User talk:Bill the Cat 7

Dispute Resolution

Apologies for not notifying you on your talk page. I thought notification on the related talk page was appropriate initially, but see that I need to notify everyone individually.

DRN Update

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov	In Progress	Trumpetrep (t)	14 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 days, 23 hours
Breyers	New	Zefr (t)	8 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 2 hours	Axad12 (t)	19 hours
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	New	Sariel Xilo (t)	6 days, 3 hours	None	n/a	Wikibenboy94 (t)	5 days, 4 hours
AIM-174B	Closed	MWFwiki (t)	4 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours
List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru	New	HundenvonPenang (t)	1 days, 14 hours	None	n/a	HundenvonPenang (t)	1 days, 14 hours
Ustad Ahmad_Lahori	New	Goshua55 (t)	9 hours	None	n/a	Drmies (t)	3 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 20:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Sphinx water erosion hypothesis for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Hypnôs (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Göbekli Tep was not a city or even a civilisation. Your other comments are also wrong. We’ve got documentation for the pyramids, a workers village, and at least each Giza pyramid was part od a complex of structures. Go to their articles with sources backing your view, As they say, put your money where your mouth is. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve deleted the whole section. Any similar posts will obviously be forum style posts and inappropriate. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming Göbekli Tepe was a "city or even a civilization". Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but basically it's a straw man argument. The point is that "hunters and gathers" were able to create intricate megalithic structures due to the finds at Göbekli Tepe. The article needs to be updated to include this data. Please refrain from deleting comments in a Talk Page that seek to improve on the article. It's unbecoming, as well as against Wiki policy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Due to? That makes no sense. The finds there had no influence on hunters and gatherers. You realise that you've made 2 reverts and no one else has made more than one, yet you think reverting you is editwarring? I'm doing CheckUser training so shall probably be too busy to bother with this nonsense. Doug Weller talk 21:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Bishonen | tålk 21:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC).

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at Talk:Sphinx water erosion hypothesis 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.

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. Bishonen | tålk 22:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC).