Hello, I'm
DMacks. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Perpetual motion without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your
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.
DMacks (
talk)
00:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Perpetual motion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong ( talk) 20:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
DMacks (
talk)
23:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC){{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
DMacks (
talk)
18:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)CAIVY ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your reason here CAIVY ( talk) 19:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please follow the advice you have been given and use the Talk page to establish consensus. I have also closed your request at AN as inappropriate use of that Board. Continuing in this vein is likely to lead to a larger block. Star Mississippi 19:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dear community,
I am writing to seek your help with a concern I have regarding some information on a Wikipedia page. Specifically, I am confused about the principles for identifying perpetual motion machines and how they apply to certain energy conversion devices that are not isolated systems.
I have noticed that the information on the page appears to contradict other sources, and I am unsure how to proceed. Additionally, I have concerns about the inclusion of information regarding patent applications that may be harming the scientific credibility and authority of the US Patent Office and the interests of patent holders.
I am wondering if anyone in the community can help me understand these issues better and provide guidance on how to address them on the Wikipedia page. I believe that accurate and reliable information is critical for the integrity of the site and the benefit of its users, and I appreciate any assistance you can provide.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, CAIVY
Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.
ne year ago, I provided detailed explanations and sources on the discussion page, and no one opposed them. With no objections or counterarguments, isn't this already waiting for consensus? CAIVY
Hello, I'm
DMacks. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Perpetual motion without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your
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.
DMacks (
talk)
00:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Perpetual motion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong ( talk) 20:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
DMacks (
talk)
23:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC){{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
DMacks (
talk)
18:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)CAIVY ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your reason here CAIVY ( talk) 19:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please follow the advice you have been given and use the Talk page to establish consensus. I have also closed your request at AN as inappropriate use of that Board. Continuing in this vein is likely to lead to a larger block. Star Mississippi 19:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dear community,
I am writing to seek your help with a concern I have regarding some information on a Wikipedia page. Specifically, I am confused about the principles for identifying perpetual motion machines and how they apply to certain energy conversion devices that are not isolated systems.
I have noticed that the information on the page appears to contradict other sources, and I am unsure how to proceed. Additionally, I have concerns about the inclusion of information regarding patent applications that may be harming the scientific credibility and authority of the US Patent Office and the interests of patent holders.
I am wondering if anyone in the community can help me understand these issues better and provide guidance on how to address them on the Wikipedia page. I believe that accurate and reliable information is critical for the integrity of the site and the benefit of its users, and I appreciate any assistance you can provide.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, CAIVY
Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.
ne year ago, I provided detailed explanations and sources on the discussion page, and no one opposed them. With no objections or counterarguments, isn't this already waiting for consensus? CAIVY