User talk:GrammarDamner/Archives/2019/April

GrammarDamner, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi GrammarDamner! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

OVERLINK

Hi there - I'd ask that you please do not link to countries/nationality articles per WP:OVERLINK. If you have any questions please ask. GiantSnowman 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Super Bowl LIII does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. When making changes like this, particularly when they are almost invisible in diffs, please describe what you are doing to make it easier for reviewers to find your change. In this case, a simple edit comment like "Oxford comma" would have been worthwhile. Regardless, always use the edit comment to communicate with reviewers. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll be better.GrammarDamner (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Stop with your awkward Oxford comma. Your comment it's consistent with the rest of the article is not valid and beside the point. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it is valid and right on point. See here: MOS:OXFORD.GrammarDamner (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That does not back you up. Editors may use either convention. In this context director and producer go together. Stop WP:edit warring over this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It says as long as it's consistent. The rest of the article uses the oxford comma.GrammarDamner (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Not in the context of director and producer it doesn't. And that is not policy. Per MOS:OXFORD: This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. It is amazing you think this gives you license to edit war. WP:STATUSQUO and WP:3RR are far more important. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved discussion

Why are are you the fascism page to try and define it as a right wing ideaology. It isn't and try to push it as so a dishonest lie. Fascism was born of collecrivism and ALL of the fascist regimes in history were formed and headed bynleftists and leftists parties. Paytience (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't changed any information on the Fascism page, I've simply corrected some grammar. I actually don't think Fascism is confined to either the right or left of the political spectrum, but I'm not interested in that debate.GrammarDamner (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	You inspire me. =) Yelephant (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate edit summaries

This is inaccurate. Please do not do it again.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, sometimes I get so used to always saying grammar I forget when I'm doing something else. GrammarDamner (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, especially if it involves living persons. This edit adding "Failing to realize how subsidies and tax breaks work," before a pre-existing sentence is defamatory, misrepresents the pre-existing source that the sentence is cited to, is not neutrally worded, is not a WP:MINOR edit as you have flagged it, and did not have an accurate edit summary ("wording" suggests you changed the wording, not that you added new content). This is not appropriate in a WP:BLP, and this is not the first time you have been warned. Some editors may see this as intentionally attempting to avoid scrutiny of an inappropriate edit, particularly as it came among a series of comma-insertion minor edits described as "grammar". Please exercise more caution in the future. Thank you. Leviv ich 18:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@User:Levivich Ah! Sorry! My bad, I do apologize, I need to focus on not always hitting that minor button, it's become a habit when I get into that editing rhythm. I certainly would never defame AOC, just thought that I was adding relevant and helpful info to keep the article neutral, but I'll leave that out if you feel it's best. Thank you. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Since the last warning from Doc James, you added that Cristiano Ronaldo is a "prolific flopper" with the edit summary "grammar" and the edit marked minor. You also have been slow-motion edit-warring the inclusion of negative information about Royce White's phobias: Feb 19; Feb 22 (no edit summary); Mar 25 (edit summary "grammar"), marked minor, tucked in a string of other minor gnoming edits. No one has edited Talk:Royce White in a year. Your bold additions have been reverted there, so per WP:BRD, you should take it to the talk page. These are in addition to the one at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez today. WP:BLP is one of the most important policies here. Negative information about BLPs should only be added with the greatest of care, sourced, with consensus, in line with policy, and with an accurate edit summary. Otherwise, you may be mistaken for a vandal or POV pusher trying to sneak negative content into articles. WP:AGF only goes so far. Leviv ich 19:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@User:Levivich I'm sorry, I'm ashamed, but I'll be better moving forward! Thank you for your help! GrammarDamner (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I also came here about your edit at AOC, where you inserted "Failing to realize how subsidies and tax breaks work" but marked it as a minor change to "wording." Clearly not minor, unsourced defamatory claim in a BLP. As @Levivich: says, AGF goes only so far. Do better. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, @User:HouseOfChange, I’m sorry for my mistakes. It was not my intention, just my scatterbrained carelessness. Thank you all for all of your support! GrammarDamner (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

DS Advisement - Articles relating to Biographies of Living Persons

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk)

@User:Cameron11598, what sanctions are now being imposed on me? GrammarDamner (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

None, I'm not an administrator so I lack the ability to impose any sanctions. The message above is just to make you aware that administrators are afforded extra abilities in this subject area. This message is generally provided to editors that take interest in living subjects. There are similar advisements for other topic areas such as gun control and post 1932 American Politics. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok then, thank you! GrammarDamner (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Royce White. 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. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, with all due respect, that wasn’t unconstructive or vandalism. Many other athletes who were draft busts mention that in their lead section. Royce White was taken in the first round but never scored a single point in the NBA. GrammarDamner (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)