User talk:Brogo13

Welcome!
Hello, Brogo13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Killer Chihuahua 20:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Concerns
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Levivich - I agree. I scanned the edits Brogo13 has made, and although I haven't looked at every single one, I have seen exactly zero edits that are vandalism. Do any of the people pasting warnings here have a dif of a vandalistic edit? Plesae paste below, thank you! Killer Chihuahua 19:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I came across one of Brogo's edits while patrolling for vandalism, and saw all these vandalism warnings on this user talk page. I nearly reported Brogo to AIV, but when I examined the edits more closely, they were not vandalism. Changing  to   or a double space into a single space might be unnecessary, but it's not vandalism. It's intended as an improvement to the article, and regardless of whether it is or isn't an improvement, it falls under multiple sections of WP:NOTV, like "bold editing" and possibly "incorrect markup". And while those examples might be questionable, adding a non-breaking space in accordance with the MOS (like between the number and month in a date, or prior to an ellipses, see MOS:NBSP) is definitely not vandalism or a test edit. Those are improvements. I don't understand why such edits are being reverted, or would merit a vandalism or test warning. But hey, I'm not an admin or anything, so I'm pinging  to see if she wants to chime in, because I don't think it's productive for final-warning templates to keep being posted here without some clarity one way or the other. Maybe we can resolve this before it gets to ANI? – Levivich  19:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and removed all the Warnspam. Until and unless I see a dif of vandalism, I'm going to say it's best those remain gone. Editors are free to warn in the future, of course - but it does appear to me that this is a Newbie Wikignome, who could be an awful lot of help if people would help show him the ropes. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 20:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your opinion, and have restored the warnings. Brogo13 has been prickly towards constructive criticism, has not adequately explained edits, and has not slowed down their rapid editing pace despite the warnings. I wouldn't call Brogo's edits vandalism, though they often make unnecessary changes that are not supported by either the MOS or standard English grammar. Such changes are sometimes a net neutral, as the article is no worse after the change, but some of Brogo's edits are a net negative, reducing the clarity and quality of the article. I am not sure how many articles you looked at, but if you find any edit that changes wording, it is usually not for the better. If the user wants to improve, that is great. If they challenge legitimate criticism and do not change their behavior or attitude, WP:NOTHERE may apply.Dialectric (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you a dif of a vandalistic, as opposed to a well-intentioned (but possibly unhelpful) edit? Thank you. Killer Chihuahua 20:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh and so far as him not being terribly responsive, I'm thinking WP:BITE is the page to read - can you really blame him? No one tried to help or explain anything. Killer Chihuahua 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Several users tried to explain the issues to him and did not receive any form of reply. Donner60's first post, in July, linked the Manual of Style, and said that "edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason". I also suggested in August that Brogo13 “stick with WP:MOS related improvements, and not reword sentences unless they are seriously flawed.” I would characterise this as 'editors trying to help and explain'. As I said above, I see unconstructive edits rather than vandalism; certainly Brogo13's leaving the edit summary ‘rm cranio-rectal inversion', which was mentioned in the sections you archived, is poor form.Dialectric (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, agreed, and agreed. Still not vandalism; has he vandalized at all? thanks! Killer Chihuahua  20:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * About /Archive 1, where this edit by Brogo was quoted:
 * From:
 * To:
 * Changing "3 and 5" to "three- and five-" is per MOS:NUMERAL. Yet, Dialectric, you wrote, I suggest you stick with WP:MOS related improvements ... I don't understand? As for "these to its customers" → "courses", isn't that the sort of thing we discuss on article talk pages and come to consensus about? I don't see how that, in any way, merits a warning? – Levivich 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you review the relevant edit to Trump University, you will see that Brogo13 made extensive changes that are not covered by the MOS, described the edit as minor, and as with many of his problematic edits, left only the edit summary 'ce'. If the change was limited to numbering, I would have no issue, and that woud fall under 'sticking with the WP:MOS'.Dialectric (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the diff! I'm still not really understanding your perspective. For example, you describe it as a "problematic edit" – what's problematic about it? I'd agree that it should not have been flagged minor, but that is something we could have told Brogo, yet you did not mention that at all in your post. In fact, the word "minor" does not seem to appear in their archive at all. How is Brogo supposed to know about WP:MINOR if no one tells them? Next, "extensive changes that are not covered by the MOS" sounds like every edit I've ever made. WP:BOLD is still our way, isn't it? What's the problem with "extensive" changes? Why should Brogo "stick with the MOS"? Reading over that diff, I think I agree with each and every copyedit that was made–in each case, improving readability of the prose. But if there were some edits you disagreed with, why not just raise that on the article talk page, as we normally do, instead of treating it like Brogo's edits are somehow disruptive or against consensus or policy? Finally, I think "ce" was the correct edit summary, because all of those were copyedits. – Levivich 21:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To:
