User talk:Janan2025

January 2025

Hello, I'm Ivebeenhacked. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2025 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. Thanks. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 09:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article at https://news.artnet.com/art-world/zaha-hadid-estate-dispute-resolved-1925349, which concludes with a statement from Zaha Hadid Architects: 'Zaha Hadid Architects is dismayed by the unfounded allegations being made against Patrik Schumacher. The allegations are unproven, contested, and must be considered in the context of a long-running, acrimonious dispute between the trustees of Zaha’s estate.' Based on this, I believe it’s improper to share unproven claims in the public domain, as it risks misleading people and unfairly tarnishing someone’s reputation, much like character assassination. 152.37.119.187 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand that now. Janan2025 (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2025 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. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2025. For a second final time, please stop your disruptive editing and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia guidelines. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Soetermans,

I don't understand how am I being disruptive. I now understand that I shouldn't have deleted the big chunk on the 2025 page, but I don't know what's wrong with those minor edits (changing numbers from letters to digits). I'm trying my best to improve the text, and I don't think I'm doing anything wrong anymore. Why do you think every edit I make is disruptive? Janan2025 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because single-digit numbers usually shouldn't be written in digits. See MOS:NUMERAL. There are some exceptions, see MOS:NUMNOTES. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with the Manual of style. Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Church (building) did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! jlwoodwa (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Can you explain to me what is going on here? Why are you doing this? What is the point? Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sergecross73,

The reason why I'm doing this is to feel good about the number of my edits going up. I don't have any bad intentions in doing this. This is the only way I can do it, as I can rarely find appropriate parts of articles to edit. I might continue to do this. It's my own user page, so please don't tell me to stop doing it. Please don't get mad at me! Janan2025 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to stop doing this immediately. Editors are not to be artificially inflating their edit count like that. We are an encyclopedia, not a stress ball. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously doing this again. Final warning - stop or your account will be blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sergecorss73,

What am I doing wrong? I'm not constantly reverting myself, like I was in the past. I'm just making normal edits, except for the one I had to revert on the "Trauma (I Prevail album)" page after reverting your one (which I don't remember). Please don't block me because I'm not intentionally doing anything bad. Janan2025 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've made 21 of these in short succession, and each one created with an unreasonably large number of small edits. There's no reason to be doing this other than your already stated intent of artificially inflating your edit count. Sergecross73 msg me 11:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, the reason for me making so many edits on my first 21 Sandboxes so quickly was indeed to increase my edit count, (which I didn't think was artificially because I did them myself, unlike the ones I used to undo artificially on my user talk page in the past). But anyway, I stopped intentionally making so many fast edits on the same Sandbox, and instead, I create and edit my Sandbox in 1 go. But, in some cases, the reason for the multiple edits can be different. For instance, sometimes, I might make a lot of edits in a short period of time on the same page (or it could possibly happen on my Sandboxes) because I haven't noticed something that I wanted to edit, because I've made a mistake, or because I've changed my mind about something. And finally, I must've reverted your edit by mistake yesterday, so sorry about that, I've undone that. Janan2025 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's "artificial" misses the point entirely. Your main goal needs to be building an encyclopedia. Making edits for no other reason other than to increase your edit counts falls under WP:NOTHERE. You need to find a constructive thing to contribute to the encyclopedia. Find an article you want to expand or rewrite. Join a group with a purpose - like joining WP:CVU to learn how you can remove vandalism. Find something to do.

If you can't find anything you actually want to add/write/change, then you may need to reconsider if this is the correct hobby for you. If all you want to do is see a counter go up, go make a blog or social media account and post a lot or something. That's not what we do here.

This is the last time I'll warn you about this. Next time, your account will blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sergecross73,

