User talk:Awe Fadekemi

Vandalism

Hello, I'm M.boli. Many edits that you recently made seemed to be tests and have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message. Thanks!. I have reverted a bunch of edits where you garbled language, inserted bonkers links, and so on. This is not OK. I put your talk page on my watch list temporarily, please respond here. M.boli (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, It is duly noted. Awe Fadekemi (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many edits have been anti-constructive

Far too many of of your edits have been unhelpful. For example, from edits to Fever today:

the external link to a law dictionary "emergency status" has no relevance to the word "emergency" in this article
the wiki-link to "vaccination and religion" does not help the word "vaccination".

In your edits to List of transcontinental countries the two wiki-links are most unhelpful.

Linking the phrase "natural geological" to something about Yorkshire which happens to have "natural" and "geological" in the title is not even superficially plausible.
Linking the word "autonomous" in the geopolitical context to the article "autonomy" is wrong, plus there are more contextually specific links to articles like autonomous region which are already present in several other places in this article.

Time after time you pick one word out of an article and link to articles and external references which merely happen to share a word in common. I noted a month ago when you first started editing, thinking you might be testing and practicing. Now I'm noting it at the administrator's noticeboard WP:AIV. -- M.boli (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry, but I could see that have all been reverted. Awe Fadekemi (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of anti-constructive edit.

This edit to the article on Feminist pedagogy illustrates an anti-constructive edit. The article contains a block quote from a book on feminist pedagogy.

You appended an unrelated reference to the quote, making it appear as if the quote was sourced from the unrelated reference.
The ref was also unrelated to the substance of the quote. The only relationship was mention of an education theorist. So the reference would not likely have been helpful to the reader.
That reference wasn't acceptable for Wikipedia, according to one editor, because of where it has been published.
So the editor -- quite plausibly thinking the quote was sourced by the unacceptable reference you attached -- deleted the original quote plus reference.

By attaching an unacceptable reference to existing text, you caused the existing text to be deleted.

This is the kind of damage which results from willy-nilly inserting references and links that are unrelated to the articles. The reference and links which you insert happen to share a word in common with the text, but they are usually wildly inappropriate and only serve to worsen Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening, I am removing them now. Thank you Awe Fadekemi (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]