24.37.54.254

August 2019

Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Cottenham— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Pitch-accent language. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (24.37.54.254) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! Megaman en m (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Charles R. Kesler, 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.

That is just one article, but your edit history is full of bad edits. Some of your changes are good but the good is mixed with bad edits. Please slow down, countless editors have had to revert your changes.---- Work permit (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Weber v Ontario Hydro. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.---- Work permit (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my previous post, many of your edits are good, but many are bad. I understand you want to fix grammar but realize sometimes you are wrong. Thanks.---- Work permit (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I've looked through your most recent edits and they have gotten much much better. There was just one spelling error amongst a lot of good copy edit. No broken links, no detractive edits. Not sure if you've done something different, but if you have its working. Cheers.---- Work permit (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Andersonville National Historic Site. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rights of Man. Graham87 07:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. You need to stop. Your grammatical changes are not improvements. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2019

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Pelee Island Winery have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making test edits to Wikipedia pages, such as the one you made with this edit to Thomas Madsen-Mygdal, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Mir Jafar. 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. Muffin of the English (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Hjalmar Schacht. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 05:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to 1962 California gubernatorial election, you may be blocked from editing. Sceptre (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Shamdasani have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Louis Barthou. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – Gilliam (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

June 2022

Hello, I'm Dirkbb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Willem Drees have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Dirkbb (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at P. W. Scharroo. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dirkbb (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rupert Allason, you may be blocked from editing. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2022

Hello, I'm Drummingman. An edit that you recently made to District of Franklin seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Drummingman (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Commonwealth Day. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Please use an edit summary. Something like "cap" would suffice when changing something as simple as "capitalization" to be more correct or appropriate, but NO edit summary is a red flag, always. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page High Court of South Africa, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BlueNoise (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Statute of Bankrupts, did not appear to be constructive and have 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. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

August 2023

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Veverve (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2023

Your good-faith edit at Popular revolts in late medieval Europe was not an improvement. It consisted of alternate wording of your choice, mostly without changing the meaning, but in some cases making it worse or ungrammatical ("producers the wealth"?). In particular, none of your numerous changes to wikilinks was necessary or helpful; please see WP:PIPE and MOS:PIPE for details about piped links. With respect to initial letter case (upper/lower) of a link, case is insignificant, so you can use whichever one works in the context of the sentence where it appears, and you should not change a link that is already working properly. I've reverted your edit. If you have any questions, please {{Reply}} below, or you can try the Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries, yet again

I notice that in these 16 contributions of yours, all made today, none of them have an edit summary. You've been asked at least twice before to provide an edit summary with your edits, and I'm notfying you again today about this. Going forward, please provide an edit summary with each of your edits. See Help:Edit summary. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Your attempted changes to grammar and wording are not helpful

Tl;dr: Your English is good, but not native-speaker level. You would be great at contributing new content to articles, but your level of English is not sufficient to make the type of improvements to grammar and syntax that you have been attempting. Most of the edits you made today were of that type, and have been reverted because they were not an improvement, or made the article worse. Details below.

Your changes to wording and grammar today are at best not helpful, and in some cases are making articles worse in specific ways. I looked at just your 16 edits of 19 October, and many of them had problems. I have reverted eight of them where the article was worse afterward. In other cases where your change to an article was neither necessary nor an improvement but didn't make it worse, I left it in place.

The main problems I have observed, appear to be due to a lack of sufficient understanding of English grammar and syntax. This includes your removal of the (very common) reduced relative clause in English, improper use of prepositions, the possessive suffix, adjectival noun phrases, adverbial phrases, participial phrases, gerund phrases, and others. These misunderstandings are causing you to make articles worse, instead of improving them, or to needlessly replace one valid construction with another in a way that is not an improvement. In most cases, by "makes an article worse", I mean that the wording is awkward or ungrammatical, without changing the essential meaning. In at least one case,however, a very minor change in the use of a possessive, turned Thomas Jefferson from U.S. President into the architect of the Capitol.