My only goal isn't to see my edit count go up, but it's also to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm contributing to Wikipedia by correcting a lot of grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes, as well as some other changes on several pages (which I think are good contributions), and creating Sandboxes with information about future years. I think they're good contributions. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong anymore, is that right? Janan2025 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish for your Wikipedia presence to largely be adding periods or commas to articles, that is...technically fine. But creating unnecessary userpage drafts just to increase your edit count? Not okay. There is absolutely no benefit to mass creating identical drafts like that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for me creating the Sandboxes is not just to increase my edit count, but also to experiment with the articles about future years which don't exist yet. Janan2025 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be a lot more convincing if you hadn't just literally said "the reason for me making so many edits on my first 21 Sandboxes so quickly was indeed to increase my edit count". But even if you hadn't, its extremely obvious. All you did is just copy/paste the same content over and over again, and then make similar tweaks over and over again. It would be one thing if you were actually writing drafts, but you're not, you're just copy/pasting the same thing over and over again. If/when someone is ready to actually create those articles, they can copy/paste that template into the article at that point. You don't need to ready 20 drafts of the same content for that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, increasing my edit count for me making so many edits on my first 21 Sandboxes wasn't the only reason, it was also to experiment (like I was with all 27 Sandboxes). I think that other users also use their sandbox(es) to experiment. What am I allowed to use my sandbox(es) for? Janan2025 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what were you attempting to learn by copy/pasting the same content into 21 separate sandboxes? What was the experiment? What exactly was it you were exploring? Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why I used 27 separate sandboxes was just to keep it tidy. I wrote articles about mostly years beyond 2030 (which don't yet exist on the main Wikipedia). I wanted to experiment with writing articles about them in my own sandboxes rather than on the main Wikipedia. Janan2025 (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's "tidy" about copy/pasting the same information into 27 separate but almost identical drafts, but regardless, maximizing edit count should not be a consideration in any of the edits you make, and if it appears that it is, it is a problem. I don't know why you focus on it, but edit count holds little value in the Wikipedia community, especially considering anyone can take a quick look at anyone's edits and see what people are actually doing. No one is going to be impressed to see you've got 10,000 edits to your name someday when they can see that you spent thousands of them doing essentially nothing in your user space. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, in some cases when I'm making several edits on a page / sandbox in a short period of time, it might seem that the reason would be to increase my edit count, but it wouldn't be. As I mentioned earlier, it could happen if I made a mistake, didn't realise an edit I wanted to make, or wanted to change my mind. Again, what am I allowed to use my sandbox(es) for? Janan2025 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "sandboxes" you keep creating are sub-pages of your user page, so WP:USERPAGE has all the information for what is and isn't allowed in user pages. Please review it. See the "this guideline in a nutshell" box at the top for starters. The part that says They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes is alluding to what I'm talking about here. "Making edits/sandboxes for boosting your edit count" would be an "unrelated purpose". Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the "this guideline in a nutshell" box, and I saw that user pages are for communication and collaboration. I was kind of collaborating by writing articles about future years in my sandboxes, which adds to the articles about years up to 2029/2030 published on the main Wikipedia. So, wasn't it a good idea? Janan2025 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, not a good idea. Use sandboxes to write actual drafts, not just copy/paste spam the same information over and over again. I cannot be any more clear about this. If you're making drafts in the user space, they need to be something that you wish to work towards publish into an article some day. You haven't created any articles yet, I know that you certainly weren't planning on publishing 20+ identical articles any time soon. (And if you were, that's an even bigger problem. There's no realistic hope of writing an article about the year 2055 any time soon.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm bit afraid of my account getting blocked. Since I don't ever intentionally do anything wrong on Wikipedia (unlike vandals), it shouldn't get blocked. I should get warned first if I keep doing anything new that's wrong. Like when you warned me the last 2 times, I stopped doing those things. What are all the things on Wikipedia that I shouldn't do, which could get my account blocked? Janan2025 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of resources/pointers out there:

WP:WIKIPEDIAADVENTURE is a help guide for teaching you the ropes.
WP:5P links to a lot of the core fundamental aspects of the website that you can read up on.
WP:TEAHOUSE is a place where new editors can ask questions and get answers from experienced editors.

Above all, the only thing you've really done wrong is make pointless edits to inflate your edit count. Simply don't do that. Maybe it would help to pretend there's no edit counter and there's no way to tell how many edits someone makes, so you won't stray into making pointless edits again. You may as well, because again, there's very little importance placed in edit count in the first place. Good policy knowledge and high quality edits will get you far more respect than a high edit count. Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025

Do not use past tense on 2025 entries. Thank you. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wjfox2005,

I don't remember using the past tense anywhere on the 2025 page. If I did, it was a mistake. Where did I use the past tense? And if I did, what's wrong with that? Janan2025 (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

What is the meaning of this edit? You restored an unsourced genre without explanation. This flies directly against Wikipedia's sourcing policy - WP:V. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sergecross73,

Just now, I saw that I reverted some edit on that page, but I don't remember that. It must've been a mistake. I've reverted my edit. Sorry about that. Janan2025 (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't understand how that happened accidently, as you don't seem to maintain that article, nor had we interacted in weeks, but regardless, thank you for undoing the edit. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect grammar

