User talk:Anthony22/Archive 3

March 2019
Please be far more careful with the sources that you choose. Please check WP:RSP, search WP:RSN, and ask for help if you are not sure about the reliablity of a source. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary! From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh
Huh, yeah he is, but I'm not up to a discussion about it. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for your attention and improvements on the Monroe articles. A good Wikipedia-style collab, because of your putting attention onto those pages and their images I thought of adding the two images of Monroe at the Kennedy birthday function to Happy Birthday, Mr. President, and they make the page look much better. Well, anything with more Monroe makes something look better. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree; once again, many of your edits are not an improvement and some have changed the context and meaning of RS cited points made. Especially with the main article, which is rated FA as you well know. It is a waste of editors time to have to read through your personal preferences and original research to revert your disruptive edits. Sorry Randy, you and I usually agree, but I’ve seen too much of this guys “editing”. So Anthony try for a change to work with editors towards consensus instead of disruption. Kierzek (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I meant specifically the series of comments and edits which resulted in eventual good changes in the Kennedy birthday song article. I agree that some of the edits are not helpful, and hopefully Anthony is taking accuracy and the readers understanding of POV nuances into consideration of each word. Better to improve the page, but if a few editors are questioning many of the edits the talk pages seem the best way to sort the thought process out. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits can be classified as original research, constructive, destructive, disruptive, or vandalism. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a constructive or disruptive edit. The majority of Wikipedia articles are very poorly written with all kinds of grammatical, punctuation, sentence structuring, and spelling mistakes. Very few people have a superior command of the English language, and that includes college graduates who took the wrong courses (humanities, philosophy, history, theology, English literature). How do you arrive at a consensus? That is a very difficult thing to do. No two people have the same mind or the same opinions. For example, two people will see the same motion picture or read the same novel; one person will say it was fantastic, and the other person will say it was terrible. Debating is essentially a waste of time and effort.Anthony22 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wanted to thank you again, for caring for the page and topic enough to plow through the criticism (some justified, but maybe given too harshly) and continue to add some good edits to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Language authority
If you are going to repeatedly write superior-sounding edit summaries about correct use of the English language, please at least make sure they are consistent with the English dictionary. There are multiple online dictionaries with free access. Thank you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You're back
Hi Anthony- welcome back. I am afraid I don't believe your hiatus to have helped address the issues that many editors above have highlighted. Edits like this, this, this and this all show the old bad habits of mistakes being presented as corrections and/or edits that make the text worse being presented as improvements. Please take note of the discussion above. Please also understand gerunds. I am sure you're not being intentionally disruptive and of course I assume good faith, but do please reconsider your approach.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Hello, I'm Larry Hockett. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to New York Yankees seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, New York Yankees. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  11:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Amazon (company), you may be blocked from editing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