 * Changing "3 and 5" to "three- and five-" is per MOS:NUMERAL. Yet, Dialectric, you wrote, I suggest you stick with WP:MOS related improvements ... I don't understand? As for "these to its customers" → "courses", isn't that the sort of thing we discuss on article talk pages and come to consensus about? I don't see how that, in any way, merits a warning? – Levivich 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you review the relevant edit to Trump University, you will see that Brogo13 made extensive changes that are not covered by the MOS, described the edit as minor, and as with many of his problematic edits, left only the edit summary 'ce'. If the change was limited to numbering, I would have no issue, and that woud fall under 'sticking with the WP:MOS'.Dialectric (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the diff! I'm still not really understanding your perspective. For example, you describe it as a "problematic edit" – what's problematic about it? I'd agree that it should not have been flagged minor, but that is something we could have told Brogo, yet you did not mention that at all in your post. In fact, the word "minor" does not seem to appear in their archive at all. How is Brogo supposed to know about WP:MINOR if no one tells them? Next, "extensive changes that are not covered by the MOS" sounds like every edit I've ever made. WP:BOLD is still our way, isn't it? What's the problem with "extensive" changes? Why should Brogo "stick with the MOS"? Reading over that diff, I think I agree with each and every copyedit that was made–in each case, improving readability of the prose. But if there were some edits you disagreed with, why not just raise that on the article talk page, as we normally do, instead of treating it like Brogo's edits are somehow disruptive or against consensus or policy? Finally, I think "ce" was the correct edit summary, because all of those were copyedits. – Levivich 21:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing "3 and 5" to "three- and five-" is per MOS:NUMERAL. Yet, Dialectric, you wrote, I suggest you stick with WP:MOS related improvements ... I don't understand? As for "these to its customers" → "courses", isn't that the sort of thing we discuss on article talk pages and come to consensus about? I don't see how that, in any way, merits a warning? – Levivich 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you review the relevant edit to Trump University, you will see that Brogo13 made extensive changes that are not covered by the MOS, described the edit as minor, and as with many of his problematic edits, left only the edit summary 'ce'. If the change was limited to numbering, I would have no issue, and that woud fall under 'sticking with the WP:MOS'.Dialectric (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the diff! I'm still not really understanding your perspective. For example, you describe it as a "problematic edit" – what's problematic about it? I'd agree that it should not have been flagged minor, but that is something we could have told Brogo, yet you did not mention that at all in your post. In fact, the word "minor" does not seem to appear in their archive at all. How is Brogo supposed to know about WP:MINOR if no one tells them? Next, "extensive changes that are not covered by the MOS" sounds like every edit I've ever made. WP:BOLD is still our way, isn't it? What's the problem with "extensive" changes? Why should Brogo "stick with the MOS"? Reading over that diff, I think I agree with each and every copyedit that was made–in each case, improving readability of the prose. But if there were some edits you disagreed with, why not just raise that on the article talk page, as we normally do, instead of treating it like Brogo's edits are somehow disruptive or against consensus or policy? Finally, I think "ce" was the correct edit summary, because all of those were copyedits. – Levivich 21:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Archives, page blanking
Brogo13, I've archived your talk page, I hope you don't mind. Please be aware you are completely within your rights to remove any or all of the content on that page, or on this page - you don't have to leave talk page messages if you don't want them. The only exceptions are if you are blocked, and you request unblock and you're declined, you have to leave that. More information can be found here. Killer Chihuahua 20:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've received your email, and am glad you approve of the archiving.
 * I'm having email issues right now and cannot reply in that venue. I'd be happy to discuss here if you like - or we can let it slide pending my getting a working email for Wikipedia communications. Killer Chihuahua 01:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let it slide, absolutely. 8 r' --02:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Spacing in infoboxes
Usually we have spaces to keep the text aligned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This user has a thing about spaces and has been warned for it recently - see the archived talk page Andyjsmith (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Reversions
FYI 8 r'

