User talk:TheRevisionary

This is TheRevisionary's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.

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 User:TheRevisionary/sandbox 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheRevisionary! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright/close paraphrasing

Hi! It looks like in your recent edits to Walsh Bay, you included copied/closely paraphrased text from https://walshbayhistory.net/. I admire that you are working on expanding some of our articles. However, you need to be careful about how you are using source material in doing so. I would recommend reading our essay on fixing close paraphrasing before adding more material to avoid having your edits removed. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and copyrighted material will be removed. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Duchesse Anne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, TheRevisionary, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I am pleased to present you with your very first service award, in recognition of becoming a Wikipedia contributor.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that may help you to get up to speed:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Signpost, our newspaper.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page.

Again, welcome! C F A 💬 18:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits

Hello there, I was patrolling the recent changes page and I noticed that you have been making multiple edits recently. While I appreciate you doing so, I have noticed that you keep making small edits to the same article and sometimes even within the same section. I noticed that as a result of that the history page gets unnecessarily filled up. I request you to edit the whole article/section in one go. --Yuthoob (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for referring your concern.

This is an internet issue, and will be rectified later on. TheRevisionary (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by it being an internet issue? Do you mean to say that your internet connection that bad that you can only make changes to one or two word or else it won't go through? Also what are you referring to when you say that it "will be rectified later on"?

-- Yuthoob (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Ethernet cable was repetitively disconnecting and reconnecting whilst the WLAN was not able to receive sufficient network access; Rectifying something by definition is generally described as to resolve, correct or fix, in this instance being my internet connection. TheRevisionary (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask you the definition of rectification, I said "what are you referring to when you said rectify". I wanted to clarify whether you were talking about going back and fixing all the mistakes in your edits or something else. You could have used your sandbox to test out your edits first then if you were facing an internet issue. It's not like they required urgent fixes since most of your edits were simply replacing a word for its synonym or something similar.

You mentioned in a reply to another user below that other users could simply revert your edits, but if there is a wall of edit history each with 1 or 2 word changes then it becomes difficult to separate the good edits from the bad. Also you rarely used edit summaries.

See, I do not intend to drag this on further but I request you to please use edit summaries and not make unnecessary edits.

Peace, Yuthoob (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

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 by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

I see that you are making mass edits across multiple unrelated articles. At Muhammad I of Córdoba you largely made the wording more awkward, added at least one ungrammatical sentence, and introduced at least one unexplained POV-related change. Your edits have also been reverted at Unexploded ordnance as non-constructive and even possible vandalism ([1]). Can you explain what you are trying to do? R Prazeres (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this issue earlier on within my talk page; Having experienced numerous issues today associated with my internet connection - whereby I have, regrettably, attempted to conduct numerous edits regardless - I'm now in the process of attempting to rectify these edits throughout the subsequent days ahead, given that this was not within my original intention as, I reiterate, this was a client-associated issue.

Furthermore, I shall also be simultaneously resuming my contributions in several other areas across the site where I may be interested, likewise with engaging any future related queries, as regards to what occurred today in my editing failures, that anyone may forward to my own behalf; Having disconnected my router numerous times for the past three hours if not more, as well as addressing cable associated issues, it's fixed.

Moreover, I wish to apologise to your behalf or anyone extended that may have been affected by the events of today in their own contributions, efforts or projects, since an infiltration against information is something that I deeply resent, and albeit not deliberate, a matter I treat sincerely. Should there be any requests towards myself in resolving the matter, if not providing assistance for such, I shall swiftly do so without question.

My admission of disruption here is one matter, although what has been hinted of purposeful motive in your message is another; For anywho to accuse me of vandalism of any category without approaching me beforehand, which you did confusingly afterwards, I interpret as offensive.

Please be more forthcoming in the future rather than speaking based off of presumptions I've already discussed if you've any queries. TheRevisionary (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Are you using machine-generated text on this website? R Prazeres (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used machine generated text on this website, nor any artificial intelligence related programming or on any other site before; Are you meaning to hint at my vocabulary used on this website being AI-generated? TheRevisionary (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The grammatical errors you've previously made would suggest otherwise, but this reply is one of the most bizarre I've ever seen on Wikipedia, which is sometimes a sign of machine-generated text. I'll leave that aside, since ultimately the main recommendation I have to make is the same: please refrain from modifying existing text on Wikipedia, unless it is to fix obvious errors. The occasional grammatical errors and overall bizarre/unexplained wording changes in your edits of this kind are not constructive and require other editors to needlessly spend time revising or reverting them. Instead, consider focusing, for example, on adding new material on topics not yet covered, which is usually a more positive contribution. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you mean by bizarre, however any individual that wishes to amend my language is enabled to by manual reverts.

I appreciate your outlined concerns.

Sincerely, TheRevisionary (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to repeat R Prazeres' suggestion that you do not change existing text, unless to change obvious errors. Your additions of internal links are helpful, but your choice of words often reduce readability by replacing common words with more "fancy" word that might or might not change the meaning of the text.

Please consider Wikipedia:Manual of Style which says "Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, easily understood language and structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting (which are detailed in this guide)" and "Avoid words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality, that are unnecessarily regional, or that are not widely accepted" (my bold). Sjö (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]