User talk:Peoplelikeyou1234567

Welcome!

Hi Peoplelikeyou1234567! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Vanjagenije (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for messaging! I'll make sure to check all this out. Thanks for reaching out :) Peoplelikeyou1234567 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8DA:7D4C:8099:C3E4 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that vandalism? Can you give a WP:diff? Vanjagenije (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije, [1]; [2]; [3] may not all be straight vandalism, but are test edits or original research. Taken together, they're disruptive. Perhaps a level one notice would have been more appropriate, but most of their contributions have been reverted for various reasons. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8DA:7D4C:8099:C3E4 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those edits constitutes vandalism. You should read carefully WP:VANDALISM and especially WP:NOTVANDALISM to learn what vandalism is and what is not. Accusing new editors for vandalism without evidence is a form of WP:BITING. You should refrain from such behavior. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Peoplelikeyou1234567, let me echo the welcome you received above, and explain why a number of your edits were reverted. This appeared to me to be either a test or vandalism [4]--perhaps you can explain; this was unsourced [5] and requires WP:RELIABLE to support it; this was an unexplained, unsourced and controversial content change [6]; this was unsourced and properly considered unnecessary by another editor [7]; this also appeared to be a good faith/test edit [8]; this was correctly reverted per MOS:OL [9]; and this was presumably a test edit [10]. Please do read more about our guidelines, and contribute here. Feel free to ask questions, too. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded to the above. Please explain the rationale for this edit [11]. I'm wondering if these aren't intended to be disruptive after all. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you find this edit disruptive. My goal was to add more information to this page. Peoplelikeyou1234567 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at George Fox, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B5B5:46AC:4F0D:7F08 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Pangram, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. No need to link the names of countries, see MOS:OVERLINK. Belbury (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello, I'm Raladic. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Non-binary gender, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please refer to MOS:GENDERID. Raladic (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Raladic (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Color articles and verifiability

I noticed that over a period of months, you have made unsourced and unjustified changes to the hex value or other color coordinates at various color articles such as Brown, Orange (colour), Fuchsia (color), and Aqua (color). In addition, they were made without leaving an edit summary. All of these edits have been undone, by various editors.

Please note that all assertions at Wikipedia must be Verifiable, and the best way to demonstrate verifiability is by adding a citation to a reliable source. In the case of hex color value for color articles, by convention and agreement at the Color WikiProject, a recognized source is the CSS Color Module Level 3. Please use that as a source if and when you plan to change the hex value at a color article, but under no circumstances should you change the value without a source or without leaving an edit summary.

And in general, please pay more attention to WP:Verifiability in all of your edits. Over your last 50 edits, 23 have been reverted; this indicates insufficient attention is being paid to finding sources which support your changes. If you have questions, you can contact me at my talk page, or feel free to ask any questions about editing Wikipedia at the Wikipedia:Tea house. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, I'm CFA. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Modern English 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 or the Help desk. Thanks. C F A 💬 15:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Gothenburg, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Heart ^(talk) 14:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Coptic script. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Leelah Alcorn

Please don't add the deadnames of transgender individuals that were not notable under their deadname, such as Leelah Alcorn. There is longstanding and well-established consensus that, unless the transgender person was notable under their deadname before they transitioned, deadnames should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia in order to protect the privacy of article subjects. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity and WP:BLPPRIVACY for more information. Thanks, — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 18:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, I'm Lordseriouspig. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Orders of magnitude (length)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Lordseriouspig 19:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peoplelikeyou1234567: Please stop with your vandalism. You have made many constructive edits so I would hate to see you blocked, but some of your edits have been blatant vandalism. C F A 💬 19:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Voiceless El with comma (August 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bobby Cohn was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Unreferenced?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Voiceless El with comma and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peoplelikeyou1234567! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]