Blank lines in source
Please do not squeeze out single blank lines before paragraphs as you did here. They are very useful to help editors navigate the source text. Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks again. --Brogo13 (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And again. --Brogo13 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump Ukraine
Your edit summary said "copy edit" but you changed the meaning of the article text by removing valid well-sourced content. You should restore that content. Also, please note the Discretionary Sanctions notice on the top of the article talk page. I'm not sure you should have repeated your revert there in less than 24 hours and without seeking talk paged discussion/consensus. Please consider.  SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice
 SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing restrictions
Hi Brogo13. In case you are not aware, Trump–Ukraine scandal and several other American politics articles are under strict editing restrictions. You violated the restrictions on Trump–Ukraine scandal, which conspicuously warn:

*You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.

*You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article

If you want to continue to edit controversial subjects, you should be very careful. Please don't violate the editing restrictions again, otherwise you may be blocked or topic banned. - MrX 🖋 22:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

COinS
Greetings! Regarding your recent edits at Donald Trump, please be aware that templates, nbsp, etc, should not be used within title values, per Template:Cite news. The same goes for a number of other cite parameters, listed there. The list does not include quote, for example, but I find it easier to simply omit templates, nbsp, etc from all cite parameters.You can fix that in the Trump article, or I'll fix it some time today. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  16:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do "fix it", likewise this, before somebody simply reverts them. (I hit Publish, then immediately saw your message.) Preachy ate chew! --Brogo13 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's default spacings around headings
This is just a courtesy notification. See this edit and the edit summary there.

Also look at my test section here -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Curious...
I'm curious about this edit, more specifically this part:


 * Previous: for at least 5 years
 * Appearance: for at least 5 years


 * Changed: for at least 5years
 * Appearance: for at least 5years

What difference does that edit make? Wiki markup doesn't need the, AFAIK. A single space functions as.....a single space.

The same applies here:


 * buh. ...buh
 * buh....buh

The appearance is the same, with or without the, so there doesn't seem to be any need for it in such cases. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 5 years is five years, however you spell or say or paraphrase or quote it – until years gets broken off that two-word concept onto the next line, e.g. an "orphaned" 5. (Words slip right past your consciousness; numbers, especially on either margin, not so much.) Similarly, an ellipsis should either drag the preceeding word with it or be dragged by adjacent punctuation. Consider also World War II, Apollo 17, and screens far wider or narrower than yours. Meanwhile, I've run afoul of the "reverting a reversion without discussion" thing, MOS notwithstanding. --Brogo13 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:NBSP – Levivich 04:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks for the good explanations. -- BullRangifer (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solomon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Judah ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Solomon check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Solomon?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2019 Q3), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SLV ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_%282019_Q3%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_%282019_Q3%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Montana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contiguity ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Montana check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Montana?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi, can I ask you to use the Edit Summary field to leave information about every edit to pages here on Wikipedia. I see you've just been entering the letters "ce" in that place, and don't think those are adequate or describe the changes being made. If you find yourself moving too fast to write accurate edit summaries, consider slowing down. Thanks.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 18:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Correcting punctuation in source titles
First, you are edit warring. When someone reverts your edit, you take it to the talk page or drop it. From the nutshell at WP:BRD (my emphasis): "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." You reverted again.

