![]() | The contents of the ISO 361 page were merged into Hazard symbol on 23 December 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | ISO 361 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 September 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Hazard symbol. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hazard symbol article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's awesome that they changed the radiation symbol. The chemical weapons and the biological hazard signs aren't exactly threatening looking though, if one didn't know what they stood for. The biohazard one sort of looks like some kind of cotton plant or something. The laser sign too. It isn't immediately obvious that whatever it is, can be really bad for you. Are there any attempts at all to change these, I wonder? 192.33.240.95 ( talk) 20:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
just merge it, cant see why not.
As I am unfamiliar with merge, I don't know if this is redundant, but when you merge, don't forget to keep Mr Yuk. This is a more useful page than Warning Symbol for me, because I wanted the history of the symbols. However, I think I may be retarded, so this probably doesn't matter.-- 128.113.198.122 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I read in the paper today that the radiation symbol has changed. A.Z. 18:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that the European symbols are treated as "different", thereby not giving the article a worldwide view.-- Dark Green 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I am converting a few hazard symbols to vector format.
I noticed there are some unreadable details in the raster images - looks like it's manufacturing identifier and a UN conformance... I would like some help in converting those.
I believe my talk would be the best place to do this but I'm adding this to the watchlist anyway.
MaxDZ8
talk
19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Dark Green, yes, it is treated differently. The symbols have diffrent meanings and are inturpreted a totaly different way. It is in no way being discriminatory to countries outside the US. Tag removed unless someone else sees differently.
I thought the biohazard symbol orignates from a Japanese feudal banner, but I can't find this anywhere. Any ideas? kzm 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think adding 'laser hazard' symbol is a good idea... pic from Laser safety... FourBlades 10:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I added an SVG of what the Radioactive trefoil first looked like in 1946, I hope this is alright. -- 888gavin ( talk) 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's great! Thanks! --
penubag
02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Dunno if it's been mentioned, but what about Mr. Yuk? Applejuicefool ( talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for this stuff after seeing some of these. Wondering why the DHS wants us to run from Backstreet Boys and Michael Bolton. -- John Moser ( talk) 21:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"European hazard sign, saying highly inflammable (33) - gasoline (1203)" - Is it vandalism? Why is there a warning for highly inflammable? 64.231.106.61 ( talk) 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Flammable may be easier to understand by many, but inflammable is still correct. I suggest that we use the word inflammable but we link it to either Wiktionary or the linguistics section of the article Flammability. That way it would be both linguistically correct and easy to understand. Kotiwalo ( talk) 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Since no one opposed, I, being bold, made the changes. Kotiwalo ( talk) 08:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the history of the Chemical warfare symbol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.187.104 ( talk) 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I live in Canada, which might be at play, but I remember learning about a set of product safety labels where the triangle, rectangle, and octagon represented severity, and explosive hazard, skull and crossbones, and others were represented. 68.144.80.168 ( talk) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
-- 58.38.47.48 ( talk) 08:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
-- 58.38.47.48 ( talk) 08:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
-- 58.38.47.48 ( talk) 08:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
-- 58.38.47.48 ( talk) 08:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
-- 58.38.47.48 ( talk) 08:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice links to information about safety signs, but are you suggesting that something be done to the article? Ileanadu ( talk) 15:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Expanded the section mentioned above and removed notice. Also changed plain images into thumbnails. Please notify me if this is wrong. Astatine211 ( talk) 10:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Astatine211
Is there a commonly used sign to indicate something is carcinogenic? If there isn't there should be. As far as I know, there isn't one in the U.S. There's a symbol, which can be seen at Carcinogenicity, that has been proposed by the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, but I have never seen it in use anywhere. Moreover, I personally find it unclear. I might know now that it means (potentially) carcinogenic, but I didn't before. Ileanadu ( talk) 15:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ileanadu ( talk) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have seen it indicated as the biohazard trefoil in a triangle on a purple background with "Carcinogen" beneath it. 86.44.41.1 ( talk) 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The relative sizes of the graphical elements described are completely wrong. I tried to draw it like described, but the symbol looks too fat then. The correct measurements are described here: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part476_54539_7.pdf --TeakHoken 91.47.69.52 ( talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
link lost
Composcompos12 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
08:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Hazard symbol. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hazard symbol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I've looked at multiple international standards (ISO 7010, GHS, etc) for the "chemical weapons" symbol as shown, and done every google search I can think of, and can find no evidence that the symbol on the page is actually used officially by any body. The page linked in the citation (the page for chemical weapons) does not show the symbol, nor can I find the symbol in that page's history. If we can't find a better reference (or, well, a reference at all), perhaps the symbol should be removed?