Please stop adding incorrect grammar all over the project. Years don't need commas after them in most usages, the most frequent time they do is purely an oddity of the US's MDY dating. If you're just using a year, no commas after it unless it makes sense for the actual sentence structure. You seem to be just adding commas after every single year which is almost always incorrect. See MOS:DATE. Additionally please stop adding Oxford commas in every article, they are usually not needed. Don't change them to your personal preference. Canterbury Tail talk 20:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Oxford commas are optional. I'm not adding them only because I want it a certain way, but because I think it's more correct, and looks better with the commas. I add commas after years sometimes, for exp. "In 2013," (which is correct). Janan2025 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. The Oxford comma is usually a personal preference, it's not always "correct", and adding the comma after a year on its own is very rarely correct unless the sentence structure supports that. As mentioned in MOS:DATE. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is kind of a personal preference, but it's not at all wrong, so I think it's okay to add it. I think I only add a comma after the year when it's appropriate to add it, as shown at MOS:DATE. Janan2025 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. Canterbury Tail talk 21:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I didn't mean to be disruptive with my edits, but again, I often add Oxford commas because they're not so rare to use and not wrong to use. It's not just a personal preference. Oxford commas are used quite often, and I think sentences look better when they're used. They may not be essentially needed, but they're also not wrong to use, so please don't tell me to stop adding them. In terms of adding commas in other instances, I added them because I've seen them being used in such instances on other articles, but I'm not sure if they should be used or not. Janan2025 (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again they should NOT be used, commas after a year are rarely correct. And you're adding Oxford commas as a personal preference, you literally just admitted that with "I think sentences look better when they're used", and they can at times actually be incorrect. And Oxford comma is a very American thing (despite the name) and usually not used in British or related English variations. Canterbury Tail talk 21:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an Oxford comma on the Parekkattukara page for a very good reason. It was to separate the word "bank" from "bakeries", so that it doesn't look like the 2 words are linked to each other. Janan2025 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary, not needed for comprehension or understanding and Oxford commas are rarely used in Indian English. No opportunity for confusion there between two regular widely understood English words. Canterbury Tail talk 21:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Parekkattuara article was written in Indian English, but most of the articles that I'm editing are not. I don't know why you think that commas should be rarely used. Commas are almost always used and should be used in cases like: "On 19 January,", or "In 2013,". I think it's wrong to not use commas in these cases. Adding an Oxford comma is not essential, but is usually okay. Janan2025 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out several times, it doesn't matter what your view is it is wrong to use commas in those two examples you listed above. If you continue to ignore the MOS you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 22:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Janan2025, please see MOS:DATE for Wikipedia's style regarding commas after dates. The table there explains that a comma is not used after DMY dates: "A comma doesn't follow the year unless otherwise required by context", but a comma is used after MDY dates. So, using a MDY date, "On January 19, 2015, something happened" is correct. With DMY format and other formats, no comma is used: "On 19 January 2015 something happened". CodeTalker (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've looked at MOS:DATE, and now, I understand that a comma only follows a year if the date is in mdy format. That means on the 2025 Gaza war ceasefire, and on other pages there are several mistakes (several dates in dmy format have a comma following them which they shoudn't). I wasn't and won't ever be intentionally ignoring the MOS, it's just I thought that I was right. But in the future if I ever ignore it, will be by mistake, not on purpose, so I shouldn't be blocked, but I should be first notified that I ignored it. On the "2025 Gaza ceasefire" page, the comma after "On 19 January" and the edit summary was that commas are not needed after months, so doesn't that mean lots of other commas should be removed from the page, such as after "On 25 January", 29 January, 30 January, 31 January ..."? In what cases should commas be used after years? I'm confused by the "unless required by context" part. I've seen commas used after years in lots of cases, such as "In 2015," and I'm confused if that's right or wrong, and when exactly they should be used, and when not? Janan2025 (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally you don't use them other than for the standard grammar rules involving commas. There's nothing special about years and dates from a sentence construction perspective. The many cases you're see in of "In 2015," are wrong and should not be copied but rectified. You are going to find wrong grammar use in articles as not everyone is aware of the correct rules. Canterbury Tail talk 12:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Janan2025, MOS:OXFORD explains that either comma convention is acceptable, but each article should use one convention consistently. That is, an article should either use Oxford commas everywhere or not use them at all. However, MOS:RETAIN says that one should not edit an article solely to change from one convention to the other. I have not looked at your edits in detail, but if you are editing articles solely to add or remove an Oxford comma, you should stop doing that, regardless of your personal preference. CodeTalker (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Due to your continued disruption utilising commas, despite all the conversation above that you have been part of, you have been blocked to prevent further disruption to the encyclopaedia. If you don't know how to use commas correctly, you should not be continually making comma changes. Canterbury Tail talk 12:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for my disruptive editing, but it wasn't intentional. I just wasn't sure exactly where a comma should be added, and where not. Which of my edits were disruptive? I was also going to also ask, should a comma be added after "In January" or not? And in terms of the Oxford comma, why don't you want me adding it, even though it's usually not wrong to add it, but is optional? And, in terms of the numbers, why did you revert my edits of changing numbers to digits even though they can written both in words or digits (I think)? Janan2025 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are continually changing things to your own personal preference against MOS:RETAIN and you're still not listening to what is being told to you about MOS:DATE. Additionally you were randomly adding some commas in sentences that made them nonsensical. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wasn't intentionally ignoring MOS:RETAIN or MOS:DATE. I just didn't fully understand what it said there, wasn't sure about some examples not mentioned, and thought that all the edits that I made were right. I have a few questions. 1. Exactly, in what cases should commas be used? 2. Should a comma be used after "In January", "On Monday", or "In 2023"? 3. Is it really true that commas shouldn't be used after "In 2015", even though in most articles, they are used in cases like that, so is that always wrong? 4. Why did you revert my edits of changing numbers from being spelled out to digits, even though double-digit numbers are usually written in digits? 5. Why did you revert my edit of changing "the age of 9" to "age 9"? I just thought that it's better if less words are used. But maybe, that edit that I made wasn't essential. 6. You removed a comma after "On 19 January" on the 2025 Gaza ceasefire page, and said that it's not needed, so shouldn't all the other commas after the dates in dmy format on that page also be removed? 7. Why don't you want me to add Oxford commas, even though they're optional (not usually wrong to add)? Janan2025 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATE, and I think I understand the cases where should be used and where not a bit better, and that I've used them where they're not needed in the past, but again, adding an Oxford comma isn't wrong, so you shouldn't be telling me to stop adding it, as it's not disruptive editing, and I shouldn't ever be blocked just for that. I'm not too sure was I only blocked for adding commas in other places, or was it for adding Oxford commas as well. What will happen if I start adding Oxford commas again? Janan2025 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you start adding Oxford commas all over the place again as your personal preference you will be blocked again, it's very much disruptive editing. And as for the other items, we're not here to teach you English grammar of when commas should and shouldn't be added. And just because some articles have incorrect comma usage doesn't mean it should be continued, they should be corrected. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider adding Oxford commas to be disruptive, even though it's not wrong, it's just optional? I totally don't understand that. What problem do you have with that? Janan2025 (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding them based on your personal preference, you shouldn't change anything in an article just because you like it better. This is a collaborative project, not your personal scrapbook. If it's optional to have them it's optional to not have them. When written the original editor opted not to have them where they are not necessary, so coming in and adding them just because you prefer them is disruptive. It's a pointless edit, changing something that's not an issue to the way you like it. Canterbury Tail talk 15:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just want to let you know that on the 2025 Gaza war ceasefire page, you removed the comma after "On 19 January" because as you said, commas are not needed after dates in the dmy format, but you didn't remove the many other incorrect commas on that page. Should they also be removed? Janan2025 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it, I reverted your edits, there's a difference. And yes they should be removed. Canterbury Tail talk 15:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 12:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Engvar