Also, the guideline you cited in your edit warring revert is about quotations, and in fact the second word at that link is "quotation". We are not talking about a quotation, but about the title of a source, which needs to match the original except for straightening curly quotemarks and apostrophes. Otherwise altering punctuation can make it more difficult to locate the source at an alternate location if the original becomes a deadlink. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  20:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't have to ping you in my edit summary, by the way. I did so as a courtesy to you, not as an invitation to edit war. Had I not done so, you very well might never have known you had been partially reverted. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  20:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just ... don't. --Brogo13 (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Brogo, Mandruss is correct. We cite the titles of sources exactly the way the source used them - even if their usage is "wrong" or doesn't match our style, or even if it contains misspellings or errors. The title used by the source is the title we cite, period. Mandruss is also correct that you must not edit war. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Perhaps the best title would actually be "Trump 2020 Sues Washington Post, Days After N.Y. Times Defamation Suit", i.e. with italicised text, per the example about newspaper titles. Correct? Politrukki (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Why revert instead of discussing this on the article talk page? Shouldn't you support your assertion with a relevant policy or guideline?Brogo13 linked MOS:CONFORM in the second edit summary. It seems they were more correct than not. A quotation is a quotation. links to  (and vice versa), which says: "Generally, the guidelines on typographic conformity in quoted material also apply to titles of works, including normalization of dashes and quotation marks, conversion of various emphasis techniques, cleanup of punctuation, and use of italics for things like scientific names of species."

Spaced en dash as item separator
Brogo, in this edit you put unspaced em dash where WP style is to use spaced en dash as item separator, per MOS:DASH. Can you undo that? Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The title in question has only one dash. (WTF, as it were.) --Brogo13 (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're saying. Maybe something related to the previous discussion section above this one?  Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I can't "undo that". --Brogo13 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No prob, I'll take care of it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

RE: No reason?
Mungo Kitsch (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

National varieties of English
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Coronavirus disease 2019, 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. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're unsure, the first place to look is at the top of the article in edit mode. For Coronavirus disease 2019, you'll see the template, the documentation of which should give you the means to determine which spelling of diarrhoea you should use in that article. On the other hand, some articles like Daria Morgendorffer don't have that template, and don't need it because the character is clearly an American invention and so the article will use en-us spelling as described in MOS:TIES. Incidentally, if you remove the spaces between the '==' wiki-markup and the heading text, you simply make life more difficult for editors to select just the heading text when in edit mode, for no benefit other than your personal idiosyncrasy. Many browsers allow a double-click-drag to select whole words in an edit box, but some of those will automatically select the "==" markup as part of the text unless a space separates them. Try to be kind to others. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Incidentally "== text ==" and "==text==" (like and ) render the same and MOS permits either. My personal idiosyncrasy is consistency—and a Logitech marble mouse. --Brogo13 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They might render the same to the reader, but in some browsers I use, attempting to double-click-drag to select the words in the heading in wiki-text also selects the == if it's not separated by spaces. If you take out the spaces, you simply inconvenience some editors for absolutely no gain to anybody whatsoever. So why do it? --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some editors prefer to always move a word (or more, never mind copying) that way, but all un-spaced punctuation—== including == === this=== ===defecation ===which occurs all too often—can be inconvenient. Meanwhile I absolutely love Ctrl+f. Whatsoever. --Brogo13 (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not for moving, it's for copying a lengthy heading to use as a target in a section link Article name, which has to be exact case and I find myself doing all too regularly, if you see what I mean. --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