Elfchief ( talk) 22:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO 361, a deletion discussion for an article about the ISO standardization of the radiation hazard symbol, and comment there if you have an opinion. One potential outcome of that discussion (depending on participant concensus) would be to merge that article here, or to split off more of the content from here to expand the other article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I feel this article could benefit from major overhaul of the opening table.
Recently, editors on the
German Wikipedia project have been using tables to layout comparisons of symbols across various standards, such as on this article,
Warnzeichen.
I feel that this is a more informative table, that would provides an easier way to see contrast between symbols that is not currently present.
My idea is replace the existing table, eliminating the Unicode from the table, and doing a table with ISO 7010, Directive 92/58/EEC, Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations, and the United States, similar to the one on Warnzeichen. I would keep it limited to warning/hazard symbols. (e.g. Not including: prohibited, mandatory, firefighting, safe condition/equipment symbols.)-- The Navigators ( talk) 09:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion thus far reads:
Your addition to hazard symbol is definitely worth doing but only if it is done right. It makes no sense to give the 1967 and 1975 EU laws (which have been repealed), but not the current status (2008!) - see page 325 of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008R1272 . I can see that maybe there is a place somewhere for historic symbols but not in the main table.
A revert may have seemed heavy handed but I felt that showing invalid information would not be an improvement (and I suspect that it is fairly easy for you to correct and resubmit, since most of the pictograms have not changed since the 1975 law). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- FYI: The document is in mono but §1.2.1.1. says
Hazard pictograms as laid down in Annex V shall have a black symbol on a white background with a red frame sufficiently wide to be clearly visible.Hope that helps. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ JMF:Those would be the GHS symbols in column one, they're the same symbols. The EU adopted GHS symbols with CLP regulations in 2008, and phased them in through 2017.
- I reverted it back to my version, but added some more text to the sections below to point out the phase-outs of the old EU and Canadian symbols.-- The Navigators ( talk) 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am copying this discussion over to talk:Hazard symbol#Chemical symbols table as other editors may help resolve the dispute. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
At 00:08, 9 June 2024 UTC, I attempted to clarify the table by adding (repealed)
under the two obsoleted EU regulations, writing in the Edit summary: In that case, we must make it clear that the table is showing historical pictograms and the laws that established them have been repealed, We cannot deliberately mislead our readers..
At 04:25, 9 June 2024 UTC, The Navigators reverted again, with the edit summary I conveyed that these are obsolete adequately, and I take direct offense with the "deliberately mislead our readers" comment in your prior edit summary.
I cannot counter-revert without a WP:3RR violation so I can only observe that WP:AGF cuts both ways. "Deliberately mislead our readers" means that the article is not giving the full picture without expecting the reader to decode the detail (the table should be providing "the essentials at a glance" overview); to do that knowingly is indeed "deliberately misleading". I do not suggest that The Navigators set out to mislead, but only that this is effect. Finally, The Navigators, you do not WP:OWN the table you added; if other editors feel that they have good reason to improve the article, you must allow them to do so provided that their additions and changes are reliably sourced (as mine were) and not WP:UNDUE detail.
At this point, I stand back and invite other editors to advise. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
We cannot deliberately mislead our readers.- This statement outright calls my edits as trying to intentionally do this. This isn't "this could confuse readers", "this is confusing", "could be unclear", "is ambiguous", "accidentally mislead readers" or even "mislead readers". It's "deliberately". It says I did this on purpose, I'm sorry, that's how that reads, and I'm not happy about that.
...if other editors feel that they have good reason to improve the article, you must allow them to do so provided that their additions and changes are reliably sourced (as mine were)...- Your 00:08, June 9, 2024 UTC edit, adding the the 'repealed/amended' info in the table header for the two EEC regulations, did not remark on the WHMIS (far right column). That implies that WHMIS must not have changed, as nothing was said about it, when it has changed. Those were aligned with GHS in 2015. The changes to WHMIS were something I did point this out in my 23:27, June 8, 2024 UTC edit. (To be very clear, I believe this was completely accidental.)
...editors who are consistently disruptive and uncivil....
I stand back and invite other editors to advise.. The third party agrees with you and I make the changes to the table with no complaints or pushback, that are consistent with your position on the table's design. You then edit that, making changes that, once again, create the problem you were complaining about in the first place.