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Compassvale Secondary School, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just want to let you know that in some article, I've added a comma after "In the 15th century" because I'm pretty sure that it's correct, but I'm not completely sure. Anyway, it's important to know that I haven't intentionally added any wrong commas anywhere today. Janan2025 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was concerning changing variations of English from one version to another- in your case, changing the spelling of a word from the British English version to the American English one. Sarsenet (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit exhausting. First it was unnecessary pointless edits in the user space. Now it's needless edits related to commas and spelling variants. What is the point in all this? What do you really see as your role in building this encyclopedia besides repeatedly hitting the "publish" button? Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sergecross 73, I really need to tell you that I'm adding commas to improve the encyclopedia. As I said earlier on my talk page, I'm not doing anything just to increase my edit count anymore, like I sometimes was in the past. Adding commas isn't really needless as it improves the encyclopedia which is what I want to do. I don't know why you find what I'm doing "exhausting". I'm just not so good at making bigger edits, so my way of contributing to Wikipedia (which is my aim) is mostly adding commas, correcting the spelling, and adding/removing spaces, and sometimes adding links/sources. I'm not someone who is "not here to build an encyclopedia". I now understand that I shouldn't be changing the spelling variation if it was originally another one. And in terms of my userspace edits now, I'm adding information to improve what I wrote in my Sandbox. I create different Sandboxes to write about things that I like / interest me (which is what I forgot to say before). The reason why I use separate ones for each thing is because I find it tidy. Please don't think I'm just doing anything just to increase my edit count. Janan2025 (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some debate on whether or not your commas or spelling changes are necessary. I think, at worst, they're not, and at best, it's fine either way. And if its "fine either way" then...I'm not sure it's worth the effort or arguments that come up with it. And your sandbox edits, as far as I can tell, continue to be things that will likely never be published any time soon.

Janan, what sort of things do you like as hobbies? I'm big into music and video games, so those are areas I commonly cleanup or write about. I find it rewarding and entertaining. What about you? Films? Books? Comics? Sports? Outdoors activities? History? Anything like that? Maybe writing in an area of personal interest can help you find more of a purpose in your contributions. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have a question. Do you think a comma it's correct to use a comma after exp. "In 2023"... ? I've seen commas being used in lots of such cases, but "Canterbury Tail" thinks that it's wrong. In terms of my hobbies, I like video games, music, and sports. At User:Janan2025/sandbox29 , I've started (not finished) writing about "Despicable Me Minion Rush", a video game that I like to play. There's something that interests me in every Sandbox that I've created. Janan2025 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no grammar expert, so I can't say who's right. But my personal stance is that if the general message is understandable with or without the comma, it doesn't really matter. Sometimes, a comma can completely change the message of a sentence. I don't think that really applies to any of the changes you're making.

As I've mentioned before, I don't see much function in most of your drafts related to different years. They're all very far from ever being published, and they're mostly copy/paste jobs that could be recreated in seconds when it is time to create them. There is no logical reason to maintain 20+ virtually identical drafts.

But your Despicable Me Minion Rush idea - that is something that could be worth pursuing. See if you enjoy working on projects like that. A lot of help in writing video games can be found at WP:VG, WP:VG/S, and MOS:VG too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've added something while you were replying. I've added that I'm also interested in calendars and maths (I'm just saying this, I'm not saying that my identical drafts were good, this is unrelated to that). I've also added 2 questions for you because I'm interested about this. "Did you know that 45 * 45 = 2025?" And, did you know that "In 2025, the dates (starting from Saturday 1st March) will fall on the day of the week that last fell on since 2014 (11 years ago)?" I might continue writing about the "Despicable Me Minion Rush" game. Have you heard of or ever played that game? Janan2025 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I knew those math/calendar facts. But I'm. Not really sure where they fit into an encyclopedia either. If you can find a productive outlet for your interest in math and calendars, great, but the stuff you're doing in your drafts isn't anything to focus on really. We're years away from needing to publish a draft on years like 2040, and I don't particularly believe those articles will be started with your drafts.

