User talk:Romanbow135

Romanbow135, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Romanbow135! 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 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Suttons Wharf

Hello, Romanbow135,

Thanks for creating Suttons Wharf! I edit here too, under the username Girth Summit and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Thanks for creating this article. I had to remove a substantial part of it however, because it appeared to have been copied from a website. I've also moved it to 'Suttons Wharf', which is I think the correct name.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Girth Summit}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

GirthSummit _(blether) 14:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spitalfields, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commercial Street (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) 09:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (East India Dock Road, London) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating East India Dock Road, London.

User:Hughesdarren while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Nice work, had to reword the second sentence to prevent copyright violation issues

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Heath

Hi, @Romanbow135:. Why are you deleting chunks of Cambridge Heath and then pasting them back in again? Schazjmd (Talk) 21:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Lord Belbury (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Bethnal Green has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Sjö (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from East End of London into Mile End. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Romanbow135, I have noted your many edits to East End articles over the past few months. Some I agree with, some I don't, some I just don't understand. But what they all have in common is that you never, ever leave an edit summary. Please learn to do so. You can read some of the arguments for doing so at WP:ES; but the bottom line is that it takes seconds, is a basic act of courtesy to other editors, and it will mean that you will be treated with more respect, and that your edits are less likely to be reverted. GrindtXX (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came here to request exactly the same. You really need to do this, especially when you remove cited material e.g. here[1] – it is not acceptable to do this without explanation. Generally I would revert such an edit where no explanation is given, but I have left that one, as in this case the info removed may be out-of-date and not really important in the context of the article. But would it have hurt you or taken too long to write that?

Please look at Help:Edit summary, and start to use this feature regularly in your wiki editing. It also shows consideration for other editors, as the edit summary gives an explanation of what has changed when the article shows up in our watchlists. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would help a lot to know whether you're removing something from an article because it's factually incorrect, because it's out of date, because you've moved it somewhere else, because you think it's too much detail for the article, etc. If you're moving paragraphs of text from one article to another (eg. [2] to [3]) an editor who only notices the first edit will just see you deleting valid content without explanation, and would be forgiven for putting it back. Work with other editors by saying what you're doing, and they'll work with you in return.

Note especially (as Dianaa says in the previous section) that Wikipedia copyright policy explicitly requires that we say in an edit summary when we're copying text from one article to another, so that we can keep track of who wrote what. You need to start doing this. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2019 (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/Hopeful2014, 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.

Lord Belbury (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]