User talk:Adamdaley/Archives/2021/February

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

There's a guideline at Wikipedia called MOS:VAR, which in brief, calls for leaving things alone in cases where there are more than one valid style, even if you prefer a different style that is equally valid. For example, if both upper case and lower case characters are valid in a given situation, then don't change from one to the other merely to suit your own preference, if it was valid before. One might call this, the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule. I checked a few of your recent edits today, and they all have violations of portions of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, of which MOS:VAR is one part. Please refrain from any of these:

• Capitalization – Please do not change the capitalization on class parameters, like 'Start' instead of 'start', or 'Low' instead of 'low' as you did here at Talk:Henry L. Brown, or here at Talk:Henry L. Cake or here at Talk:Henry L. Muldrow, or here at Talk:Henry Lee Plage
• Param aliases – Please do not switch one valid template parameter for another, as you did by setting param value of 'no' instead of the equally valid 'n', such as here at Talk:Henry L. Cake, or 'yes' to 'y', as here at Talk:Henry L. Muldrow, or here at Talk:Henry Lee Higginson or here at Talk:Henry Lee Plage or here at Talk:Catherine Caughey
• Embedded blanks in section headers – Please do not switch from one valid section header template, such as blanks between the title and equals signs, instead of no blanks, as you did here at Talk:Henry Livingston Jr.
• Embedded blanks in templates – Please do not switch from one valid Template invocation style, such as embedded blank before the pipe character prefix before a param name, to no blanks before the pipe character, as you did here at Talk:Catherine Caughey.

This is not a major deal, but just something to be aware of. Please have a look at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, to get an idea about this important guideline for editing at Wikipedia. Thanks, and I hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Mathglot: -- If you go back and look at Catherine Caughey, the WP:MILHIST assessment was invalid and therefore, I added to it and removed the invalid part of it. Could people just leave me alone since the majority of edits are just over little "nit-picking" edits. Adamdaley (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It’s hard to believe you’re not running a bot with the speed of your changes and the alphabetic sequence of unrelated articles, and you have been repeating the same edits to articles that I have reverted before for violations of MOS:VAR. But regardless whether you are running a bot or making dozens and hundreds of the same type of edits with the same edit summaries or doing it manually, this is now past the point where it is “starting” to become disruptive. Please knock it off immediately. Mathglot (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)