User talk:B.Perrine

Excessive linking

I just noticed your changes to William Cannon. It is usually appropriate to link only the first occurrence of an article. For example, you have linked Democratic Party over and over. See MOS:DUPLINK. MB 18:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MB 03:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B.Perrine - first off, thanks for your efforts so far to improve the project. Further to MB's comments above, I've reviewed some of your edits, and I agree that these links are indeed excessive. Adding wikilinks to articles is generally a good thing, but doing it to excess is distracting - please do review the advice at DUPLINK, linked to above. A lot of the links you've added will need to be removed to bring the content back into compliance with the MOS - I think it would be a nice, collaborative gesture if you were to go through your own edits and fix these issues yourself, so that someone else doesn't have to do it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, B.Perrine, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Melcous (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor" editing

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Melcous (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, B.Perrine. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Sea of blue

Hi - just another pointer about adding links - please take a look at this link. In this diff, and one or two others I noticed, you are putting blue links next to each other in a way that isn't recommended. You could consider rearranging the sentences to avoid this if you think the link is necessary, but remember that some terms don't really need to be linked - in the case I linked, I'm not sure that 'Vice President' needed to be linked, the reader is almost certain to know what the role of the vice president is, and if they don't, they could find out by following the link to Joe Biden (since it's linked to from there in the first sentence). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

As has been said above, you have added many, many wiklinks that are excessive and go against the Manual of Style and it is going to take a lot of work to go back and remove many of them. It would be really nice if you would (a) respond here on your talk page to show that you understand the issue and have heard what other editors are saying, (b) stop doing the same thing after being asked multiple times not to; and (c) go back and fix your own mistakes - i.e. remove the links that are repeated. Wikipedia works by consensus, meaning editors are expected to work with one another. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i acknowledge the overlinking issue & thought i have stopped doing same— Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Perrine (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like help removing the overlinks? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Head of government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bundeskanzler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixing" redirects

Hi. I noticed that in articles like Gravesend, Hudson River, and Staten Island, you have "fixed" redirects so that the links point directly to the target pages. While some instances of this may be acceptable - e.g. if targeting a redirect link to a new article, or as part of a larger redirect - this is not recommended, per WP:NOTBROKEN.

By changing these links, you may be losing redirects which can possibly be split into a new article in the future (tagged with {{R with possibilities}}), as well as redirects to specific sections of an article (tagged with {{R to section}}). For instance, in the Gravesend article, the Coney Island Yard link was changed to the main article List of New York City Subway yards, not the relevant Coney Island Complex section. In the future, please be careful when fixing redirects. Thank you. epicgenius (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NUMERAL

Please stop changing spelled-out numbers to numerals. Per the manual of style, "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." Other numbers may still be written in words so your changes are unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 23:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Israel Putnam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Putnam County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects don't need to be fixed, nor should they be

This edit is an example of WP:NOTBROKEN. The guideline is clear that trying to "fix" broken redirects is counterproductive to the encyclopedia. Please contact me if you have any questions about how this should work. Alansohn (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I would say that, in the future, if you want to bypass redirects (something I like to do occasionally as well), consider doing this instead. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change internal links solely to bypass redirects

This edit at Empress Matilda is improper because it appears to be intended solely to bypass redirects. Do not fix redirects that are not broken. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You are continuing to remove redirects[1] even though you've been asked multiple times not to do so. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style. You have been cautioned again and again about "fixing" links that aren't broken, per WP:NOTBROKEN, yet you have continued your disruptive editing at Connecticut and Georgia (U.S. state). Please stop. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINKING

Please slow your roll on the wikilinking. Here, you're linking the same items multiple times in the same section. You've had plenty of warnings for this. Here, you are "fixing" links that don't need to be fixed, which you were already warned about. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MB 16:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B.Perrine. Are you planning to answer the complaint at ANI? A concern about your overlinking was at ANI in late 2019 and you agreed to make some changes then. If you no longer are willing to address the problem an admin may decide to block your account. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit without responding, I intend to go ahead with a block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You responded on my talk, "I'm responding (I think) to this issue, that I don't really see as an issue". That is the big concern. Others see the problems with your edits but you can't see it yourself. Please look at your last two edits, the first of which was at Phillip Calvert (governor). There you replaced a perfectly good link to a redirect with a piped link. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines such as MOS:NOPIPE, yet you keep doing this over and over. It would be a good beginning if you would undo your last two edits. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Will you please undo this edit at Charles Calvert, 5th Baron Baltimore which violates WP:NOPIPE. There is already a perfectly good redirect at Benedict Leonard Calvert, 4th Baron Baltimore so there is no need for a pipe. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, editor has continued with this edit. MB 20:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. Wasting others' time by continually making edits contrary to the WP:MOS which will one day need to be fixed up by others..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

See all of the discussions above. I asked you to undo certain edits to show that you understood, but you never did. The problem with your edits was twice reported at ANI, the second time here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the administarators are ok with broken links to people, unless they plan on having multiple articles written about the same people

The links are not broken. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if they are redirected links, than they are infact broken & should be fixed

User:B.Perrine, I have disabled your access to this talk page after you edited other people's comments and left a personal attack. See WP:UTRS for your further appeal options. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]