nbsp in COVID-19 pandemic
Why did you remove all the non-breaking spaces from numbers in COVID-19 pandemic? Is there a Manual of Style clause I'm missing? -- Pingumeister(talk) 14:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't [remove all of them]. Check out my "see also" in the edit summary. (Meanwhile, I agree it does help the reader, if only subliminally, to avoid orphan digits.) --Brogo13 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so your "see also" advises not to use nbsp, etc. within cite parameters... but you removed them from the body text, not from any parameters. Having numeric values orphaned from units is rare, but it's annoying when it happens. I don't see a reason to remove them. -- Pingumeister(talk) 16:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Smile, dammit. --Brogo13 (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two effects of line-breaks to consider. One is starting a line with a non-word, which typographers have avoided over the ages. So we have advice at at MOS:UNITSYMBOLS that says We normally don't care whether a line breaks up a phrase unless the next line would start with a unit symbol, for example. We don't allow this to happen:
 * ... a distance of 20 km
 * so we write  but we don't worry about:
 * ... a distance of 20 kilometers
 * Similarly, there's no bar to seeing:
 * ... a distance of 20 thousand kilometres
 * The second place where you can justify keeping a quantity from splitting across lines is when there is a momentary ambiguity as the reader's eye moves back to the beginning of the next line:
 * ... the fee was $85 thousand
 * That would be a reasonable candidate for writing as  to prevent the cognitive disjoint between reading "$85" and "$85 thousand".
 * As for this edit, once you start putting non-breaking spaces between 1.7 and billion, it's the thin end of the wedge. I recently found something like "2&amp;nbsp;dukes, 14&amp;nbsp;earls and 22&amp;nbsp;barons". If you can keep your preferred phrases together because you like it that way, everybody can. Where does it end? --RexxS (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed changes to the nbsp at the time and am just coming across this now. Brogo13, your behavior comes across as really juvenile. Please communicate clearly with other editors. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Juvenile? A'solutely! (Ahemshut up, Beavis on purpose.) --Brogo13 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Juvenile? A'solutely! (Ahemshut up, Beavis on purpose.) --Brogo13 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Broke file name
I just wanted to draw your attention to your [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Flynn&diff=prev&oldid=955676104 edit here]. You made typographical changes to a file name, which caused the image to be turned into a redlink. I fixed it with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Flynn&diff=955699613&oldid=955699291 this edit]. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Riverside Church
Hi Brogo13, I've noticed you made some minor changes to the article above whilst I was doing my requested GOCE copy-edit here. Some of your changes were fine but others changed the meanings of the text. For example, you changed "not including Einstein" to "excluding Einstein" -- there's a subtle difference; was Einstein deliberately omitted or was he simply not considered for inclusion? You also changed "a two-story-high coffered ceiling" to "a two-story coffered ceiling"; the first means the ceiling is two stories above the floor but the other could mean the ceiling is two stories tall. Thanks for the corrections but please be careful not to alter meanings when you make minor edits to complex articles. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  03:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Einstein was undisputably – undisputedly? – excluded. The ceiling's another story. (Get over it.) --Brogo13 (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Useless Drive-by Edits—
Your useless drive by edits to articles like Orangutan and Riverside Church just waste people's time. It would be helpful if you would stop. I explained the use of "that" is preferable in formal writing. Wikipedia is an encyclopediaan example of formal writing. There was no reason for you to revert the original text. Your personal preference does not warrant a change. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I routinely remove thats – and ofs – which, in my opinion, are there for only one purpose. ("Is preferable" explains precisely squat.) Meh. --Brogo13 (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump
regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=963898146&oldid=963886021&diffmode=source, the page you linked says "Except on pages updated regularly" in literally the first sentence Urgal (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor
Hi Brogo, in your recent edit to the article I noticed that you changed several instances of numbers smaller than 10 from being spelled out to numerals, which seems to be directly discouraged by MOS:NUMERAL.—NØ 23:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, please ... I think. --Brogo13 (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Agatha Christie edits – thanks!
Hi Brogo13, thanks for your recent copy edits of the Christie article, much appreciated! Quick question: I would like to re-link the World Wars, is there a reason not to wikilink them? Cheers ~ RLO1729&#128172; 05:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-linking the "World Wars" Brogo13. I would also value your thoughts on "more than" vs "over" at the Christie Talk page please (very minor point but the article has gone back and forth between these options over time). :) ~ RLO1729&#128172; 07:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Hello:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit".