Despicable Me Minion Rush though, that could have potential. I have not ever played it, but it looks notable. A bunch of reliable sources reviewed it according to Metacritic, and my basic Google search found additional sources too. I'd work on exploring that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Technopat (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus your edits have been reverted before for violating MOS:CONTRACTIONS, but for some reason you keep changing text to include contractions. Please stop. Canterbury Tail talk 21:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't know how was I being disruptive. I didn't mean to be disruptive anyway. I was just trying to correct the grammar. I think that it should be "Most people live", not "Most people living". What was I doing that was disruptive? And, how have I violated MOS:CONTRACTIONS? Janan2025 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be "Most people live" in that sentence that was reverted, and as for how you violated MOS:CONTRACTIONS, you tell us. Additionally you keep changing articles to your own personal preference, such as percent to % when both are acceptable per MOS:PERCENT. Do you honestly think that this is correcting the sentence? If so then I question your competence to edit the English Wikipedia. If you continue this line of editing you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 22:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. From now on, I'll try my best to avoid making edits of my own preference and violating different styles of writing, so sorry about that. Why was my edit of changing "Most people living" to "Most people live" reverted, even though I was correcting the grammar? Janan2025 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on live was 100 per cent completely incorrect. If you don't realise that then you should not be editing grammar in English at all. The sentence makes zero sense with live, it's not a grammar fix it's introducing a completely nonsensical sentence. Canterbury Tail talk 22:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my grammar change was wrong, but I don't understand how does "Most people living in town area hail from surrounding villages, and contribute significantly to the local community" make sense? Shouldn't there be a verb after "Most people living in town area hail from surrounding villages"? I think that either "Most people live" or "Most people are living" are correct, but not "Most people living". I am sorry for not following MOS:CONTRACTIONS. I've just read about it, and found out now that I shouldn't have changed "would not" to "wouldn't". Janan2025 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again we are not here to teach you English. It's one thing to make some edits, adding sentences etc, and making a grammar mistake that someone has to correct. It's completely another to deliberately and solely change something that is correct to being incorrect, whether you understand it's incorrect or not. That is why your edits are disruptive and your talk page is so full of people telling you that. Canterbury Tail talk 22:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Janan2025, making a mistake is one thing, but continuing to insist that a perfectly grammatical sentence is wrong, and changing it to a nonsensical sentence, seriously calls into question your competence to make edits related to English grammar. "Most people living in town area hail from surrounding villages" is fine. The subject phrase is "Most people living in town area" and the verb is "hail". Your change makes the sentence ungrammatical. "Most people live in town area" is a complete sentence, although its meaning is different from what the original sentence meant. The subject phrase is "Most people" and the verb is "live". You then follow it by a second verb "hail", and the sentence cannot be parsed as a grammatical English sentence. A reasonable improvement might have been to add "the" before "town area", but your change is absolutely incorrect.

