A fact from Solway Harvester appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,882 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Solway Harvester is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Please discuss any changes here before reverting other editor's edits. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 13:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the other editor's talkpage. This was a simple misunderstanding over the use of template field by a new editor. After bringing this up at his talkpage, and encouraging him to discuss it, I removed the incorrect fields. Please don't try to escalate the situation by calling it an edit war when it really isn't. Benea (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I didn't see that he has since re-added the field. I am choosing not to war over this, because it really is a silly little thing. In future however please make yourself aware of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, and rather than jumping the gun with a template, raise your concerns in person if you feel it necessary. Benea (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were both guilty of reverting three times, so it would have been unfair to warn the other user and not you also. OK, I was maybe a bit lazy in using the template rather than writing you a personal message, but if there's an easy way to so something I'll usually choose that option! :-) Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I suppose, but perhaps bear it in mind for next time. Incidentally it seems very likely that the other user is in fact a sockpuppet of a banned user, and having got a reaction is now trying to spread a little disruptive editing our way. If he is blocked, reverting it as vandalism seems justifiable. But at the end of the day it's one small field in an infobox, I don't think I'll lose sleep over it. Benea (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's been blocked for being a sockpuppet, so I've reverted back to your version. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 23:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
