User talk:2800:2145:B000:2C8:2C22:8999:95A3:295E

November 2023
Hello, I'm SMcCandlish. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to List of experimental cat breeds have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.

In particular, in this unhelpful series of changes you:
 * Added a large block of completely unsourced material which appears to be either your own personal opinion or copy-pasted from some other website. This consisted of Q&A or FAQ material which is not encyclopedic writing anyway (see MOS:Q&A, MOS:TONE).
 * Removed sourced terminology, "dwarf cat", about which we have an article, and replaced it with your own made-up term, "Munchkin-type cat breed", which is not found in any reliable sources.
 * Deleted perfectly valid citations.
 * Broke existing citations with archive-url parameters that correctly linked to archived copies of now-dead webpages.
 * Merged citations to specific archived individual webpages into a single re-used pseudo-citation to the front page of a dead site.
 * Falsely added that bogus "citation to nothing" in place of legimate and unresolved templates.
 * Contrarily replaced valid ciations with new tags for no explicable reason.
 * Falsified webpage titles by replacing them with descriptive strings like "Website Disabled".
 * Incorrectly ran together titles of individual webpages (the title parameter) and names of the containing websites (the website AKA work parameter) all into mangled title values.
 * Changed multiple citations to the same website to have confusingly inconsistently formatted citations.
 * Pointlessly changed a link from a article title Designer crossbreed in a list of articles with noun titles, to an adjective form Designer crossbred, which is confusing and serves no purpose.
 * Added a dead link to the "External links" section, which would have been redundant even if it was not dead because it is already cited repeatedly (with archive-url as a source.
 * Added red links to small organizations that are probably not notable and thus probably will never have an article here (e.g. Australian National Cats and Rare and Exotic Feline Registry).
 * Changed access-date values to seemingly random dates that represent neither the date the citation was added nor todays date to represent you re-verifying the content.

In short, you do not appear aware of our core content policies with regard to adding material; do not understand how source citatation works, or how to handle links to dead sites (see especially Template:Cite web/doc); and don't even seem clear on the nature of external and internal links (see MOS:LINKS for a summary). You need to get up to speed on such matters quickly, because another edit as destructive as the one detailed above is likely to get you completely blocked from editing. If you intended to edit regularly, you should also create an actual user account here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Joyous!. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Johns Creek, Georgia have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Joyous! Noise! 03:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Spontaneous human combustion. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zim Zala Bim talk 04:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. TLJ7863 (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Observation: I think this is probably a school account, because the stuff I reverted at the cat breed list looked like it was trying (poorly) to do something constructive, while the later stuff was just obsessive childish nonsense; it looks like different parties using the same IP address in a short span of time. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)