User talk:65.38.188.205

October 2018
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to Terry Considine, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

February 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Terry Considine, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. –eggofreasontalk 23:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Terry
Hello, it isn't quite clear to me what about that article was vandalism, at first glance I don't see it. If this was indeed a bad edit, it would be better to return to this introduction, the current introduction sound a bit promotional.

Was the information added to the article in July 2019 article incorrect? You can respond here below. Thank you. – Þjarkur (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi there. It looks like someone completely changed the content of the page in July 2018 with what looks like a political bias. Why was this entire page change allowed but my attempt is not? Regardless, I think it would be acceptable to revert to the previous introduction you mentioned.


 * Ah, I see. The reason your change was reverted was because it was explained with "Undoing vandalism" when it wasn't some obvious vandalism, and because you had removed some well sourced information. It was also missing encyclopedic tone, but that's very understandable since it does take some practice to write in such a dry manner. The article currently seems fairly neutral to me, almost all articles on political figures include sections on some "controversies" although to me they seldom seem that relevant. You can of course continue improving the article, but it doesn't seem necessary to remove any particular paragraph. – Þjarkur (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Hello, I'm Everedux. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mike Greenberg 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 help desk. Thanks.  Everedux  (talk)  20:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.