National varieties of English
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Scuba diving, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. ''The article clearly has the template {Use British English} and editors are expected to respect it. There is no default variant of English for articles, and US readers make up a minority of readers of the English Wikipedia.'' RexxS (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are now sailing very close to the wind.
 * The use of "which" as the relative pronoun is normal in British English in both defining and non-defining relative clauses. Microsoft Word is not a useful authority for English grammar. In the cases where you changed "which" to "that", you are altering the English variant from en-gb to en-us again. Stop it.
 * Scuba is now considered an anacronym, that is, its meaning is now fully associated with the word, rather than being associated with its derivation from the initials. This is more fully discussed in Scuba set . It's therefore both inaccurate and original research to mislabel scuba as an acronym.
 * The pronoun "they" is a gender neutral singular pronoun and is generally used instead of "he" or "she" when the gender is unknown or indeterminable. Its use as the singular gender neutral pronoun dates back to Shakespearean times and is quite normal in Wikipedia. You must not go around changing "they" to "he" as you will cause offence to many editors. Whatever source for grammar you are using, it is not appropriate for modern English usage. I'm going to strongly suggest that if you can't grasp the nuances of English variations and of writing in a gender-neutral style, then you avoid attempting to correct any further articles. --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much you know about the long history of this issue. I have encouraged Anthony22 to find ways to contribute better suited to his skill set, including specific suggestions, and he has declined. There have been numerous other editors complaining on this page; when the heat got too great, Anthony22 took a months-long wikibreak, then returned and continued doing exactly what resulted in the heat. I eventually stopped even looking at his edits, feeling forced to adopt a philosophical "not my problem" stance. I felt some time ago that some "next step" was in order, as it's clear to me that Anthony22's copy edits are and will remain a net negative to the encyclopedia. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much you know about the long history of this issue. I have encouraged Anthony22 to find ways to contribute better suited to his skill set, including specific suggestions, and he has declined. There have been numerous other editors complaining on this page; when the heat got too great, Anthony22 took a months-long wikibreak, then returned and continued doing exactly what resulted in the heat. I eventually stopped even looking at his edits, feeling forced to adopt a philosophical "not my problem" stance. I felt some time ago that some "next step" was in order, as it's clear to me that Anthony22's copy edits are and will remain a net negative to the encyclopedia. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to José Fernández (pitcher). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Colors
Hi Anthony. You have been changing the colors maroon and gold to Maroon and Gold. Colors are not proper nouns. Imagine the sentence 'I saw a red bus'. Changing it to 'I saw a Red bus' would be absurd, and that is effectively what your edit has done. Please don't restore your changes again without discussion. Here is the best place as taking such an elementary discussion to an article talk page would be a waste of editors' time. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Jackie Robinson. ''Describing Robinson’s strikeout as “inconsequential” in WP’s voice is not an appropriate use of neutral tone. There are only five big rules - WP:NPOV is one of those. '' Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Mistaken "changed present tense to past tense" edits
Hello. You have been making a series of grammar changes to articles like John McCain and Ted Kennedy and Bill Gates under the edit summary "changed present tense to past tense", all of which are incorrectly motivated. Instances include this edit and this edit and the edit. To take the first one as an example, there is nothing wrong with the sentence "He became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers". The "flying" in it is not present tense. Like -ing verbs in general, it is tenseless – it gets its tense from the main verb of the phrase or sentence. Thus, "she was flying", "she is flying", and "she will be flying" are all valid uses of "flying" in three different tenses. In this case, the main verb of the sentence is "became", which makes the whole sentence past tense including the "flying". (If you are really in doubt about this point, consult some sites on English usage such as this one.) Therefore there is no need to change the sentence as you did to "He became a naval aviator and flew ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers". While there is nothing wrong with that sentence per se, it is a bit duller and more verbose and lends to more repetitive prose overall, whereas the use of "flying" in the original helps the prose have a more varied style. Thus these changes of yours are ill-advised. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

More than two years and several warnings and requests later, this is still going on.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' Incident noticeboad notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Tapered (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chronic disruptive editing. Jayjg (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Charles Lindbergh. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Anthony, but your source does not support the idea that he landed in Newfoundland. Britmax (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Lindbergh lifted off from Roosevelt Field on Long Island, From there, he flew to St. John's in NewFoundland, Canada. He did not make a stop at St. John's. He flew east from St. John's because that is the eastern tip of North America. He did not fly across the Atlantic from Roosevelt Field. For your information, the Roosevelt Field site is now a shopping mall and next door to the Mitchel Athletic Complex. I have been there many times. Do me a favor and watch the film, "The Spirit of Saint Louis," which stars James Stewart as Lindbergh. You will see the plane flying east over St. Johns. There seems to be a conspiracy going on against me.Anthony22 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem, Anthony, is that when you write "In the early morning of Friday, May 20, 1927, Lindbergh took off from Roosevelt Field, Long Island, to St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, and then across the Atlantic Ocean for Paris, France.", you give the impression that Lindbergh flew from Roosevelt Field to St. John's, stopped there, and then flew on to Paris. Any mention of the waypoint in Newfoundland doesn't really add any important information to the article and creates an ambiguity that readers might misinterpret. For what it's worth, the shortest route from NY to Paris by air almost certainly passes over Newfoundland as most airlines use that route for their transatlantic flights. HTH --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, just to note, a biopic like The Spirit of St. Louis is not a reliable source for facts about the historical event it portrays. Films routinely ignore historical accuracy in favor of dramatic necessity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, just to note, a biopic like The Spirit of St. Louis is not a reliable source for facts about the historical event it portrays. Films routinely ignore historical accuracy in favor of dramatic necessity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Good job!
Really nice work on the Bill Cosby article. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, these are the edits I was talking about when I wrote that. I just looked them over again, and I still think they improved the article. I know that there is now an AN case about Anthony22's edits, and I am purposely not expressing any opinion one way or the other on what is being discussed there, because I haven't looked at the history of edits myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal for a topic ban...
can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

