User talk:Andy Marchbanks

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Marine Corps Air Station Miramar
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. &mdash; User: (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Safeway Inc.. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Miranda 05:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries
Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be nonexistent:


 * Edit summary usage for Andy Marchbanks: 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 3 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. MBK004 23:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Freshacconci | Talk 22:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Freshacconci | Talk 22:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Freshacconci | Talk 09:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Florida
I have reverted your removal of the breaks in the Florida article; they were added to maintain uniformity in that section of the article. Removing them caused the language paragraph of the demographics section to be wedged in between the two columns of city pictures, which looked peculiar.

Additionally, please use edit summaries. I am not the first editor to ask you to use them, and it appears that you routinely remove such requests from your talk page. Edit summaries are a basic courtesy to other editors. Thank you. Horologium t-c 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanking your page
Hello Andy!

I restored the warnings on your Talk Page to avoid having you get in trouble. users generally can't delete warnings. If nothing else, it gives the impression that you are a vandal trying to hide your tracks (which I'm sure you are not). Happy editing! LonelyBeacon 12:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there an actual rule saying you can't erase your talk page? You can still find the messages, after all, as you said.


 * Blanking your talk page falls under the bad faith rules. Archiving is good faith, but blanking is bad faith because as Beacon said, it gives the impression that you're a vandal trying to hide it. Carl.bunderson 06:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And I can get in trouble for doing this? If not, I'm just gonna blank it.


 * Yes, you can, per policy on blanking talk pages. Talk pages include both article and user talk pages. The warnings would run in the vein of: Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.


 * Ah, OK.


 * Thanks for understanding. And as was noted above, you are welcome to archive the page if you just want it cleaned up. Carl.bunderson 06:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify something, that warning (wp-tpv1) is only for non-user talk page (article namespace, wikipedia namespace, etc), you have the right to blank your talk page if you wish as there is no policy or guidelines (as stated here) although archiving is always preferred. Avec nat |  Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.   05:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty clear to me. I'll be blanking my page now.Andy Marchbanks (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks and punctuation
Hi Andy, I see you've been changing the punctuation on South Africa and a couple other articles to bring commas and periods inside quotation marks. I thought I should point out that, according to the Manual of Style, Wikipedia articles should use "logical punctuation", that is, punctuation marks should only be placed inside the quotation marks if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation. Cheers, htonl (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:  The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, my edits are minor, so I just check that box and don't bother with the edit summary. It's just grammatical, insignificant stuff.
 * Deleting content without explanation like you did on controversial articles like Hamas is neither minor nor "grammatical, insignificant stuff", and you've been asked by multiple editors on your talk page for a long time to stop doing this.  Please use edit summaries to explain your edits.  Thank you. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When I am making minor edits I try to put a brief edit summary to suggest what I had changed. Some examples would be:
 * sp: spelling
 * gr: grammar
 * syntax: when I have entered a template incorrectly and this edit is a minor syntax change to that template.
 * formatting: minor formating changes to an article

Alan.ca (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Manual of Style
All of your recent improper changes to United States have been reverted. Because of the regularity with which you make edits that reduce both the quality and consistency of the article, all future changes you make will be reverted immediately, unless and until you familiarize yourself with the Manual of Style. In particular, you need to process the following directives, which you have repeatedly violated: Most of your edits violate not just one, but multiple of these principles: This one violated 1, 2, and 3. This one violated 1, 2, and 4. While not every single one of your edits is equally damaging, by far the majority are, and virtually none of the remaining are necessary. Given your habit of making minute and improper changes section by section, automatic reversion is the most sensible procedure for dealing with the problems you regularly create. That will be the procedure unless and until you can demonstrate a much improved knowledge of our stylistic principles and, in particular, a much greater respect for article stability and consistent, well-established style. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article."
 * "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so.... If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style."
 * "Em dashes are normally unspaced on Wikipedia."
 * "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (sentence fragments) that should not end with a period."


 * Well, this is certainly interesting. But, it seems to me that the language used in those rules is a little misleading, yes? The em dash rule says normally, not always. When do I decide when the dash should have a space, and when it shouldn't? Within the intro to the Los Angeles article, the em dashes have spaces, and it hasn't been changed. I can only assume that whomever's watching that article has no problem with this, as it's in plain view. Could you clarify on this?

