User talk:110.174.132.162

January 2021

I noticed that you objected to my revert of your edits at Black swan, so I thought I'd point out more specifically what the problems were. I've highlighted them in red in the following excerpts from the article:

"The black swan was introduced to various countries as an ornamental bird in the 1800s. some have managed to escape, forming stable populations. In England, A small group of wild black swans live on the River Thames…"

"Black swans' feathers are mostly black, with flight feathers being white."

"In flight, a wedge of black swans will aligh as a straight back—to—forth line or V—shaped.While in the sky, individual birds strongly undulaet their long necks, making whistling sounds with their wings and give out baying, bugling or trumpeting calls."

You later added this sentence, which I and another editor had to correct:

"This bird is a regional symbol of both Western Australia(a state of Australia) - where it is native to, and Dawlish(a town of England) - where it is an introduced spieces."

You did not fix any errors with these edits, and they're full of grammatical, spelling and punctuation mistakes. Please be more careful. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 18:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching!--110.174.132.162 (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Marina Bay Sands. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Yuorvee (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2021 (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.

Could you point out which sentences are unsourced, at least one example, please? It is important to note that, the action of labelling news from the Washington Journal, the Strait Times, the Reuters as original research without evidence is original research and it violates Wikipedia's policies.--110.174.132.162 (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Marina Bay Sands shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This message is not to warn you of having broken any rules, but to advise you on the three revert rule. Please discuss the matter on the page at Talk:Marina_Bay_Sands. Seloloving (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2021 (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.

Thanks for the heads up. You sound more objective than a few other previous editors of that page... at least you used the term 'good faith' and pasted relevant rules here. I hope that people should leave an explanation (if it exists at all) when deleting things, just like the way you did, instead of simply dropping some unrelated keywords.--110.174.132.162 (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I will have a look tomorrow, or when I am free, with good faith. Seloloving (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the good will. It sounds nice, but perhaps not necessary. I am not going to edit that article again. You may just leave that page as it is now. To be honest, I had expected this to be the most likely result (although not a definite one) from the beginning. It is not worth your or my time on such trivia about a certain business. There are many more important topics elsewhere where we should spend our precious time on.--110.174.132.162 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is an attack from a group. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you helping me move that section. I did not know where the most appropriate place to complain about multiple IP addresses together was.--110.174.132.162 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Book title mark (October 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Book title mark and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 110.174.132.162! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

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 Proper noun mark, 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. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

---