with the best intentions...
—with the best intentions I am trying to get you to engage in calm dialogue with others. I want the present issue to work out for the best for you. I've always enjoyed our glancing encounters. Obviously others are complaining. Therefore if I could offer advice, and I am hesitant to offer anyone else advice, I think it would be a good idea if you tried to say something to placate the concerns of others. It is being discussed here. If I were you I would just say that you are taking the points made by others to heart and that you will try to incorporate into your editing habits the types of changes they are recommending. It is the interaction that matters, in my opinion. You could calmly explain that you can and will alter one aspect or another of your editing habits so as not to arouse the ire of any of your detractors. Believe me—I'm just trying to be helpful. These are merely suggestions. You should handle it any way you want, but calm, measured input is what I'd recommend. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey Anthony22, coming here from the AN/I discussion. Would you be willing to discuss this with me? I would like to see a resolution that doesn't involve messy sanctions (blocks/bans/restrictions/whatever) and I think such a resolution is possible, but only if you are willing to engage, recognize that there is a problem, and then make significant changes to the way you edit. The big 3 questions, in order, are: 1. Are you willing to talk about this? 2. Do you recognize what the problem is? 3. What changes are you willing to make voluntarily to resolve the problem? ~Awilley (talk)


 * OK, now it looks like you're just ignoring me and continuing on with the problematic behavior that is being discussed at AN/I. This isn't a problem that is going to just go away if you ignore it long enough. I get that you might not like talking to people, but this is a collaborative project, and at some point you need to communicate with your peers. You're free to ignore me for as long as you want, but if you're going to plow ahead with the problematic copyediting as if nothing is wrong I will block your account from editing altogether. ~Awilley (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You are now subject to a topic ban
Please see Special:Permalink/914804289: Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia. They may add information which is supported by a citation from a reliable source, and may delete information currently in an article if they think it is incorrect, inaccurate, or not properly sourced, but must immediately follow up any such edit with an explanation for the deletion on the article talk page. This topic ban can be appealed no earlier than 6 months after it is imposed. You are free to continue editing Wikipedia, but you must abide by this restriction. See WP:TOPICBAN for more information about topic bans. You will need to wait six months before you can appeal this restriction. After that time, you can post to WP:AN and point to the constructive edits you've done. If you engage in any copy editing, it is likely you will be blocked, so please be careful. You can ask other editors questions if you are not sure whether an edit would violate this restriction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If you're going to block me from editing, you're blocking the wrong person. I have uploaded many excellent images that have been removed, and I have made many constructive edits that were reverted by people who didn't know what they were doing. I'm beginning to think that some editors on Wikipedia are grade-school dropouts who are vindictive and spiteful. Everyplace you come into contact with people, there is nothing but irritation, discourtesy, aggravation, and friction, and Wikipedia is no exception to this rule. There is only one place where you can escape rudeness: the Wilderness, which is basically free of people.Anthony22 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * So basically your defense is "all of those editors who reverted me and all of those editors who called for me to be topic banned are grade-school dropouts who are vindictive and spiteful". Are you sure that this is the position you want to take? See Law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "grade-school dropouts who are vindictive and spiteful" Mrs. Smith told me in seventh grade I would amount to nothing, and boy, did I show her. I helped pile-on an unconstructive editor so they can't continue to deface articles. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God. Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.


 * Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.


 * And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein. No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:


