User talk:Abc747

Welcome!
Hi Abc747! I noticed your contributions to Oaklands Catholic School&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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! Tacyarg (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks bro! ;) Abc747 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
Hello, I'm OnlyNano. I noticed that in this edit to Oaklands Catholic School, 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. OnlyNano 17:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Alright, my apologies. I'm new, I'll be more mindful and thank you! Abc747 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Karmein Chan
Hi. Thanks for your edits and I hope you choose to stay on Wiki.

Regarding the additions to the external links section of the Karmein Chan article, blogs are considered unreliable sources. Most podcasts are self-published. All the best, and again I'll say I hope you stay on here. Any help or advice feel free to ask. Best regards, Key. Kieronoldham (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Nah, sorry, mate! I'll just leave you to it because you seem to be more of an expert in these things than I am. Keep up the good work and have a nice Summer! Many thanks ;) Abc747 (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Joseph Stalin into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry, I didn't realise, and I'll avoid doing that in the future! Abc747 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry, I've just been a bit of a bad place lately! Abc747 (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. We all make mistakes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Messing with paragraphs
I would respectfully ask that you please stop combining/splitting paragraphs. Your mixing things together out of context in some cases, and in others splitting things out of context. I don't mean to be mean but it's like there is competency issue with reading comprehension. Is there some other way you can contribute to Wikipedia that does not involve this kind of work? I don't enjoy reverting you or making these comments on your talk page but I need maintain the integrity of the articles. -- Green  C  15:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, if it really is such a serious issue then I will stop. I just didn't think that moving a few sentences would warrant such criticism. I understand that your job is to maintain the integrity of articles, but I don't appreciate my contributions being reverted and also being accused of having some kind of mental handicap. I've been making a number of edits to reach 500 (extended confirmed)! Now, I am not going to make a massive palaver over it but if this is the way that you're going to talk to me then you can rest assured that I am going to stop editing on your pages. Have a nice Summer! Abc747 (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm using these words, because they are the words we use. See WP:COMPETENCY. Now, some of your changes are OK but a lot of it is like moving chairs around, and more than a few sentences. If you are only trying to get 500 edits, maybe you can do something less disruptive than making all these significant changes to article structure? And BTW reading comprehension is not a mental handicap, it is a learned skill along a spectrum of ability based on experience.
 * You are a new editor. It's common for new editors to do big things then run into trouble with other editors. This is a collaborative environment. I hope you can continue to find constructive ways to contribute. -- Green  C  15:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, I accept defeat. Truce! I acknowledge that I haven't been putting a great deal of thought into my edits because my main goal was simply doing a lot of little edits so I could exceed 500. Unsurprisingly, in hindsight that probably means that they might not have made much logical sense. I'll avoid taking any reverts personally in the future and I'll try my best to be more constructive and besides I've already achieved my goal, so I don't really need to do anything more. I respect what you are trying to achieve, and I do apologise sincerely for being a nuisance and for misinterpreting the points that you are trying to make! I'll let you focus on your pages. Take care and kind regards! :) Abc747 (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * about re-reverting Special:Diff/1233925977 on Special:Diff/1233954505, I don't think two different topics should be merged together (post-1992 events & music sheet). Also I've been making a number of edits to reach 500 (extended confirmed)! seemed like inappropriate - there is a policy about this if I'm not wrong. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought that they were going to revert only a few of my pages! I'm sorry but I didn't know that there was a policy! Abc747 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really like to point to this article, because it's not in my character eg Special:Diff/1232267539, but here it is this link WP:PGAME --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Abbreviation - Can you please return back before Special:Diff/1233963538 (bpm) edit? There is no multiple (beats per minutes). If there are many multiple uses of same term, I would put it as <> and thereafter uses < >. Thanks. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm sorry! I'm going to be honest and just say that I've been going through a stressful few days lately and I guess that I've been making so many edits just so that I could feel in control. Thanks for the link because I honestly didn't know about it, and I really haven't been aiming to be disruptive. It is what it is and I'm really sorry! Abc747 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I find the apology above followed by an immediate return to the same behavior, combined with the admission that you are trying to game the system by inflating your edit count quite concerning. Editing is not therapy: if your state of mind is having an impact on your edits then you should take a break until that is no longer the case. If you continue with these same patterns, it may ultimately lead to concerns that you are not here to edit constructively. VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, maybe, you're right! My apologies! Abc747 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Your vandalism
I have reverted your unexplained removal of a large quantity of text from the Silas Jayne article. Repetition of such vandalism can lead to being banned and blocked from editing. Spideog (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, my apologies! Abc747 (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am worried by and frankly unconvinced by your string of apologies and pleadings of being "in a bad place" when in fact you repeat your behaviour after apologising for it. The sincerity deficit is a red flag.
 * (By the way, half the planet is in winter now, so greeting everyone with "Have a nice Summer!" is not terribly observant.) Spideog (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Spideog (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the information, it's appreciated! Abc747 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If you are genuinely grateful for the suggestion, then why do you mostly ignore it? Almost none of your edits since you expressed appreciation above (47 total edits) actually contained a summary (only seven summarised edits). Spideog (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Further concerns
Your edits are extremely difficult to follow when looking at the diffs. In nearly every case, they are complex. All you are really doing is shuffling things around to wit:
 * Moving a sentence from paragraph into another paragraph
 * Breaking a paragraph into multiple paragraphs
 * Combining paragraphs
 * Deleting sentences and paragraphs that have a tag (there is nothing wrong with this tag)
 * Adding sentences that are unsourced

Over and over and over again in 100s of very high profile articles. Trying to untangle what you did and why is nearly impossible when looking at these complex diffs. The few cases I spent like 20 minutes trying to understand, they were not good edits by and large. Or simply moved things around for no rationale reason, contextually confusing things. And you are on record as being unsure yourself what you are doing. I asked you before, please stop this and do something less invasive to the structure of articles. You are on the line between good faith editing who is misguided, and a bad faith editor trying to hide vandalism. -- Green  C  17:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop deleting valid content
Please note that you should not remove tags from articles such as "page needed", "citation needed", "better source needed", or the ill template that you removed from Vladimir Putin's article.

Many of your edits are either capricious, unnecessary, or wrong (examples above) and as others have noted, your heavy-handed reparagraphing is mostly unnecessary and always obfuscatory, especially when done without edit summaries, which the encyclopaedia and other editors require to understand your actions.

To correct your errors in a reasonable time, I had to roll back all your edits in the Vladimir Putin and Steve Jobs articles to purge the erroneous edits. Spideog (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)