User talk:AnthonyCurt

AnthonyCurt, you are invited to the Teahouse!

 * I'm glad to see you have now signed up as a user, after your previous editing under different IPs (including User:92.25.203.172 and User:2.97.29.42), but you continue to make the same sort of unintentionally unhelpful edits that you have already been informed about, under the latest IP (User talk:2.97.29.42) and now here. If you don't understand the difference between "its" and "it's", please do not change one spelling to the other. Please also stop making inappropriate capitalisations of nouns. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style so please familiarise yourself with this and stop making arbitrary style changes which contradict it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've only just noticed that the dates indicate that you have been editing under this user name and as an IP concurrently. It would be more appropriate to stick to editing as a user, if you want to avoid accusations of WP:SOCKing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Sheffield Brightside (UK Parliament constituency), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''You have been asked to stop adding grammatical errors w/o complying or responding - Iam forthwith treating your edits as disruptive. I notice you are also editing as an IP as well, having been warned about socking. Please take heed.'' Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Teahouse, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate links
Per WP:DUPLINK "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article", so can you please revisit articles where you have repeated numerous links and remove the additional ones? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just had to revert some of the duplinks that AnthonyCurt has added into the FA-rated Nelson Mandela article. I appreciate that you appear to be new to the Wikipedia game, Anthony, but it would be great if you could fully familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia Manual of Style before making lots of small prose edits; that way, other editors won't have to spend time reverting any problems that arise from said edits (including duplinking). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Your edit summaries are generally at best uninformative and sometimes actively misleading. This is in no way a "typo" and is perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia's Manual of Style. These are also not typos and in fact you are, again, introducing an error. Please do not fiddle about with style elements of the text on the basis of your personal preferences. Saying "add" in a summary tells us nothing; you should explain the reason for a change or addition. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Anthony, please take into account what more experienced editors have told you. Not long after Matt warned you about misleading edit summaries, you have done it once again: today, you once again claimed that you were removing a "typo"  when that is clearly not the case. Please keep your edit summaries as accurate as possible. "Prose edits" might be a better option in instances such as these. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Margaret Thatcher, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 10:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Nelson Mandela, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Persistence in problematic editing and lack of engagement
I'm informing you that there is continued discussion here about the continuation of your problematic editing, as discussed above. Alongside a number of positive edits, overall you are making changes which are pointless tinkering or actively run against WP:MOS, involve incorrect using of punctuation, make phrasing clumsy by the insertion of excess information or superfluous facts (such as the day of the week for dates given) and you continue to leave unhelpful or downright misleading edit summaries. Several editors have attempted to engage with you about this but, as far as I can tell, you have responded to none of them. Although there are no grounds to believe that this started as an intentional attempt to be disruptive, as suggests at WkiProject Scotland we may be at a point where it is reasonable to regard all your edits as unreliable and to revert all as a matter of course without the considerable effort of checking them first. A lack of WP:COMPETENCE is no excuse for your behaviour. If you refuse to engage about this and persist in your course it is reasonable to view this as a lack of good faith with the community and to thus regard the edits as wilfully disruptive, with the consequences that that may entail. Please respond. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are still editing in like manner and have not engaged here. Your latest edit introduces inappropriate capitalisation alongside the usual needless tinkering. I am no longer prepared to sort the scant wheat from the more copious chaff of your edits. You are now being wilfully disruptive. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017


Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Opposition to immigration. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)



Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Wolverhampton South West (UK Parliament constituency), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please stop making changes which violate MOS:DATERANGE. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:ENGVAR and refrain from making needless changes solely on the basis of your personal preferences. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Anthony, I've made a start at looking through your edits of the last couple of weeks and the bulk of them contain at least some problematic changes as detailed above. Some of these had been spotted and reverted by other editors, I have addressed some of the others but there is a huge quantity to deal with. I'd be grateful if you could go through them systematically and address them yourself. The main issues are edits that contradict MOS:DATERANGE, MOS:LARGENUM, MOS:NUMBERSIGN, MOS:ENGVAR, inappropriate hyphenation, inappropriate capitalisation of nouns, incorrect changes between "its" and "it's" and addition of superfluous information, often making the existing text cumbersome or confusing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I'd like to repeat the request. It would genuinely be very helpful of you to go through your edits, reverting the many errors. I've made some progress but there are many, many more to be addressed. Please help out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I notice you have returned to editing after a gap of several days. As requested, could you turn your energies to reverting the errors you have introduced first, rather than leave it to others to clear up after you? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I see you are still editing and though you are not making quite so many mistakes you are still making a substantial amount, plus numerous pointless changes from one valid WP:MOS styling to another. If you are still unclear about any elements of the MOS, as you evidently are, please do not make make MOS changes. If you want to learn about the MOS, as requested a good way to do this would be to go back through the edits you have made in the last few weeks, correcting the mistakes you have been advised about. As I have attempted to systematically work through your edits, it is evident that numerous editors have been clearing up behind you. It is not reasonable for you to leave it up to others to do the work of correcting your mistakes or to have to go through any of your new edits, sorting out valid changes from invalid ones. You are causing considerably more work for others than any small improvements that you make warrant. Please do not be so self-centred. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you have seen the detailed edit summaries I have been leaving when addressing your edits but in case you have not, this is my last one, regarding Essex: "Reverted 1 edit by AnthonyCurt: Rv duplicated linking (in same sentence), pointless tinkering fr one valid phrasing or MOS:NUMERAL styling to another, incorrect hyphenation, repeated “snap” nonsense; some changes valid so may part reinstate". Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)