 * And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Isaiah NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As explained by Mandruss on the AN/I thread which resulted in the sanction to Anthony22, A22's typical response to things such as this is to disappear for a while and then return to make the same kinds of edits. Now that he cannot make the same kind of edits, and given his implied threat to sock made on that thread, watchers of this page should be aware of any new accounts or IPs which edit in a manner striking similar to that of Anthony22.   If any such editing is found, they should be reported to WP:SPI as evidence of topic-ban evading sockpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Topic bans and blocks can very easily be circumvented. A person can use the account of a family member, co-worker, friend, schoolmate, or another person to continue editing. If I were to continue editing in this fashion, you could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am the culprit. As I said before, I have made many constructive edits that were reverted by silly people. The classic example of this is my upload of the photograph of Billie Burke's gravesite. The original photograph was excellent; somebody modified and blurred the original image with a new image. I re-inserted the original image but that edit was reverted. THE ORIGINAL IMAGE WAS MUCH BETTER. I must admit that I don't understand why I have wasted so much time and effort making good edits that were reverted. Wikipedia articles are poorly written with terrible grammar, syntax, sentence structuring, chronology, and punctuation. To use a classic analogy, too many chefs spoil the soup, and some of the chefs don't even know how to boil water.Anthony22 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is true that circumventing a topic ban can be easy ... until it no longer is. The point is that if you do any of the things you mention above, and you are found out, you will be blocked from editing indefinitely.  And if you continue to do it after that, you will be site banned. And once you are indef blocked or site banned, there never needs to be any discussion about your edits ever again.  An edit made by an indef blocked or site banned editor can be reverted by any editor at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. You will be fighting an uphill battle.  Oh, sure, you'll have your little victories, get a bunch of edits in without anyone noticing - but for the most part you will not be able to contribute to Wikipedia ever again.  You will be a pariah.Is that really the Wikipedia future you're looking for?  Right now, your sanction still allows you to edit under certain restrictions.  If you continue to follow those restrictions, after six months you can ask that your sanction to be removed.  If you sock, that will never happen, and the future I outlined above is more likely than not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Anthony, if you threaten again to circumvent your topic ban by creating a new account or using someone else's account, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder
Anthony. After a lengthy process you have been banned from making grammatical edits. This was a grammatical edit, which (not that it matters) is wrong. You have changed the adjective first-team to a noun. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Kramer&diff=prev&oldid=916220328

I will not report this but please stop.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Anthony22. Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Knock it off
The capitalization changes you made look very much like testing the limits or a breaching experiment. Don't. If you think something should be changed, post it on Talk, wait 48 hours to see if anyone objects, then make the edit. We don't need this drama OK? Please just play it safe and play nice. Guy (help!) 22:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I must say that I don't know what the hell you're talking about. The capitalization changes that I made are correct. I made very good improvements to the article on Barry Kramer, if that's what you're talking about.Anthony22 (talk)
 * That's real smart, mouthing off to the admin who shut down the latest ANI discussion about you despite calls for further action from several experienced editors.This edit shows ignorance of not one but two MOS guidelines, WP:SURNAME and MOS:POSTABBR. I have corrected it on both points. Please improve your game if you are going to make this type of edit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of the surname rule in captions. Go the Jennifer Jones article and down to the Section of Biography. You will see a photo of Ray Corrigan, Jennifer Jones, and John Wayne in the Section. I changed the caption from Jennifer Jones to Jones, and they changed it back to Jennifer Jones. This is what I mean about reverting my good edits. There is no double-standard with respect to surnames. Wikipedia moderators can contradict themselves. I have had many good edits reverted by people who didn't know what they were doing.Anthony22 (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * My advice to you is to stop acting as if you are free to violate your topic ban if the edits are good (you aren't), stop standing with your toes over the line you are not allowed to cross, and in general start behaving in such a way that if anyone reports you at ANI for violating your topic ban, there is zero debate as to whether or not you violated it, but instead there is a 100% unanimous consensus that the person who reported the violation is crazy and deserves a WP:BOOMERANG for wasting ANI's time. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So you got incorrectly reverted once on a SURNAME edit, and, instead of using the talk page and pointing to the guideline, you stopped observing the guideline in other edits? How does that make sense?In many cases you can even avoid being reverted in the first place, if you link to the guideline in your edit summary, as I did in my correction and do in most of my edits where a guideline applies. I don't get reverted much, both because I know the guidelines and because I show I know the guidelines by linking to them. The shortcut names are not exceedingly difficult to learn if you put your mind to it.And your contribution to the project is multiplied with little effort if you educate less experienced editors by pointing them to the guidelines via your edit summaries. At least some editors will click through and read that stuff. If it's truly about the project and not your own needs, doing that is an easy decision. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Anthony22, you are under an editing restriction. That very rarely happens in cases where the editor agrees that what they did was bad. We use restrictions because other people judge that some editors' actions are disruptive in some way that the editors do not see for themselves. I understand that you don't see the problem. But other people do, and since you're already under restriction, and nobody wants to see that converted to blocks or bans, I am counseling you to play it straight and don't give even the slightest hint of testing the limits of the restriction, please. Otherwise this will almost certainly come up again and next time you are likely to end up blocked. Thank you. Guy (help!) 14:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Anthony I'm sorry to come in again but when your edit summary is 'replaced ambiguous wording with more specific wording' it's impossible not to. That is almost the exact description for what the community has expressly asked you not to do. Please just don't do wording or grammar edits. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)