User talk:CoMeToBeDeYeS1029384756

May 2013

Hello, I'm Uncle Milty. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Gordie Johnson because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fossil Parks of India. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Chapel-en-le-Frith High School. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Jimmy Foster (racing driver). Ducknish (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The two edits referred to above were clearly good faith edits intended to improve the articles concerned (from the editor's point of view, which may be flawed). I have therefore struck both of them.

CoMeToBeDeYeS1029384756, I've removed the word "modern" from the description of the school entirely, as no source is provided for it, it verges on the promotional, it's somewhat empty in meaning and it will become outdated over time. (Modern might mean built in the 1980s instead of the 1920s, or it might mean built one year ago, or anything in between). Your edit to qualify modern with "-ish" was therefore basically valid; the only problem is that we try to write Wikipedia articles in very formal, "encyclopedic" language, so "modern-ish" is not ideal.

Many thanks for your work in trying to improve Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of your edits may perhaps have been attempts "to improve Wikipedia", as Demiurge1000 suggests, but your edits to Rødøy and Fossil Parks of India were unambiguous vandalism, and some of your other edits have been at best dubious. Please do take the warnings above seriously. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the editor should pay heed to the warnings concerned, I've reverted your change to my edit. Please see WP:NOTVAND. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems James is better than I at predicting the long-term behaviour of editors based on their editing history. So it goes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Hut 8.5 22:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]