User talk:50.49.134.126

November 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Christian Identity. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. '' The edited phrasing alters the implication of the statement. Also, adding MOS:DUPLINKs and MOS:LINKCLARITY problems, which have been a consistent pattern of editing with you. Please review MOS:LINK for a refresher on what is and is not acceptable practice (specifically, the "Principles" section).''  Butler Blog   (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at American militia movement. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. '' The "See also" section does not need to be a comprehensive list of links to every possible article. Please refrain from your continued edits putting in links that have already been removed as too general, too broad, or too redundant.''  Butler Blog   (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Racism in Japan, you may be blocked from editing.  These are not directly related subjects  Butler Blog   (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

Pattern of minor copy edits without improvement to the article
Hello 50.49.134.126. Every edit you make to an article should improve the article in some way, no matter how minor. I'm concerned that you are making a lot of edits that just shift words around, or add or drop words that don't change or improve the meaning, without any apparent point to them. This is aggravated by the fact that you are not employing the edit summary field, so other editors are not sure what your intent is, or why you believe your edit is an improvement.

One of the most characteristic patterns I've seen in your editing, is replacing reduced relative clauses with clauses that include a relative pronoun. One example of this (among many), is this edit at Christianity and other religions, where you changed a section title from "Modern views specific to Catholicism" to "Modern views which are specific to Catholicism" and also made similar changes to reduced relatives in the body. A change like this is completely unnecessary in English, and just makes the content wordier without improving it. I undid this edit, as well as a bunch of similar ones; I also noticed that other editors have undone many of your edits, for the same reason or similar ones.

Reduced relatives are pervasive in English, fully grammatical, and there is hardly ever a reason to replace them except in rare cases of ambiguity. If you made only a handful of replacements like that, it would be overlooked, but you appear to have made a career out of it, and that is not okay, as if that is the only change to the article, it is not an improvement, and if that becomes a systematic pattern of yours, it may be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE.

As soon as I saw your recent edits replacing reduced relatives, I recognized your style immediately. It took me a while to find it, and I had to go back to 8 July before I found this edit of yours at Beaune-la-Rolande internment camp made under your previous incarnation at IP address, when you were doing the exact same thing with reduced relatives then, as you are now. Please stop this kind of pointless edit, where you change one perfectly acceptable form of English syntax into an equivalent, equally acceptable one, where there is no change in meaning, and no improvement to the article, and stick to your beneficial edits, such as the ones where you add relevant names to See also lists. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Back, at a new IP
He's back:,. Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, old appearances at and . Mathglot (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)