User talk:50.81.237.217

"Unlinked" items
Pages of the items in question weren't created yet but citations were provided. What is your opinion regarding this? Jamideleon (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * HI, sorry, just saw your message now. With "unlinked" additions on the Notable People section, I've seen other editors advise to get an article about the person written and approved first, before adding to the Notables section. I believe that to be the Wikipedia consensus policy moving forward. ￼Regards, C. 50.81.237.217 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing!  ✈Imconfused 3456✈ certified nerd 13:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Langley Mill! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 01:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Welcome. 50.81.237.217 (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. Out of curiosity, what benefit do you see in editing anon? 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 14:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The ability to do about 4kl long, long overdue edits, eliminating convenience store, gas station, fast food, etc listings while remaining totally ignorant of the necessity to "preserve" (!?!) ￼ 50.81.237.217 (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess... Thanks for doing this!
 * but if you signin, then you do gain a few shiny new tools
 * Cheers! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 14:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
Hello, I'm AstatineEnjoyer. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chelsea, Alabama 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 the 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. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mia Mahey. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Meggen 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. Mia Mahey (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Peaceray. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Roermond. Redlinks are useful and can often be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" link (in the tools listed at the left in desktop view) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Please only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Most of the entries in Roermond are unsourced unless you check their articles, & Jelle van Vucht is well sourced. Peaceray (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Accidental Rollback
Apologies! I accidentally rolled back your revision to Echo Park. Just wanted to send a message to clarify their was nothing wrong with your revision and I greatly appreciate your help! Lachielmao (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry!
Hi, I hope you're doing well, I reverted your | edit and I apologise for the misunderstanding. I also struck out the warning template and I hope you forgive me for my silly mistake The AP  ( talk ) 15:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the apology and for striking it out. Definitely forgiven, no worries. 50.81.237.217 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Varieties of English
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Gilgandra, New South Wales, 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. Graham87 (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I liked the rest of your edit, but jewellery is the British/Australian English spelling. Graham87 (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about changing that spelling. In "visual editing" a saw the red underlining on that. Since I thought my own cursor may have jumped to cause that I changed it until the red underlining went away. My mistake in trusting it! 50.81.237.217 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for mistaken rollback
Sorry for mistakenly reverting your constructive edit on Baner. I reverted the edit initially because you blanked the whole section, but I forgot to review the edit history of the article to see the actual reason for removal, thus causing this accidental rollback. I will double check the edit summaries by accessing the article's history page to avoid this kind of errors.

By the way, you can create an account to avoid detection of edits that need review on Twinkle/AntiVandal/Huggle/Recent changes (anti-vandalism tools) because some anti-vandalism tools have the option to automatically ignore edits from a user with more than a set amount of edits. Since most anonymous users blank pages/sections to vandalize the page and this kind of action usually receives a very high ORES score (Wikipedia:ORES), causing them to be highlighted in red in anti-vandalism tools and "needs review" in recent changes, then I sometimes mistakenly revert these kinds of edits. If you create an account your edit will not be detected this way and you can also edit some restricted pages with protection, so you will see less mistaken reverts and warning messages.

Please consider to click on the trout on my user talk page to inform me of these silly mistakes so I will make less mistakes in the future. Thanks for editing Wikipedia! The person who loves reading (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't remove valid content
You really need to look into the content of what you remove instead of removing it willy-nilly because you don't like the sources. Sometimes small additions that don't have the best sources are there because the editor just doesn't have the time at that point. Heritage-listed colonial buildings, especially pubs, are always notable. It is far more constructive to look for sources and add to an article rather than just remove what you don't think is up to scratch. (Completely unsourced information, especially about living people, is in another category - that can always be removed.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * p.s. And you need to bear in mind that redirects from other pages may be targeting the content you remove, as they are in the case of the hotels you removed from the Norwood article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So disappointing to see an experienced editor such as yourself contributing to the ongoing issues of making wikipedia much weaker than what it was intended to be. Numerous editors ove the years have recognized the need to move away from it being a simple business/traveler directory.
 * And just this month you created the "pub" section in the Norwood article?? Very disappointing. You should have applied the "common sense" theory of wikipedia to avoid the section that so often devolves into a "local places to drink and dance" review by 20-year olds! 50.81.237.217 (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean this sincerely: very nice work in getting all the well-sourced citations into the Norwood article on several historically notable buildings. 50.81.237.217 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! OnlyNano 19:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
Hi 50.81.237.217! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Kirkham, Lancashire several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)