Thank you.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "You're welcome". and "You're welcome." meh --Brogo13 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Agatha Christie
PLEASE have the courtesy to leave this article alone when the GOCE tag is displayed. Also, you cannot change punctuation in quoted material. If you do not have the cited material you must assume the person quoting it did so accurately. An ellipsis requires a non-breaking space before they are used and using them to ensure the number in a date is not separated from the month is useful to readers using smaller screens. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary changes (again)
This is not the first time I have had to ask you not to make unnecessary changes to articles. Changing the spacing after a sub-section title, or adding or removing line breaks around an image is a pain in the backside. Just stop. And when you are reverted, don't accuse people of ownership, as you did here – it's uncivil and will only lead to a rather blunt response in return. It's not ownership, it's Stewardship. Read, learn and inwardly digest that section, paying particular note to the section WP:FAOWN, which should make you pause and think next time you want to bugger around with FAs.

I also note you seem to have followed round several FAs which a single user has taken to FA. That particular behaviour is hounding. It's deeply frowned on, and if you continue down that same line, ANI is the next logical step. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I also noticed you adding spaces after headings. This is not helpful and makes edit screens harder to read. Please do not do this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How exactly a blank line can possibly make anything "harder to read" escapes me. --Brogo13 (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC) p.s.
 * WP:NEWLINE does a pretty good job of presenting the pros and cons. WP:HEADINGS says spaces after headings are optional. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 16:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the stewards of an article are asking you not to do things because it makes it more awkard for them, just accept that you may not be improving things. Many of the edits I've seen you undertake seem to be change for change's sake, with no improvements associated with them. Perhaps you should confine your changes to things that actually improve articles, rather than just tinkering with the coding for the hell of it? - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I will echo the above comments. Your changes are things that don't matter. That would be fine if you were a key editor of an article, but are just meaningless distractions to swoop into random articles with. It's certainly not "copyediting", which implies things like adjusting grammar or flow. None of these changes appear to actually be helpful to the project. Please stop. SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:ELCITE . In an "External links" section, a bulleted list is used, even if there is only a single entry.  SnowFire (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [quote] The heading should be "External links" (plural) even if only a single link is listed. [unquote] (The word – in the heading – is always plural.) touche --Brogo13 (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I echo and 's comments. In addition, making significant changes to Featured Articles, which are ones where a particularly strong consensus has been reached regarding their present form, goes well beyond copy editing. Please stop. If you wish to copy edit, visit GoCE. Please do not remove information from a Featured Article again. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They slipped away into the Atlantic during the night. Pretty please. --Brogo13 (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries for MOS edits
It's not a huge deal, but edit summaries like this are not helpful. I just link to the relevant guideline and move on. We all have strengths and weaknesses and that includes attention to details like straight quotes. If everybody was good at things like that, you and I would have less to contribute to the project. I let others do what they're good at and I'm not (which is plenty), I do what I'm good at and they're not, and between us we make a more perfect encyclopedia. Cheers. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  20:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But it was funny, huh? I had gone all the way through my usual routine (nbsp, dashes, blank lines, thats ad nauseam); kudos to all y'all. (Preach ate chew.) --Brogo13 (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Robin Williams
Hi! Great cleanup on the Robin Williams article! That was a lot of work, but it really improves consistency, so thanks!

Just a heads-up: I reinserted the caption on the Time magazine cover. If the pic showed the full cover as it appeared on a newsstand, a caption would not be necessary; since it doesn't, I think the caption gives the reader a little more useful information.

