User talk:68.195.227.42

August 2021
Do not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia, like you did at Bensonhurst, Brooklyn. Such attempts to avoid detection, circumvent policies or evade blocks or sanctions will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, '''you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 'Block evasion by User:Pablo909, using IPs from Long Island.'' Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This editor is active again. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In the past, I have seen problematic editing including WP:SYNTH. All edits bear examination. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hello, I'm Philroc. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Chinatowns in Queens—because it 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. Phil roc  (c) 18:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Burt Ward, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dirkbb (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Burt Ward, you may be blocked from editing. --Ferien (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Your edits
Hello. I've noticed that many of your edits, while in good faith, are very hard to decipher grammatically because they often incorporate unnecessary details and are excessively long, which leads to them included. For instance, just today in the Long Island City article, you added sentences like this: As according to the October 18th, 2021 New York Times article, the neighborhood for a long time has been home to Italian immigrants and artists, but as according to the 2020 census data, has now been seeing a growing population of Asian residents and businesses in the neighborhood averaging nearly 11,000 Asian residents and they now make 34% of the neighborhood's population. Editorially, this should be at least two sentences (and probably three): the first about the longtime Italian population and the second about the Asian population. There are a lot of grammatical errors and redundancies as well. You don't need to include "as" before "according"; the word "now" is unnecessary in context; the word "population" and "neighborhood" is repeated multiple times, even when the context is clear; and the grammatically correct way to end the sentence is "make up 34% of the population". Actually, that last part of this huge sentence can just be summarized as: "There are nearly 11,000 Asian residents, which comprise 34% of the neighborhood's population."

This is just a single sentence from your edit; the rest of your addition follows the same pattern of overly long information. For example, in the sentence NYC Counciwoman Julie Won who represents the neighborhood along with surrounding neighborhoods of Astoria, Sunnyside, and Woodside have spoken about the need to outreach to the Asian residents and businesses in the neighborhood and needing to hire a Mandarin Chinese worker to reach out to the Chinese speaking residents and businesses to better understand their needs and how to help them, is it necessary to state that a councilmember that represents LIC also represents other neighborhoods, when that is not the main point of the sentence?

I'm also concerned about articles such as this series of edits to the Elizabeth Street article and the history of the East Broadway article. It appears that you're adding a large amount of unrelated information about malls and shops on the street. While I too am familiar with these malls, please see WP:COATRACK; these types of pages should not be used to add excessive details about other topics.

I also notice that several warnings have been issued by other users who have reverted them, but you don't seem to have ever edited a talk page or even your own user talk page. If your edits are repeatedly being reverted, I would recommend you make a discussion on the talk page of the article, which should be the "Talk" tab at the upper left corner of the page (see Talk page guidelines for some guidelines on formatting discussion). Please don't just restore your edits without comment if your revisions have been repeatedly removed by other users. Thank you. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Mott Street. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)