User talk:2A00:23C6:D098:8701:9D46:CD5B:D995:CF43

Fuze

I would agree your broad point here, but these changes are going beyond anything that's supported by the sources. You're also breaking links like fuse (explosives) (a separate and specific article) by changing them to fuze (explosives) which is a redirect to fuze. Andy Dingley (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

2A00:23C6:D098:8701:9D46:CD5B:D995:CF43 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am an internationally recognised expert on Explosive hazards and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD). I was a serving member of the British Military for 22 years as a Bomb Disposal operator. I was also a civilian EOD consultant for the last 10 years for international NGOs also including UNMAS and NATO. I currently run the Collective Awareness to UXO (CAT-UXO) website with over a 1000 subscribed users. I am recognised as the most technically accurate open-source information available outside the military. On my website I am linking to and referencing Wikipedia for additional information for my users. Where I find technical errors I like to correct them. I can assure you I am not disruptive or opinionated, I am well-qualified and technically experienced in my corrections. If you truly want Wikipedia to be correct then please do allow my corrections. Very much the word Fuse has been used incorrectly, as stated the word Fuze has always been used in the military to describe the mechanism that is used to initiate a detonation in a munition. Only electrical items have a Fuse, they are two separate items. I have been teaching this for over 30 years and only you have questioned this. I might suggest your blocking is opinionated as you have no actual technical qualification to question my corrections, that makes your edits opinionated and not technically correct. 2A00:23C6:D098:8701:9D46:CD5B:D995:CF43 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We don't know who is sitting at the computer on this IP at any given moment, though I accept your word about your qualifications. Please read WP:EXPERT. We would appreciate any insight you have, though our articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, they do not merely host viewpoints. Your edits were not written in an encyclopedic style and it seems you made no effort to collaborate with others or use the talk page to discuss with other editors the concerns you have- perhaps these others could have said why the articles are the way they are. Please commit to being more collaborative in the future and work with others to address your concerns. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2024 (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.

I fixed the formatting of your request so your initial statement replaced the words "insert your reason to be unblocked here". 331dot (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the extensive past discussion on this at talk:Fuze? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

---