If your grasp of English grammar is as incomplete as this discussion would seem to indicate, I would suggest you find some other task to do on Wikipedia other than try to correct English grammar. CodeTalker (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm so sorry for making that wrong edit (changing "living" to "live"). Just now, I realised that the word "hail" is a verb. I'll try my best to avoid making wrong edits. If I ever accidentally do so again, I should be notified about it like I was this time, and not blocked as it's not edit-warring. It rarely happens that I make edits to a sentence that are grammatically wrong. It just happened that I didn't know that "hail" was a verb in that sentence. I'll also try my best to avoid making edits only based on my personal preference (such as changing numbers to digits, changing "percent" to "%", and changing "would not" to "wouldn't"). I have 2 editing sugegstions on the "Bhagta Bhai ka" page. 1 is adding a full stop at the end of the sentence about Gurudwara Mahil Sahib, and another to add "the" before "town area" in the "Economy" section. Would these edits be good to make? Janan2025 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janan2025, and for the benefit of other editors and any admins that read the comments made by several other editors on this talk page, I have now spent over an hour since leaving my warning above correcting the several mistakes you have introduced in your multiple edits today. On too many occasions, too many to put down to mere coincidence, I have noticed that you tend to make one correct edit to an article, followed by an incorrect one and then a correct one. You also have the curious tendency to make a single correct edition, such as adding a comma, to articles with major and far more obvious copyediting requirements than the mere comma you add. I have not yet read any of the many comments left by others above, but I shall continue to issue increasing levels of warnings here if I detect further edits that generate more work for the community. We all make mistakes, but when a user has been warned so many times and keeps repeating those same mistakes, there comes a moment when enough is enough, so please take this as a last friendly warning. --Technopat (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As I said, I'm so sorry about making that mistake. I just didn't realise that "hail" was a verb in that sentence. That mistake which I made (changing "living" to "live") was an exception to the other mistakes that I made. I haven't repeated the same mistake multiple times. I don't think I've ever made that type of mistake ever before. Janan2025 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right at my limit too. In addition to the above, the fact that you keep making many pointless edits to unpublishable drafts has left me unconvinced that you're not more concerned about buffing your edit count over actually contributing to an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No, as I said before, my aim is to contribute to the encyclopedia. I make a lot of mainspace edits that are useful (such as adding commas, removing spaces, or adding "the"). The above messages on my talk page are about a mistake that I made. I don't usually make grammar mistakes. It was just that I didn't realise that a word in a sentence was a verb, so I accidentally made a wrong edit. In terms of my drafts, I just made that edit to improve what was in the Sandbox by adding a fact, like I was doing with other Sandboxes. I enjoy writing about things like that. I'm not doing anything just to increase my edit count. Janan2025 (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've told you multiple times, none of those drafts are contributing to building an encyclopedia. You can write random factoids about calendars and years anywhere, you don't need Wikipedia for that. Which I guess will be my consolation for you if this gets escalated to a block - yiu can keep writing about calendars on any notepad or writing app at your disposal to the same effect if it's not about inflating your edit count. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said a few times before, I'm not doing anything just to increase my edit count. I really hope that nothing will get escalated to a block. Whenever I make several edits on a page over a short period of time, it's because I forgot / didn't notice to change something or changed my mind. These are my future plans about my drafts: I won't be creating any new pointless drafts (writing almost identical drafts), but it's just that sometimes, in my existing drafts, if I see that something should be added or changed, I feel the need to do it, so I might do that. I might continue writing about Despicable Me Minion Rush sometime, and maybe create some other useful drafts. Are all these plans about my drafts okay? I see a lot of messages on users' talk pages saying "If would like to experiment, please use your sandbox", so I'd like to peacefully use it. I'd like you to believe me that I'm doing anything just to increase my edit count. Do you check what other users are doing in their Sandboxes just like you check mine? I also have another question. If I hadn't been constantly reverting my edits on my talk page over a few days back in January, would you still be suspicious about these drafts about the calendar facts? I really regret doing that thing (constantly reverting myself back in January) because now, you find it suspicious when I write things in my drafts. This was how it all started. I really shouldn't have done that thing (constantly reverting myself). Janan2025 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that your user drafts violate WP:U5, which is more or less what I keep telling you on this talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:U5. I'm not a "non-contributer" on Wikipedia. I not only make edits in my user space, but mostly in the mainspace and also sometimes, in other spaces. In my last message, I had 3 questions for you: 1. Are my future plans about my drafts okay (they're mentioned in my last reply)? 2. Do you often check what other users are doing in their drafts just like you do with mine? 3. If I hadn't been constantly reverting my edits on my talk page over a few days back in January, would you still look at my drafts and be suspicious about them? Janan2025 (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far, your edits have largely been summed up as "unnecessary punctuation changes", "unnecessary spelling/ENGVAR changes", and "continuous small changes to drafts that will likely never be published", so, no, you are extremely close to "non-contributor" status. The only truly constructive plan you've proposed is working on writing an article for that minions game, though you've talked about that far more than actually doing it.

And yes, as an Admin, I look into lots of editors edits and make sure they're compliant with policy. And yes, even outside of your January admission that you were editing just to inflate edit count, I would still be suspicious of your edits. It's is not normal for an editor to create 20+ duplicate drafts and then tweak them all with minor edits individually. It does not make sense. It is not efficient. There is only one reason to approach things like that. It's very obvious to see what you're doing.

I've tried to be nice and nudge you in the right direction, but you're still fighting with me every step of the way. If you don't completely change your approach to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. I'll be blunt - it is a very bad sign if multiple unrelated admin are discussing blocking your account concurrently. Take a hint. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have 5 questions for you below. I don't understand how I'm fighting with you, but that's not usually what I want to do. I do however feel like I've done a lot of things on Wikipedia wrong, and I feel that my talk page is messed up. I'm a bit worried about getting blocked. It would be terrible if that happened. I'm not someone who is "not here to build an encyclopedia". 1. What steps should I take to change my approach to Wikipedia? 2. As I said before, I won't create anymore identical drafts as makes no sense, but is it okay if I make edits to my already existing drafts about years? It's just that I sometimes see that something should be added / changed and I feel the need to edit the draft. 3. Will you let me know nicely if I ever do something that I shouldn't (exp. pointless edits or creating a new pointless draft) as I might not be aware of that? 4. What things exactly can I do and what things shouldn't I do in my drafts? 5. How do you think I should continue writing about Despicable Me Minion Rush? Janan2025 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop dinking around in your user drafts. Stop making all these grammatical and spelling changes. Find different things to do on Wikipedia. Start actually building an encyclopedia. It can be any number of things.

Add missing content to articles (remember to add sources like WP:REFB shows.)
Remove erroneous content from articles.
Help with removing WP:VANDALISM from articles.
Learn our WP:NOTABILITY standards and participate in deletion debates like WP:AFD.

