User talk:1.220.90.182

December 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! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. You have removed postnominals from many pages now without explaining yourself here on your Talk page or in edit summaries. Please explain, or this might be considered vandalism. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Gracie Fields, you may be blocked from editing. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. You say that you're removing content per MOS. Can you point me to the appropriate MOS page? If not, you may be blocked from further editing without notice. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, I'm Wiiformii. I noticed that you recently removed content from Michael Palin without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. 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. Wiiformii (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiiformii: I reported this at WP:AIV, but I was told that this editor is "applying a recent change to the MoS". This still concerns me, but I guess I'll let it go. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eyer Oh thank you! I didn't see their message, we'll see what AIV says. Wiiformii (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unexplained removals

Why have you been removing the postnominal tags from various articles? Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) They're actually contrary to WP:MOS. Even though they have been happily there for about 20 years? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"rvv - Revert, per MOS" edit summaries

Please don't use "rvv": this is typically reserved for "reverting vandalism", which is not what you are doing. Many users have not heard about the idiotic change to the MOS, so think they are doing the right thing. Calling it vandalism is unhelpful and incorrect, so please just phrase it as "Revert, per MOS". And the reason people are reverting your initial change is that you haven't been leaving edit summaries, despite several people asking you to do so above. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I see you are still using the same text. You are essentially calling editors acting in good faith 'vandals'. This fails the policy on civility and you are liable to have your editing privileges removed if you continue to do so. Please drop the 'rvv' from the edit summary. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are even using "rvv per MOS" to simply change is to was. It's their only known edit summary!

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but per MOS:HON & MOS:SIR, aren't the honorific pre-and-post-nominals exceptions to the rule in both the infobox and the lead sentence? I wish it were a bit more succinct. @Eyer @Martinevans123 @Harryhenry1 @SchroCat --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 23:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the 2023 RFC, MOS:POSTNOM now says "post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's too vague, as the MOS change isn't specified. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I only saw it because MidnightBlueman pointed it out in an edit summary. Another user pointed out if there's no infobox, then having the honour in the lede is fine.Halbared (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Postnominal Removal Rampage

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Alan Bates. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 19:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kathy Staff 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; read about 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. Belbury (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Can you please use edit summaries?

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to capitalize on this, @1.220.90.182: while I understand your plight about the postnominals, you need to elucidate this in your edit summaries. They are far too vague. Simply stating "rvv per mos" is not sufficient. You ought to be more specific, and thus I'd recommend you link directly to the relevant WP:POSTNOM or MOS:POSTNOM — either will do. Much appreciated, thank you.----Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit warring on John Gielgud

I have opened a thread here to discuss your changes. Do not edit war again, but use the talk page. This is a featured article that has been through two community review processes, so per WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO, you need to discuss, not blindly edit war. If you revert again, I will happily report you in the appropriate venue for it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP 1.220.90.182, you recently left an edit summary here, which says "rvv - Revert, again, postnominals are fine here since there's no infobox, you first need to read the MOS on this and also stop reverting just for the sake of it and above all without even checking what you are actually doing!". Can you please point out where at MOS it says "postnominals are fine after a name if there is no infobox"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:1.220.90.182 reported by User:Belbury (Result: ). Thank you. Belbury (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

You have been blocked from editing articles directly instead of discussing them on their talk pages, for a period of 2 weeks Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.