There are other changes of yours involving unnecessary edits to links; these are contrary to guidelines, but these rules can be learned: see WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. Other changes involve mere stylistic issues, such as the use of hyphen in MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES; these are subtle and numerous, and take some time to learn; please do not make changes of style to suit your own preference without consulting Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

• N Jerome Aloysius Daugherty Sebastian, Preposition problem: 'until' ⟶ 'to' doesn't work here; 'to his death' is mostly seen in expressions such as, "fell to his death"; however, what is meant here, is an expression of elapsed time, thus: "until his death", as it was before.
• N Germanophile , Pointless variation; improper use of preposition; unneeded link; improper wording ('Many in the Serbian elites'?
• N Frederick Richard Lee, pointless change to ADJ-NOUN phrase: 'north Devon' ⟶ 'the north of Devon'; that looks like back-translated French
• N Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 'Benjamin Henry Latrobe (1764-1820), America's first professionally trained architect and Thomas Jefferson's Architect of the U.S. Capitol' ⟶ 'Benjamin Henry Latrobe (1764-1820), America's first professionally-trained architect, Thomas Jefferson as Architect of the U.S. Capitol'; misuse of preps, links, possessives; turned Jefferson from President into an architect.
• Anti-German sentiment: pointless variation; unneeded changes to partiples (did not revert)
  • 'Articles were published mentioning the difficulties Lomonosov had encountered' ⟶ '...published that mentioned the difficulties that Lomonosov had encountered'
  • '..and for printing articles in foreign languages while receiving funds from the Russian people.' ⟶ 'and for printing articles in foreign languages while they received funds from the Russian people.'
  • 'and died out, due to the Imperial family's German roots...' ⟶ 'and died out because of the Imperial family's German roots'
  • ' their irritation with Europeans, some of which featured direct attacks on Germans' ⟶ 'their irritation with Europeans in which some featured direct attacks on Germans'
• N Polish diaspora: multiple issues: links, def. article, redirects, unnecessary replacement of reduced relative clause.
• Magyarab people: multiple issues (not reverted):
  • adverb+verb inversion: 'simply means' ⟶ 'means simply';
  • 'They are of distant Hungarian ancestry' ⟶ 'They have distant Hungarian ancestors' : not wrong, but the original wording was correct, and is much more common—see : ngrams.
  • 'probably dating back to the late 16th century,' ⟶ 'and probably date back to the late 16th century,' : again, not wrong, but the participial adjective form was correct before.
• N + ce Hungarian diaspora: 'Hungarian diaspora... is a term that encompasses...' ⟶ 'The Hungarian diaspora... is a term that encompasses...' : no. Given the context of "...is a term", the lack of definite article was correct before, so your change made it worse. However, as this is the WP:LEADSENTENCE, "...is a term" wording was incorrect in the first place, per WP:REFERS, so the article was wrong both before and after your edit. I've fixed it.
• N Popular revolts in late medieval Europe: unneeded changes to links, pronouns, participles ('criticizing' ⟶ 'He ctiriticed' ^[sic]), and wording ('due to' ⟶ 'because of')
• N+ce Hungarian Americans: unnecessary replacement of participial adj. 'likely becoming the first' ⟶ 'and so likely became the first'; and of gerund phrase 'thereby unleashing + OBJ' ⟶ 'and thereby unleashed + OBJ'.

Some of your changes look to me like the type of change a native French speaker with very good, but non-native command of English might make, because some of the reverted edits look exactly like how something correctly worded in French would turn out, if it were translated very literally back into English. Sometimes that works, but often it does not. Your English is clearly good enough to contribute here by adding new content to articles, and you don't need to worry about introducing minor mistakes of English grammar or usage while adding content, as some editor will come by and fix them up. However, your level of English, good as it is, lacks the near-native proficiency required to make subtle fixes to English grammar and usage of the type you have been attempting to do. Please leave that type of grammar/syntax correction edits to the native speakers.

So I would hope that you can continue contributing to Wikipedia, but without attempting any grammar or wording corrections of existing content. These edits are not improving the encyclopedia, and are wasteful of your time and the time of other editors. If you find something that looks like incorrect English to you, instead of making the change yourself, please flag it on the article Talk page, and ask for help. On the other hand, if you wish to expand an article by adding new content backed by citations to reliable sources, please by all means do so. If you need help editing Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

---