User talk:2601:196:180:DC0:DDB2:8EB7:D2A1:FBDA

December 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Door handle, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 14:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Please stop adding promotional links to Wikipedia articles. See the Wikipedia policy on external link spam. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * User Willondon: There was no attempt to add any spam in violation of WP policies, merely introduce an illustrative use of the term (which had pre-existed in the article, uncited, and had previously been swatted by another WP (longterm) editor for "introducing" uncited material when I was merely seeking to move (to rationalize) and condense (to eliminate redundancy) existing content (which would put it in a much more favorable position to be cited by interested editors). That's all.  It was my understanding that such citation of a commercial site was a rough equivalent to "fair use" of photos, artworks, etc., where there is no intention to infringe on a copyright, merely provide a visual for the work, or indicate a legitimate commercial application (as in this instance). I'm not trying to push anything, just indicate those those unfamiliar with the practice that's how "handle sets" are sold. 2601:196:180:DC0:DDB2:8EB7:D2A1:FBDA (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The use of a commercial site as a source was not a concern because there might be copyright issues (although copy and paste from a commercial site is still infringement), it was that commercial sites are almost always unreliable sources, as their primary interest is always going to be selling products, services, or otherwise profiting. It seemed your goal was to insert a link to grovefittingsshop .co.uk . The rest of what you added was not sourced, and in some cases introduced excessive wordiness. Overall, you can see that other editors have problems with the edit, and continuing to reassert it without addressing the challenges has a very predictable ending.  signed, Willondon (talk)  17:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to pay clearer attention to your reverts, and your ostensible reasons for them. And refrain from mass reverts.  Actually, I merely relocated that existing citation.  That's all.  "Excessive wordiness"?  I knocked out *1,000* bytes worth the redundant and poorly written (and wildly OR) copy.  I would suggest you go read your bullets on your own user page, and stop both threatening editors (of your planned future edit war) and warring itself. 2601:196:180:DC0:DDB2:8EB7:D2A1:FBDA (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)