User talk:InfoboxEditor26

Welcome!

Hello, WikiCorrector5241! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started

Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset
How to: edit a page • upload an image

Getting Help

Policies and Guidelines

Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research
Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines
What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons

Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule
Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy
External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry
Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community

Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program
Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette
No personal attacks • Resolving disputes
Build consensus • Village pump
Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists
The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)

Things to do

Task Center • Be bold in editing
Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles
Join a WikiProject • Translating articles
Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism

Miscellaneous

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message to WikiCorrector5241

Please keep in mind that {{plainlist}} and {{unbulleted list}} are equivalent, and there is no reason to make edits that only swap out one for the other. Moreover, purely cosmetic edits can be disruptive. Otherwise, welcome and thanks for your contributions. Remsense ‥ 论 23:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2025 (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 Guglielmo Marconi, 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. DANGA14^talk 21:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

recent edit

you reverted to a capital letter on a sentence fragment.

I'll fix it for you Augmented Seventh (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I've seen some of your edits in which you have ambiguated a person's field of study. Please refrain from making such edits unless there are reliable sources that do so or consensus is in favor of ambiguity. ZergTwo (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox electronic component

This may be a good add but "manufacturer" is to vague. Current manufacturers? first manufacturer?. The parameter in a template has to have a universal logical use. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025 Reverted Edits & Advice

Hello InfoboxEditor26.

I noticed you edited C. V. Raman including editing the Infobox for education (adding a high school) and for alma_mater (adding an institution from which he did not graduate). Your edits were not constructive and I have manually reverted them. With experience you should note the Infoboxes for biographies do not include high schools and do not include institutions from which the subjects did not graduate (except in exceptionally and extraordinarily rare circumstances where there is editors' consensus before the edit is made). C.V. Raman is designated a good article [1] by Wikipedia and is an example for both of these before you made your edits. Some of the precepts are included in MOS:INFOEDU & Template:Infobox person#Parameters / education / alma mater where it is noted "It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise..." and "institution of higher education (not secondary schools)". If you have provided the same edit or edits for other articles, please revert them. Sometimes editors, specially new editors like you, are not aware of the Wikipedia precepts and inadvertently edit in violation.

Thank you for providing an edit summary although we would have liked your summary to have included a brief summary of all your edits, not just some. According to Wikipedia's consensus policy, all edits should be explained —either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. Summaries help other editors by (a) providing a reason for the edit, (b) saving the time to open up the edit to find out what it's all about, and (c) providing information about the edit on diff pages and lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists). Many who are ignorant of the Wikipedia policy on edit summaries fail to add them. Some ignore this basic brief task; however, failure seems arrogant and inconsiderate specially since summaries are so easy to add.

Thank you in advance for your compliance and future good editing. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Academic tree

I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#academictree.org: Academic tree is user-generated content and should not be used as a reference in articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox fields: "Parents" vs. "Father" & "Mother" fields

Based on your username, it seems that you take special interest in infoboxes (I haven't looked through your edit history to validate).
I would like to ask you a question about this edit you made to the Greta Thunberg article:
Is using the "parents" field preferable to using the "father" & "mother" fields?
The only difference I can see is that using the "father" & "mother" fields places the parenthetic words "(father)" and "(mother)" into the infobox. While this wouldn't really matter for English names in which the names are gender specific, in the case of the edit in question, the names are Swedish, so I would think the reader would benefit from the parenthetical "(father)" and "(mother)".
I therefore added these parenthetical words into the "parent" field to mimic the output when using the "father" & "mother" fields.
Any thoughts? Green Montanan (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]