User talk:Stephen Campion

Hello, I'm BlueStaticHorse. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Atlantic 85-class lifeboat have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. BlueStaticHorse (talk)(they/them) 15:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello thank you for your message . I would be grateful of you would let me know how exactly the change did not appear constructive?

The change links to a walk thru tutorial on how to use the RNLI SIMs system on an Atlantic 85 in Skerries B866 . AIS Chart ,Plotter, Radio direction finder and radar screens.

Kind regards. Stephen Campion (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The source was not cited correctly. Please see Wikipedia:Video links for information on how to cite a video. Happy Editing! BlueStaticHorse (talk)(they/them) 15:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Blue Static Horse

Thank you for your reply. I am still confused.

My understanding of " constructive" is "having or intended to have a useful or beneficial purpose". If I understand your text correctly that the link "did not appear constructive" I am unclear in what is meant by this. It seems the issue is now that :"The source was not cited correctly " which is a different issue.

It would be helpful if the language and feedback was clear , accurate and precise.

What is the issue ? Not appearing constructive , not being cited properly or both?

If you would please tell me or show me how this does not appear to be the case "appear contstructive " I would be grateful.

Kind regards

Stephen Campion Stephen Campion (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the edit was reverted generically. AntiVandal automatically adds a warning to talk pages if an edit is reverted, and the generic warning says the edit was "non constructive". The reason I reverted the edit was because it does not follow formatting guidelines, not because I believed it was bad faith. Sorry for the confusion! BlueStaticHorse (talk)(they/them) 16:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@BlueStaticHorse Please familiarise yourself with WP:NOTVANDAL. No edit made in good faith is vandalism, and you should not throw around allegations of & warnings about vandalism in response to unsourced content. The {{uw-unsourced}} line of warnings exists for this exact reason. You might like to use WP:TWINKLE rather than AntiVandal, which allows you to revert edits for various reasons without necessarily flagging them as vandalism. Athanelar (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand the policy and that the edit was not vandalism. The error occurred when warning the user. I understand that I placed the incorrect warning template. I will attempt to clarify that an edit is good faith in the future. BlueStaticHorse (talk)(they/them) 16:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Dear BlueStaticHorse

Thank you for you clarification,work and your time .

Kind regards Stephen Campion (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)