AfD nomination of United States
An editor has nominated United States, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

iha trujchr243fdredf3ru3kFC4rdg4grfdikrf4jtrf4jzlot.L`T.5Y6YG:T%Y^/;5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.188.18.42 (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Top Importance Chicago Articles
If you want to help me choose Category:Top-importance Chicago articles, come comment at WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment by June 5th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.'   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Zeitgeist. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Quaeler (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite

 * --Eustress (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO
You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have made at least 25 edits to Chicago. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Links in Democratic Party

 * It seems like most of the changes you're making in Democratic Party (United States) fall under WP:R2D and may be a waste of your time and the time of those reviewing your changes. I understand why it might seem necessary, but apparently it isn't. —KCinDC (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Well, I just do it because I enjoy it. Plus, it helps me read the article. Andy Marchbanks (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. --  Wasell ( T ) 06:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.  &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 13:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is also necessary for moving references around (e.g. to the end of a sentence, rather than in-between the last word and the period)? I generally only move references, but when something else is done, I usually mention it. Andy Marchbanks (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, as a rule of thumb you should use edit summaries for everything that other users will be looking at (so, any edits in the Article or Talk namespaces). For moving references around you could mark it as minor and just leave a summary like "move ref" or something similar.  This is useful because, especially when you are making many edits one after another, it makes it easier for other users to see what you did by looking at the history.  A lot of users who are watching an article want to look at every edit that has been made (to make sure there hasn't been vandalism or just mistakes), and providing an edit summary makes it easier for the person to know what to look for.  Incidentally, this is even more important with the minor edits (such as moving stuff around), because when glancing at the difference between revisions it can be hard to notice a single period or comma or something like that that has been moved.  &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"moving a reference"
Are you sure you have consensus for the mass edits you are making? It seems trivial if there is a space before or not. Could you give me a link to the policy / discussion that you are doing this in regards to? Prodego talk  04:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As you say, it is trivial to move references, and that is pretty much all I do. Is consensus needed for such a thing?
 * Well I guess what I am asking is why should there be no space before a, and it it worth fixing? It is basically invisible to the reader, so making thousands of edits to change a pretty minor thing seems unnecessarily. Prodego  talk  04:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I discussed it with some other people, and basically decided that it can't hurt anything. So carry on as you wish. Prodego  talk  04:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Marchbanks (talk • contribs)

Michelle Obama FAC1
You are one of the few people who has made twenty edits to Michelle Obama and has edited it within the last three months. Therefore, I am notifying you that you may be interested in participating in the discussion at Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rehoboth Carpenter family

 * Regarding Rehoboth Carpenter family - We have surveyed, we have compromised, we have repeatedly asked to user Iwanafish to communicate. He refuses with his snide comments and reversions to non-wiki versions. We have warned him "offically" a lot more than 3 times. Repeatedly, we have asked for mediation, we have asked for help and I do not know who else to ask. Can you pass this up the chain of editors?


 * User Iwanafish continues to disrupt and vandalize this page and it has spread his behavior to other pages. John Carpenter (bishop) John Carpenter, town clerk of London What else can we do but shut down the articles involved and provide warnings that when they are restored by user Iwanafish that they are garbage?  Has wikipedia lost the ability to police itself? I am beginning to think this is a hopeless cause where such bullies can inflict such damage to wikipedia.  What else can be done?
 * John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving references
I've undone this edit; the references on this article are in Nature format and thus are before the punctuation. – iride  scent  22:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Moved a reference"

 * Stop using misleading edit summaries. I can not really believe that you think 'moved a reference' is a valid edit summary for all minor edits, yet it appears to be the case. Please desist from using it unless you are actually moving a reference. ninety:one 15:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; it does constitute most of my edits, however.


 * Actually, what does seem to constitute many of your edits (or, at least, the ones I peeked at) were things like closing up spaces between texts and reference marks, removing extraneous nits near refs (e.g. misplaced commas), etc. Given the large number of changes (which does give worry, given past abuses by others) and the fact that these are not easily understood (the removal of spaces just doesn't show up in diffs displays) a tiny bit more explanation here would help.  (The (perceived) lack of transparency is a problem, even if the problem _really_ is in the diffs displays)


 * Perhaps describe a bit the things you are finding and fixing? You might recruit others to help! Shenme (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ban Ki-moon FAR
I have nominated Ban Ki-moon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)