There's lots of things to be done. Start in those directions and you'll discover more over time too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have 3 questions below. I'll stop making the pointless edits in my user drafts. But in terms of grammar, spelling, and punctuation corrections, that's not bad to do, if the changes are correct. I think it's good to do "copyediting" (as it says when I get editing suggestions). I've always been doing them and I feel the need to continue as it's my main way in which I can easily contribute to Wikipedia. I might however contribute to Wikipedia in other ways as well as making the grammar, spelling, and punctuation corrections, such as removing vandalism, and continuing to write about Despicable Me Minion Rush. I think that this plan is good, as none of my edits will be pointless anymore. They will all be some kind of contribution to improving Wikipedia. Please think that this plan is at least okay. What do you think of it? Also, where could I find vandalism to remove? I don't usually see any vandalism that hasn't been removed yet. And, how could I continue writing about Despicable Me Minion Rush? Janan2025 (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously fixing errors in spelling or grammar is a good thing, but you are having a hard time understanding when things like commas are necessary, and you have tweaked valid alternate spellings of words, so please stay away from those sorts of edits for right now.

Read through the WP:VANDALISM page. It tells of various ways to get involved and places to check to review things.

Ive created a draft for you at Draft:Despicable Me Minion Rush. You may work on creating a rough draft there. I created it using my template for creating video game articles. You're not obligated to use it though, you may delete it and start from scratch if you wish. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was notified about adding wrong commas, I only add commas in cases when I'm completely sure that it's correct to add it, such as after the word "therefore". And I've stopped changing the spelling variation. I only change the spelling when I'm completely sure that it's wrong (such as a typo in a word). I've read the WP:VANDALISM page. If I ever spot vandalism, I would probably revert it, but that doesn't ever happened yet. I've seen that a lot of your edits are removing unsourced content. I have a question. How do you spot that so often, and how do users generally spot vandalism, unsourced content, or disruptive editing? Janan2025 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPOTVAN. I use the WP:WATCHLIST approach. I have hundreds of articles of interest on it, and it allows me to see the most recent edit/change on all of them. I use it to review changes and decide whether or not they were appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As well as grammar, spelling, and punctuation corrections, I've started undoing vandalism. So, I hope that you no longer think I'm close to a non-contributer status. Do you think that I'm a better contributer now? Contributing to Wikipedia is my aim. I hope that you know that. Also, you said that I'm "fighting with you every step of the way", but I don't think that's true. Janan2025 (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it looks like your vandalism reverts were good edits. Please keep that sort of editing going. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 Hello. My biggest contributions now are undoing vandalism and other bad edits, and I feel good that I'm now contributing to Wikipedia in a better way, as well as the small changes that I make. In terms of my drafts, I'm still thinking about how to work on the Despicable Me Minion Rush draft, and I recently made a small change to it. You might think that all of my other drafts are not publishable, but I think that it might be good if I possibly worked on the drafts about closer years (such as 2031), because they might need to published soon. What do you think? Also, I think that NOTHERE is only if someone mostly/only edits in their userspace, but not if someone edits both in their userspace for testing purposes, and also contributes to Wikipedia by editing in the mainspace, which a lot of users do, and I might intend to do. Is that right? Janan2025 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. WP:NOTHERE applies to any behavior that is not constructive towards improving Wikipedia. This may include nonconstructive activity in mainspace, such as editing articles to promote a commercial product or a political point of view, or adding irrelevant content or jokes to articles. So it does not apply only to users who make mostly non-mainspace edits. But good-faith efforts to improve articles would not be considered NOTHERE.

Also, I would like to make a suggestion. You frequently make a post on your talk page and then make multiple small edits to the post over a long period of time. For example, you made this post and then over the next 20 hours you made 10 small changes to it. You seem to do this with most of your talk page posts. It would be better if you would compose your message completely before posting it, so people don't have to wonder whether you're finished with your statement before responding to it. Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I need to say that I make several small edits to my talk page messages because I don't sometimes at first notice that I made a mistake or that something should be changed. And, I often add a space between the 3 colons and the start of my message after writing it because I don't know how to do that when I first write the message. I'll try my best to make as few changes to my messages as possible. I never make several small edits to my messages to increase my edit count. Sergecross73 might sometimes think that I'm only doing something to increase my edit count, but that's never true anymore. Would it be considered NOTHERE if I made changes to my drafts about years in the near future (like 2031)? I would work on possibly publishing it as an article about that year as it might need to be published soon, so I think that it would be constructive. I created a draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Janan2025/sandbox back in February, and I wrote a bit about the year 2031 there, but later, I stopped because I'm not sure if it would be NOTHERE. Janan2025 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to David Draiman: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Please make sure to notify users when reverting their edits (see WP:RVAN). This process is easy using Twinkle, which I see you already use. Also, please make sure the edits you are reverting are actually vandalism and not good-faith edits (see Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:GF). Thank you. I₂Overcome ^talk 17:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've re-added the content that was removed on that page, and gave the user a Level 1 warning saying that their edit didn't appear unconstructive. Janan2025 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Classe tous risques, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are certain this information is correct, please add a reliable reference to verify the information. Thank you. 109.76.178.90 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see, there should've been a source to the content on that page. In the future, it would be helpful if you wrote an an edit summary saying that something is unsourced, when deleting unsourced content, so that it's clear why you deleted content. Janan2025 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are indeed helpful for edits that might be controversial. It is uncontroversial to remove unsourced material that has been contested a long time. It is not acceptable to add bad material to an article simply because the edit to remove it didn't have an explanation - you are responsible for adding that bad information. If you are not yet familiar with content policy or don't have the time to review your edits in detail, I would suggest not patrolling recent changes until you have more experience. 109.76.178.90 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that edit. I just didn't realise that "Citation needed" was written next to the content. In the future, I'll try to pay more attention to edits of removing content and look at them more clearly, instead of reverting them straight away. Janan2025 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using blogs as sources

