 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Suction. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As further information, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a forum, blog, soapbox, fan site, message board, advice site, advertising vehicle or tabloid. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish rumors, gossip, personal opinions, personal experiences, messages, commentary, advocacy, complaints, advice, joke edits, promotional material, original research or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you removing non-breaking spaces between measurements in ship articles. Those are required by MOS. I will be reverting all of your edits that do this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this revert I made to your edit, what were you doing? See WP:SPAM. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As seen with this revert by DMacks, this revert by me, and this revert by Cnilep, you need to be careful with how you trim material. Your trims are leaving out important information that should be there, especially as far as material in the lead goes, considering that the lead should summarize the article's content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a positive edit to remove double spaces. These end up rendering as a single space, and across the board are otherwise WP:COSMETIC edits. If you have actual value to add by 'copyediting', please do so, but this edit is not it. --Izno (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Advice for parents, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have been copyediting a significant number of articles. Thank you for your work on improving wikipedia content, but some of the edits you are making aren't clear improvements. For example, changing 'The organization was not an accredited university or college. It conducted 3 and 5 day seminars (often labelled as "retreats") and used high pressure tactics to sell these to its customers.' to 'The organization was not an accredited university or college. It conducted three- and five-day seminars (often labelled "retreats") and used high pressure tactics to sell courses.' is a slight improvement in terms of brevity, but decreases clarity. When editing at a fairly rapid pace, I suggest you stick with WP:MOS related improvements, and not reword sentences unless they are seriously flawed.Dialectric (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice (that) you write the numbers in full, but by systematically removing all the "thats" you are imposing a personal preference. The older constructions with "that" are still very common in careful written language and it is such language that best befits an encyclopedia.--MWAK (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've just posted a series of abusive edit summaries (examples [1] [2]) directed at another editor. This is not acceptable, and you will be blocked from editing if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at The Ecstatic, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Dan56 (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, you have now been warned about unexplained or poorly explained changes that are not grammar or style improvements by 4+ editors. You have not replied to any of us on this talk page. It is a drain on others' time to correct your edits. If there are more incidents like this, the next step will be an WP:AN/I filing.Dialectric (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add my name to the growing list of people asking you to stop making pointless changes on articles. The use of   is entirely acceptable, so don't just change it to {{nbsp}} just because you prefer it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS [also] prefers wikitext – no esoteric coding a tawl ifn yougng heppit – nevertheless before I insert even one nbsp I generally look to see how previous editors did it and, if I see more than a few instances of HTML, so do I. (I'll no longer assume mixing wikitext and HTML in the same article is verboten. Thank you.)
- [paragraph] Would somebody please (don't anybody dare touch any ellipses) take charge of those orphans?--Brogo13 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that you are taking advice from the MoS to be set in stone. The 'orphans' guideline states "It is sometimes desirable". That does not mean you have to do it. Ditto the use of HTML within articles. When it comes to such small matters that are unobservable to readers – particularly in articles like FAs which have been through several review processes – leave alone what does not need to be fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Spain during World War II. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Operation Bernhard. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. David J Johnson (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyjsmith: in what way was this edit to Spain during World War II "vandalism"? – Levivich 22:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David J Johnson: in what way were this edit and this edit to Operation Bernhard "test edits"? – Levivich 22:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "... the regime only permitted Jewish transit through Spain." (Non-jews had to go around?)
- "... the regime permitted only Jewish transit through Spain." (Ditto, but even worse.)
- "... the regime permitted Jewish transit only through Spain." 8r'
My warning was for (1) yet another nbsp, which several editors have complained about to no avail and (2) the alteration to that unreferenced claim which clearly changes its meaning. I see that it’s now been changed again in a different way. Without a reference only the original editor can know which is correct so clearly it’s wrong to change it. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Spain during World War II, you may be blocked from editing. Continuing to revert an edit that has been challenged by other editors is edit warring and it’s not permitted on WP. Your edit changes the meaning of the sentence. You must use the talk page to discuss. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
