Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to BMC connector, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Please be aware that if there is no consensus for an edit you must discuss it at the associated talk page. Please also see WP:3RR which could result in a block for edit warring. I've already requested that you do this. --mikeu talk 18:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Mu301: 1. It is reliably cited in the article BNC connector. 2. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to obtain the consensus for your change because you were reverted, not for anyone else to revert you. 3. Your reference is unreliable given that it doesn't even support your change as given. 4. There is a consensus of two, myself and Wtshymanski who first reverted you (discounting your rather obvious sock). 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ASPERSIONS. Provide evidence of this sockpuppetry accusation, or withdraw it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- For the record: the resulting check user block supports my aspersion. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- (as I was strongly involved in that case, I'll add my two cents too: It doesn't necessarily seem to. The only confirmed sock was completely uninvolved in that matter.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: So making two reversions restoring the incorrect material means that you are 'completely uninvolved'. That is a novel argument. Oh! and you were not involved either. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- The sentence "The only confirmed sock was completely uninvolved", now with emphasis, appears to be correct. There is no "support" for the far-fetched sockpuppetry accusation made in Special:Diff/928377815. On the contrary, I'd say that if LoganTheWatermelon was checkusered, such a connection would have been noticed as well. What you interpreted as "support" appears to be the opposite, or at best irrelevant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: The sentence "The only confirmed sock was completely uninvolved" is bollocks as confirmed by these two reversions [1] and [2]. I suggest that you check your facts before posting crap. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- The sentence "The only confirmed sock was completely uninvolved", now with emphasis, appears to be correct. There is no "support" for the far-fetched sockpuppetry accusation made in Special:Diff/928377815. On the contrary, I'd say that if LoganTheWatermelon was checkusered, such a connection would have been noticed as well. What you interpreted as "support" appears to be the opposite, or at best irrelevant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: So making two reversions restoring the incorrect material means that you are 'completely uninvolved'. That is a novel argument. Oh! and you were not involved either. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- (as I was strongly involved in that case, I'll add my two cents too: It doesn't necessarily seem to. The only confirmed sock was completely uninvolved in that matter.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- For the record: the resulting check user block supports my aspersion. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ASPERSIONS. Provide evidence of this sockpuppetry accusation, or withdraw it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_LoganTheWatermelon contains one sock, Special:Contributions/LoganTheAplle, which had nothing to do with that page. Do not use it as "support" for the inacceptable accusation against Mu301; continuing to do so may be considered to be a personal attack. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)