User talk:Plantagenet v

The Book of Mormon[edit]

Hi. Your recent edit to the article on The Book of Mormon was not usable because {{Book of Mormon}}, with double curly braces, is a template (i.e., a macro) — and when you renamed it to {{The Book of Mormon}}, you broke the template reference by making it refer to something that doesn't exist.

See Template:Book of Mormon for more about this particular template, and WP:TEMPLATES for information about templates in general.

You would probably have caught your mistake if you had use the "Show preview" button on the editing screen and carefully studied what the page was going to look like with your change. You would presumably have noticed the sidebar infobox had vanished, and the text Template:The Book of Mormon had appeared in red at the start of the article text. Please get into the habit of always doing a preview of a page before saving any changes you intend to make to it.

And before you ask — yes, I suppose it might be reasonable to rename the template itself (and change all references to it in every article that mentions it) — but this sort of thing is not done without discussion and consensus (i.e., don't you just go renaming the template because you think it ought to have "The" in its name). — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BusterD. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Jefferson Davis without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Prince George of Cambridge with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward IV of England may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to The Nile Song[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Nile Song, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! : Noyster (talk), 07:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to American Civil War[edit]

I reverted because your edit broke the reference. Feel free to fix ...

Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Welcome![reply]

Welcome, and comments about Korean War[edit]

Hello, Plantagenet v, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Korean War does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! – S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The message above is from a template message. I used it because the claim that the Korean War is ongoing is largely based on personal points of view. The major Reliable Sources which support the article give the end-date as the signing of the KAA. This question has been discussed on the article talk page. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Korean War. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

Plantagenet, there are 9 archives of discussion about the article. Many of them talk about this very issue. Please take the time to review the discussions. Then, if you feel strongly about the end date of the war, open a new discussion on the talk page. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just the main instruments[edit]

Per Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument, we just put the main instruments the artist is famous for playing, not the ones that were minor or trivial. Please don't remove the hidden note and replace it with trivial instruments as you did here. The infobox is not supposed to supply an exhaustive list. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Please refrain from changing genres without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Widr (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Pink Floyd, you may be blocked from editing. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genre in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at David Gilmour. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to A Day at the Races (album)[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s). In particular, your edit either contained significant spelling and grammatical errors or it ruined the formatting or deviated from the standard format of a Wikipedia article. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Jazz (Queen album)[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edits because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ... discospinster _talk 21:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]