User talk:A21NX

Australia Scout Jamboree

I am trying to help out HiLo48 because he did help me out I am helping out HiLo48 becsuse last time HiLo48 did help me out.

Once again You not Allow the put information in this jamborre website.

I did try put this information because Jamboree was Cancel. The use HiLo48 did delete my information so please dont change it back PLease A21NX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.157.88.231 (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1.157.88.231: Alright, so long as what your doing isn't vandalism. It's as simple as that. Happy editing here at WP. A21NX (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gidday A21NX Thank you fo your comment for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.157.88.231 (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A21NX, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi A21NX! 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 Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. User3749 (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Thanks! A21NX (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Moline, Illinois. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ashley yoursmile! 15:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Asartea. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kyle Husslein without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 15:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Ashley yoursmile! 15:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleyyoursmile, acknowledged. Sorry for this.

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Voice of Vietnam have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Larryzhao123 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalising

Equinox ◑ 15:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox: May I suggest you mention which edit was "vandalizing"? You might use a template from wp:Template index/User talk namespace such as {{uw-vandalism1}}. You can use {{diff2}} e.g. Your edit to "Valley Girl (song)" Please consider that users do make mistakes. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, @Adakiko:. This bozo here is purposely accusing me of a blunder I didn't even do. Thanks for informing him of what he should do next time he's gonna accuse someone. A21NX (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A21NX, I was just coming here to talk to you about the same diff. I wouldn't go quite so far as Equinox and say that you were vandalising, but it was an inappropriate revert - the IP's changes were an obvious improvement to the article, I don't understand why you reverted them. This edit was also inappropriate, as was this one. I'm not using a warning template, but please consider this a warning - you need to be a lot more careful about reverting, and you need to stop SHOUTING in your edit summaries. If you are unsure about why these edits were inappropriate, feel free to ask, but it should be obvious if you look at them properly. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 13:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aight, no problem. I just hate it when people don't give proof of any misbehavior I have done at WP. And also, I didn't know it was considered SHOUTING. Good day. A21NX (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A21NX, yep. All caps is OK if you're giving a link to a policy or guideline (like WP:SHOUTING), but for normal comments like edit summaries just use normal sentence case. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for this! A21NX (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Hi again A21NX - I see that you have been reverting an IP address blanking Draft:JC Benedict Latras. Can I draw your attention to a couple of things? First, look at the revision history of that draft. It has been entirely written by a few IP addresses on a particular IP range. I think that's probably all the same person, perhaps working on different computers within a school or business. Now, take a look at WP:G7. An author is entirely within their rights to blank a page they have written - admins will interpret that as a request to delete the page.

I reviewed a few of your edits yesterday, and asked you to take more care. Today I see you continuing to revert someone who has been making legitimate edits, and I am concerned that your editing, however well-intentioned, is actually disrupting the editing process for other people. I'm going to ask you to step back from reverting people except in cases of obvious, clear-cut vandalism (as described at WP:VANDALISM) until you have gained more experience. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 08:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the above, your recent edits at The Little Couple are hard to understand. An IP added a sentence and source, and then self-reverted the addition. You then reinstated their content, and then appeared to change your mind and reverted yourself with the edit summary 'No test edits please'. Did you actually read the content, and look at the source, before reinstating it? The source didn't support the assertion. It's likely that the IP editor added the sentence, and then realised that they would need a better source, and so self-reverted - there was no reason for you to get involved.

I'm not here to give you a hard time, but to emphasise the problem. If you see an IP editor removing content, do not reinstate it unless you have read the content, and the sources, and have satisfied yourself that the source is reliable and actually supports the content. It's true that blanking is often a form of vandalism; a lot of the time though, removals are perfectly valid, even if the editor has not provided an explanatory edit summary, so reverting them on sight is not appropriate. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 08:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, I am so sorry for this, :@Girth Summit:. I will read all policies regarding this. I guess you really are my mentor here at WP lol. Kidding aside, thanks for enlightening me. My apologies for the inconvenience caused. Please guide me in editing here at WP, so that one day I'll be more experienced. A21NX (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A21NX, I do mentor people through the WP:CVUA programme, but I don't have a slot for a trainee at the moment. Basically though, what I want you to do is to back off from reverting unless you are absolutely certain that someone is vandalising. If you see curse words being added to an article, or stupid ridiculous additions that couldn't possible be true, then you can revert. If it's just people removing content, leave them alone unless you are prepared to take time to read the content, check any sources that they've removed, and take responsibility for that content being accurate. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Have a good day. A21NX (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi User:A21NX i saw you revert my edits in Manasi Salvi, Sonia Singh and Mamik Singh. I want to tell you is that I did nothing wrong as per WP:Filmography channels or networks are not supposed to be allowed over here please understand and don’t keep bringing them back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:41:2AA:E934:7C27:93F2:21AA (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Thanks for informing me. A21NX (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review more carefully before reverting

You reverted this edit with the explanation of "Non-constructive edit. Unexplained removal of content". It was originally removed with the comment "Removed disinformation". It was, in fact, pure junk that should have been removed and did not have any useful reference. Please be more careful when reviewing edits. Ravensfire (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Maglasang, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Best, DanCherek (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]