![]() | The contents of the ISO 361 page were merged into Hazard symbol on 23 December 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | ISO 361 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 September 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Hazard symbol. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hazard symbol article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's awesome that they changed the radiation symbol. The chemical weapons and the biological hazard signs aren't exactly threatening looking though, if one didn't know what they stood for. The biohazard one sort of looks like some kind of cotton plant or something. The laser sign too. It isn't immediately obvious that whatever it is, can be really bad for you. Are there any attempts at all to change these, I wonder? 192.33.240.95 ( talk) 20:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
just merge it, cant see why not.
As I am unfamiliar with merge, I don't know if this is redundant, but when you merge, don't forget to keep Mr Yuk. This is a more useful page than Warning Symbol for me, because I wanted the history of the symbols. However, I think I may be retarded, so this probably doesn't matter.-- 128.113.198.122 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I read in the paper today that the radiation symbol has changed. A.Z. 18:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that the European symbols are treated as "different", thereby not giving the article a worldwide view.-- Dark Green 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I am converting a few hazard symbols to vector format.
I noticed there are some unreadable details in the raster images - looks like it's manufacturing identifier and a UN conformance... I would like some help in converting those.
I believe my talk would be the best place to do this but I'm adding this to the watchlist anyway.
MaxDZ8
talk
19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Dark Green, yes, it is treated differently. The symbols have diffrent meanings and are inturpreted a totaly different way. It is in no way being discriminatory to countries outside the US. Tag removed unless someone else sees differently.
I thought the biohazard symbol orignates from a Japanese feudal banner, but I can't find this anywhere. Any ideas? kzm 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think adding 'laser hazard' symbol is a good idea... pic from Laser safety... FourBlades 10:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I added an SVG of what the Radioactive trefoil first looked like in 1946, I hope this is alright. -- 888gavin ( talk) 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's great! Thanks! --
penubag
02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Dunno if it's been mentioned, but what about Mr. Yuk? Applejuicefool ( talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for this stuff after seeing some of these. Wondering why the DHS wants us to run from Backstreet Boys and Michael Bolton. -- John Moser ( talk) 21:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"European hazard sign, saying highly inflammable (33) - gasoline (1203)" - Is it vandalism? Why is there a warning for highly inflammable? 64.231.106.61 ( talk) 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Flammable may be easier to understand by many, but inflammable is still correct. I suggest that we use the word inflammable but we link it to either Wiktionary or the linguistics section of the article Flammability. That way it would be both linguistically correct and easy to understand. Kotiwalo ( talk) 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Since no one opposed, I, being bold, made the changes. Kotiwalo ( talk) 08:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the history of the Chemical warfare symbol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.187.104 ( talk) 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I live in Canada, which might be at play, but I remember learning about a set of product safety labels where the triangle, rectangle, and octagon represented severity, and explosive hazard, skull and crossbones, and others were represented. 68.144.80.168 ( talk) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
-- 58.38.47.48 ( talk) 08:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
-- 58.38.47.48 ( talk) 08:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
-- 58.38.47.48 ( talk) 08:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
-- 58.38.47.48 ( talk) 08:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
-- 58.38.47.48 ( talk) 08:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice links to information about safety signs, but are you suggesting that something be done to the article? Ileanadu ( talk) 15:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Expanded the section mentioned above and removed notice. Also changed plain images into thumbnails. Please notify me if this is wrong. Astatine211 ( talk) 10:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Astatine211
Is there a commonly used sign to indicate something is carcinogenic? If there isn't there should be. As far as I know, there isn't one in the U.S. There's a symbol, which can be seen at Carcinogenicity, that has been proposed by the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, but I have never seen it in use anywhere. Moreover, I personally find it unclear. I might know now that it means (potentially) carcinogenic, but I didn't before. Ileanadu ( talk) 15:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ileanadu ( talk) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have seen it indicated as the biohazard trefoil in a triangle on a purple background with "Carcinogen" beneath it. 86.44.41.1 ( talk) 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The relative sizes of the graphical elements described are completely wrong. I tried to draw it like described, but the symbol looks too fat then. The correct measurements are described here: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part476_54539_7.pdf --TeakHoken 91.47.69.52 ( talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
link lost
Composcompos12 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
08:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Hazard symbol. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hazard symbol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I've looked at multiple international standards (ISO 7010, GHS, etc) for the "chemical weapons" symbol as shown, and done every google search I can think of, and can find no evidence that the symbol on the page is actually used officially by any body. The page linked in the citation (the page for chemical weapons) does not show the symbol, nor can I find the symbol in that page's history. If we can't find a better reference (or, well, a reference at all), perhaps the symbol should be removed?
