User talk:82.28.236.130

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions to Glasgow&#32;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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Hello, I'm Tymon.r. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Robert Wedderburn (radical)—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. Tymon. r Do you have any questions?  21:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2022
Hello, I'm Oopsemoops. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dean Village 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. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 14:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Hello, I'm Pizzaplayer219. I noticed that you recently removed content from Holyrood Park 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. Wikipedia is not censored. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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. adriana 💌 14:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

August 2023
Hello, I'm Moriwen. I noticed that you recently removed content from Willielma Campbell 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. — Moriwen (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

June 2024
Hello, I'm Mike Marchmont. I've noticed some of your recent edits, especially to articles concerning Edinburgh. While some of these are edits are constructive, I have found it necessary to undo or revert others.

For example, I have undone two of your recent edits to Cannonball House. You removed a reference to the Royal Mile from the body of the article, on the grounds that it was already mentioned in the lead. But the lead is meant to be a summary of the article; it is the body of the article which has the details. Since the location of a historic building is clearly a key fact about the building, it is right that it should appear in the lead as well as the body.

In another case, you removed a mention of a nearby building as having been "tastefully conserved" on the grounds that this was editorializing. You are correct that editors should not insert their own opinions into articles, but it is perfectly permissible - even encouraged - to quote the opinions of recognised authorities, provided it is clear that these are direct quotations (usually by putting the words in inverted commas) and that they are referenced by a reliable source. This was the case here.

I hope you find these comments helpful. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)