Contents

User talk:Country20

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Bear 71 has been reverted.
Your edit heretoBear 71 was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://vimeo.com/259334683) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to let you know that I've noticed an instance of you adding too many internal links on Mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. You only need to add an internal link to a given topic once when it's first mentioned, there's no reason to overdo it, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking for more information. Megaman en m (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice you have already been asked not to WP:OVERLINK terms in Wikipedia articles. Despite this you have restored your over-linkingatMillennials. I would urge you to read the guideline that Megaman has directed you to above. I also strongly suggest you do not restore reverted edits without including an edit summary to explain your reasoning. If you think the guideline is being misapplied then you should initiate a discussion on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came here to tell you about the same issue with your edits. Please read the links provided above and stop linking every instance of a term, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Millennials, 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. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributionstoWikipedia.

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

I noticed your recent edit to Smart mobility does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! asilvering (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The article was reverted to a reasonable state, and since then it has been a little warred over.
My concern is listed here Talk:WeWork#Fix_the_article_please.
When the article was reverted it was fine, in a prose style and in reasonable standing.
It then had a couple of edits that turned it into a massive list of bullet points.

I have asked for someone to fix it, but wondered if you could go and take a look?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add excessive subsections, as you did at Musk. ~ HAL333 09:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 14:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation, as you did at Ingrid Andress, may be confused with vandalism. Thank you. Sebbirrrr (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use edit summaries that are misleading, intentionally or not, as you did at Ingrid Andress, you may be blocked from editing.

Your edit summary from here does not address everything that I brought up here. You did not explain why you removed the access-dates. I'm confused as to what you mean by "Wikipedia formatting" since having sections for one-sentence paragraphs is discouraged and I don't understand why you split the life and career section in two since there wasn't a lot of information in it to begin with anyway. Same thing for the career section, what was the point of splitting it in four? Furthermore, you kept the same text you added in even if you misrepresented the source or you worded it poorly. For example:

• "she started a heavy metal music band, although it did not do well" → saying that the band was unsuccessful would be better
• You mentioned twice that she majored in songwriting and performance
• "Another one of her groups" → she does not own the groups
• "She left Berklee, since the school's emphasis on theory was a frustrating obstacle to her progression" → this is copy-pasted from the source
• "She always writes her own songs unless she finds an exceptional song written by someone else" → this is entirely incorrect, in the article she says she will never record a song that she did not write
• "and entered a new relationship that was still active as of 2022" → she did not enter the relationship right after she ended the previous one and calling it "still active" is bizarre

I should clarify that I am not opposed to including some of the information but it should be worded clearly and concisely. Regards, Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Rkieferbaum. I noticed that you recently removed content from Uber 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. It might be reasonable to move content from one place to another, but it is not so if you're just removing content from somewhere and not adding it elsewhere. Please don't do that. Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country20 (talk)The content was moved to a separate page, Controversies involving Uber per a discussion and per my edit summary......

Your recent editing history at Uber shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please see comment on my revert. Don't just delete meaningful and referenced content that's not present elsewhere. Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Country20! Your additions to Jean Veloz have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• Ifyou own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. Thanks for helping out on Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. But please make use of the edit summaries feature. It helps us know the why, where, and how of changes. Thanks. SWinxy (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HiCountry20, I saw that you recently made some substantial edits to the CME Group article. I think many of the deletions were wise and long overdue, but the article does seem a little sparse now and there seems to be continued confusion throughout about the distinction between CME Group and Chicago Mercantile Exchange. I put together a proposal on the Talk page that attempts to correct this issue. I have a COI due to my relationship with CME Group, so I won't be editing the article myself. As such, I'm hoping that editors like you who have helped to improve article content in the past can take a look at what I've put together. Would appreciate any feedback you can provide! Lbischel (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country20 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)We don't need info in WP about when shareholders approved the deal, what happened to the target company's stock, what the NY Times thought about the deal, and when the deal was announced, if we already have the fact that it closed.[reply]

HiCountry20, thank you for the prompt response. I have replied to your comment on the CME Group article Talk page. Please let me know what you think of my revised draft. Thanks again. Lbischel (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Spicy (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]