Elfchief ( talk) 22:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO 361, a deletion discussion for an article about the ISO standardization of the radiation hazard symbol, and comment there if you have an opinion. One potential outcome of that discussion (depending on participant concensus) would be to merge that article here, or to split off more of the content from here to expand the other article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I feel this article could benefit from major overhaul of the opening table.
Recently, editors on the
German Wikipedia project have been using tables to layout comparisons of symbols across various standards, such as on this article,
Warnzeichen.
I feel that this is a more informative table, that would provides an easier way to see contrast between symbols that is not currently present.
My idea is replace the existing table, eliminating the Unicode from the table, and doing a table with ISO 7010, Directive 92/58/EEC, Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations, and the United States, similar to the one on Warnzeichen. I would keep it limited to warning/hazard symbols. (e.g. Not including: prohibited, mandatory, firefighting, safe condition/equipment symbols.)-- The Navigators ( talk) 09:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion thus far reads:
Your addition to hazard symbol is definitely worth doing but only if it is done right. It makes no sense to give the 1967 and 1975 EU laws (which have been repealed), but not the current status (2008!) - see page 325 of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008R1272 . I can see that maybe there is a place somewhere for historic symbols but not in the main table.
A revert may have seemed heavy handed but I felt that showing invalid information would not be an improvement (and I suspect that it is fairly easy for you to correct and resubmit, since most of the pictograms have not changed since the 1975 law). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- FYI: The document is in mono but §1.2.1.1. says
Hazard pictograms as laid down in Annex V shall have a black symbol on a white background with a red frame sufficiently wide to be clearly visible.Hope that helps. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ JMF:Those would be the GHS symbols in column one, they're the same symbols. The EU adopted GHS symbols with CLP regulations in 2008, and phased them in through 2017.
- I reverted it back to my version, but added some more text to the sections below to point out the phase-outs of the old EU and Canadian symbols.-- The Navigators ( talk) 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am copying this discussion over to talk:Hazard symbol#Chemical symbols table as other editors may help resolve the dispute. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
At 00:08, 9 June 2024 UTC, I attempted to clarify the table by adding (repealed)
under the two obsoleted EU regulations, writing in the Edit summary: In that case, we must make it clear that the table is showing historical pictograms and the laws that established them have been repealed, We cannot deliberately mislead our readers..
At 04:25, 9 June 2024 UTC, The Navigators reverted again, with the edit summary I conveyed that these are obsolete adequately, and I take direct offense with the "deliberately mislead our readers" comment in your prior edit summary.
I cannot counter-revert without a WP:3RR violation so I can only observe that WP:AGF cuts both ways. "Deliberately mislead our readers" means that the article is not giving the full picture without expecting the reader to decode the detail (the table should be providing "the essentials at a glance" overview); to do that knowingly is indeed "deliberately misleading". I do not suggest that The Navigators set out to mislead, but only that this is effect. Finally, The Navigators, you do not WP:OWN the table you added; if other editors feel that they have good reason to improve the article, you must allow them to do so provided that their additions and changes are reliably sourced (as mine were) and not WP:UNDUE detail.
At this point, I stand back and invite other editors to advise. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
We cannot deliberately mislead our readers.- This statement outright calls my edits as trying to intentionally do this. This isn't "this could confuse readers", "this is confusing", "could be unclear", "is ambiguous", "accidentally mislead readers" or even "mislead readers". It's "deliberately". It says I did this on purpose, I'm sorry, that's how that reads, and I'm not happy about that.
...if other editors feel that they have good reason to improve the article, you must allow them to do so provided that their additions and changes are reliably sourced (as mine were)...- Your 00:08, June 9, 2024 UTC edit, adding the the 'repealed/amended' info in the table header for the two EEC regulations, did not remark on the WHMIS (far right column). That implies that WHMIS must not have changed, as nothing was said about it, when it has changed. Those were aligned with GHS in 2015. The changes to WHMIS were something I did point this out in my 23:27, June 8, 2024 UTC edit. (To be very clear, I believe this was completely accidental.)
...editors who are consistently disruptive and uncivil....
I stand back and invite other editors to advise.. The third party agrees with you and I make the changes to the table with no complaints or pushback, that are consistent with your position on the table's design. You then edit that, making changes that, once again, create the problem you were complaining about in the first place.