Hello, I see you have recently added a blog as a source on how to cook bread at the Kulcha page. Blogs are not acceptable sources, and you should self revert instead of adding blogs. If you have a relation with the blog you added, you should disclose that as well. 166.196.61.8 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I didn't revert my edit because I initially didn't really understand what you meant by "self revert", but I understand now that I shouldn't have restored the blog on that page because blogs shouldn't usually be used as sources on Wikipedia. Janan2025 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the deletion template

I noticed that you used the uw-delete template on a talk page after reverting this edit to Era (radio station). Are you sure that was a good fit? The editor did explain their edit in the edit summary: "That was just a misunderstanding." It wasn't an unexplained content removal so much as a bad one - a warning about OR/NPOV/RS might've been better there. 17:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC) Anerdw (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know it wasn't unexplained, but I just didn't understand why the editor removed content from that page. The reason why the warning said "unexplained content removal" was because when a user makes a bad edit of removing content but writes a summary, I'm not too sure about what warning to use. Maybe, I should've used a warning about unconstructive editing. Janan2025 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would've used a template at all. As per WP:AGF, it's probably best to assume that the editor thought that removing the content was justified because it was inaccurate. In such a case, it's probably worth taking the time to explain that "I think it was a misunderstanding" is insufficient justification for deleting RS-supported information. Anerdw (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catch of vandalism

Thanks! Jay Cubby 07:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Recent Changes Barnstar
		You revert most vandalism before I can, when I'm patrolling! You deserve this award! Xiphoid Vigour \|\|⚔\|⚔\|\| 16:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Janan2025 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted a couple correct IP edits to wikilinks

Hi, I see that in revision 1281355371 you reverted my edit to Software bug and left an "Unconstructive editing" talk message. My change was a valid edit to fix the orthography, and not vandalism. I also see that the previous revert you made, revision 1281352693, was reverting some other IP user's edit to a link target; that edit was probably correct too (I know nothing about the topic but the text was describing a specific UK TV show and not the show format). Reverting vandalism is certainly appreciated, but I suggest being somewhat more cautious before concluding that such edits are vandalism. Thank you! 2A00:79E1:ABD:3B02:BD53:ECC:5081:3C2D (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry about that. I reverted it because I didn't understand why "coverup" was there twice. Janan2025 (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reverts on Toby Foyeh

We should not include the subjects birth date if it is only sourced using a primary source like Whitepages per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:DOB. Parksfan1955 (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry about that. Janan2025 (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy can be very complicated so don't worry. Parksfan1955 (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page ping

You may have missed the ping for the talk page of James Bevel in the section 'First sentence', where a concern is brought up that you added incorrectly worded information in an arguably undue location (first sentence of the page) to the article. Please discuss there, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't know how it was incorrectly worded. I was reverting an edit that removed references without an explanation. Janan2025 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting you took responsibility for the text and its placement. Please read the section 'First sentence' at the talk page as well as the link itself (please notice that the wording used is not used at the link, and the conviction itself is covered later in the lead). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I looked at the article's talk page and reverted my edit, and removed the incorrect sentence portion. Janan2025 (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading the concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About My Drafts

Back in January, I was making pointless edits (constantly reverting the same edit on my talk page) just to increase my edit count which I regret. Because of this, Sergecorss73 often thinks that when I'm making edits to some of my sandboxes, it's to increase my edit count even though it's not. It's where I may sometimes want to make test edits (either working on new articles or experimenting with editing existing articles), just like many other users do. I think that the drafts about years close to now (such as 2031) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Janan2025/sandbox would be good to work on if I wanted to sometime (maybe by adding more useful information to them, such as predicted events), because an article about that year might need to be published soon. Also, the draft about Despicable Me Minion Rush might also be good to work on if I think of how to expand it. I also contribute to Wikipedia a lot (which I want to) by reverting vandalism / bad edits and correcting spelling / grammar / punctuation (which I like doing), so it shouldn't be considered NOTHERE to make edits in the sandboxes in addition to that. If I ever make edits in my userspace, please know that it's to make test edits (just like other users do), and not to increase my edit count. Janan2025 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Chamberlain

Please don't add unencyclopedic trivia to articles. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 18:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime Hello. I think you confused me with someone else. I haven't added the trivia. I made other edits to the page after someone under the IP address 76.169.202.205 added the trivia. Janan2025 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Janan2025! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 06:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)