it. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Then I think if you have references in English, it should not being bothered. C.a.d. en français : je pense alors que si vous avez les références en anglais, il ne faut pas vous géner. Trackteur (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You are the one introducing the information, hence it is your responsibility to locate and provide references that support it (see WP:BURDEN), though I would have done so if I could have found them. As it stands right now, your edit should read that "French Le Monde reported that CNN reported that protests were organized in 37 states ..." (obviously a troublesome phrasing) since the only source provided is at Le Monde. Also, please note that your edit does not mention the date that these protests were said to have occurred (it was 26 November when they started -- everything else in that paragraph currently talks about events on 25 November). Dwpaul ^Talk 17:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Juste un detail, pour la forme, ce qui a été introduit par mes soins est dans la section November 2014, à la suite de ce qui est déjà décrit à la date du November 25. If you want the translation, write me Trackteur (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite years of grade school training in French, I have to rely on machine translation, which gives me this: "Just a detail for the form, which was introduced by me is in Section November 2014, following what is already described as of November 25" -- which doesn't really seem to address my concern that you are saying that (a source says that) protests occurred in 37 states, but not saying accurately when (what night) they occurred. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't particularly care for using "programmed" Talk page messages to communicate with editors of any level of accomplishment, but your edit above requires me to mention the policy in the message below. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's relatively similar for me, concerning assume good faith, it's not the problem, please read attitude. Trackteur (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand very well the meaning of the psychological term attitude. I have referred you to a Wikipedia policy; if you think it's appropriate to reply by continuing to insult me, I have concerns for your long-term future as a Wikipedia editor, in particular concerning your ability to collaborate with other editors. Kindly do your own self-check when it comes to attitude. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And I acknowledge now my error in terms of dates (the US-wide protests started on 25 November – Tuesday – not 26 November, today, as I incorrectly stated earlier), and that you were saying that you were relying on the previous sentence talking about other events on Tuesday to establish the date of the protests in other US cities. That is fine, though I'm not sure that reliance was wise (I would have perhaps said, "Also on November 25, ..." so it was clear when the events you were describing occurred) since the heading pertains to an entire month's worth of events. In any case, it is moot now as another editor has removed the statement altogether. Let's move on from here. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Shooting of Michael Brown. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shooting of Michael Brown. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you self-revert, as you have breached 3RR already. Otherwise, you will be reported to the administration noticeboard and likely blocked for edit warring. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ferguson, Missouri. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit at Shooting

I removed your link to Shooting of Michael Brown from the See also section of this article. We will not link to every article about a shooting incident from this article, nor would that be appropriate; therefore we will not link to this one. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Likewise at Shoot (disambiguation). Why did you think Shooting of Michael Brown belonged there? Please consider carefully before adding links between otherwise unrelated pages. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Trackteur/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui ^雲_水 14:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Siemens (unit)‎. 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.

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.  SpinningSpark 16:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

}}

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice, Keep it up Beatnbass (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)