User talk:5'OclockLemonade

Welcome!

Hi 5'OclockLemonade! I noticed your contributions to Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Riverbend21 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I love it so far. Cheers 5'OclockLemonade (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Library 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 to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! CityOfSilver 20:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date variations

Hi, I wanted to draw your attention to WP:DATEVAR. When an article consistently uses one method for dates, please don't change dates to a different form. For example, in articles that use ddmmyy, don't change individual dates to mmddyy, as you did in SI base unit. Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my sincere apologies. I will surely make sure it won't happen again. Thanks for guidance. 5'OclockLemonade (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; there are a lot of style guidelines and it can take quite awhile to get up to speed on them. That's why I pointed it out, so you'd know for future articles.

While I'm here again, I want to talk about your edits. Some of your rewrites have been good (I even thanked you for one that was a clear improvement). But a lot of them are no better than what was there before, and some have been worse. Please don't rewrite sentences just for the sake of change. Don't feel like you have to change every word when all that's really needed is a different word order. You change a lot of words for no reason that I can see other than to make them different, and many of your "synonym" changes alter the substance of the sentence.

I don't want to discourage you from editing, you're doing some good work. Just, slow down on thesaurus-inspired edits, okay?

Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

got it :) 5'OclockLemonade (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too many major changes to major articles without sources

You are changing multiple major articles every few minutes with no explanation and no sources. Slow down. You need to explain your goal on the talk page first, and tell us what sources you are using. You made all these changes in a matter of 12 minutes:

15:02, February 11, 2023 diff hist −45‎ Outline of prehistoric technology ‎No edit summary
15:02, February 11, 2023 diff hist −9‎ History of transport ‎No edit summary current
15:01, February 11, 2023 diff hist +6‎ Military technology ‎No edit summary current
15:00, February 11, 2023 diff hist +20‎ History of medicine ‎No edit summary thank
15:00, February 11, 2023 diff hist +6‎ History of measurement ‎No edit summary thank Tags: Reverted Visual edit
14:59, February 11, 2023 diff hist +15‎ History of materials science ‎No edit summary current
14:59, February 11, 2023 diff hist +14‎ Timeline of historic inventions ‎No edit summary current
14:58, February 11, 2023 diff hist −5‎ History of electrical engineering ‎No edit summary thank
14:57, February 11, 2023 diff hist −26‎ History of software engineering ‎No edit summary current
14:56, February 11, 2023 diff hist −7‎ History of computer science ‎No edit summary current
14:56, February 11, 2023 diff hist −19‎ History of computing ‎No edit summary current
14:55, February 11, 2023 diff hist −35‎ History of communication ‎No edit summary current
14:54, February 11, 2023 diff hist −19‎ History of chemical engineering ‎No edit summary
14:54, February 11, 2023 diff hist +15‎ History of biotechnology ‎No edit summary current
14:53, February 11, 2023 diff hist +8‎ History of agricultural science ‎No edit summary
14:52, February 11, 2023 diff hist +12‎ History of agriculture ‎No edit summary current
14:52, February 11, 2023 diff hist −6‎ Science in the Renaissance ‎No edit summary current
14:51, February 11, 2023 diff hist −8‎ History of science ‎No edit summary current
14:51, February 11, 2023 diff hist −2‎ Science in classical antiquity ‎No edit summary current

Did you study all these topics today? Rjensen (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet 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 sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]