But that's just a minor change. Your cleanup was great (and I love that you and I agree that that tends to be overused). Cheers! &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncle</b><b style="color:darkred">Bubba</b> ( T @ C ) 10:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Nope; on second thought, the pic is well explained in the adjacent paragraph. So... "never mind". ;-) &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncle</b><b style="color:darkred">Bubba</b> ( T @ C ) 11:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Style edits
Hey, thanks for your work adding non-breaking spaces to Second Silesian War; it'd be great if you could make the time to do the same stuff to the other articles in the series (First Silesian War, Third Silesian War, and Silesian Wars). Also, just as a note, calling a work of visual art a "portrait painting" isn't redundant, since "portrait" describes the content of the work, whereas "painting" describes the medium (a portrait could also be a pencil sketch, a photograph, etc.). Thanks for your wikignome work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wilco. Meanwhile, our medium is a computer—desktop, laptop, phone, what have you—and those are esoteric descriptions of files. meh --Brogo13 (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

RE: Emails
Hi. I got your emails, which are not very clear about what you're trying to put across. Please do not make extensive changes like this, because your implementation of WP:LQ isn't consistent. In some areas of the article, you placed punctuation for quoted sentence fragments inside the quotation marks, and elsewhere you placed it outside when part of the quoted material could constitute a complete sentence. As you know, the guideline says to "include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark." Perhaps instead of making these changes all in one fell swoop, it would be easier to sort through what you did correctly and incorrectly if you changed one quotation at a time, edit by edit. isento (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, it would be easier to communicate with you if you typed in a clear, conventional style of English, considering your email headline and your talk page. It would serve you better to get yourself across to others, unless the point is to be obscure and inaccessible? isento (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is an example. This sentence at the Love for Sale article places the terminal punctuation outside the quoted material, because in the source material cited, that section of the quote -- "ironic twist to my life" -- does not end with a period. Meaning your edit placing the period inside the quotation was incorrect. isento (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Aight? --Brogo13 (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:ELLIPSIS: "...if material is omitted in the course of a quotation". The course of quoting the material ended after "ironic twist to my life", so we are no longer in the course of quoting. Placing ellipsis in such cases otherwise would make the text unwieldy and awkward all throughout an article with many quotes. This sentiment is echoed by [https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/05/punctuation-junction-quotation-marks-and-ellipses.html#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20it%20is%20not,begins%20or%20ends%20in%20midsentence. APA guidenace] and our own Wikipedians' discussion of MOS: "Ellipses at the end have been replaced by putting the period outside of the quotation mark. ... The 'ellipses' became silly when you would end your sentence with a quote that was a fragment, thus making all sorts of weird grammar. It also was unwieldy for publishers. Grammar is about representation." (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_111) isento (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Now, please. If you are this insistent on these particular changes, try communicating your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. isento (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Changing others' comments
May I ask what you thought you were doing here ? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You may indeed. (I hereby acknowledge any and every "general frown" and duly apologize.) --Brogo13 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I only just now noticed that you reverted yourself -- I had mistakenly thought someone else did that -- so it's not a big deal. Still I'd be interested to know what you had in mind. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There I [successfully] questioned your unquestionability, and someone else did revert that. (My word curtsy was a link, and still is; I moved the target.) Meanwhile... --Brogo13 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Brogo13 made this change, and did not revert it. Nomad Sky made the revert. Brogo13's repeated use of incomprehensible wordplay in response to other editors' questions about their edits, seen in many examples on this talk page, strongly suggest that this user is WP:NOTHERE.Dialectric (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I was just the subject of some of this incomprehensible wordplay myself: . — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 06:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Please stop adding plural and possessive guidance to articles. You have been reverted by multiple editors on Kamala Harris but keep re-adding your guide footnote. I have removed it from that article again, as well as from many others you have added it to. There is no need to instruct readers on a concept that is standard English, and your latest attempt appears to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

Furthermore, please stop using edit summaries which do not actually describe your edit. Nearly all of these that I removed were marked "ce", shorthand for "copy edit", which describes improvements to the prose of an article, and which did not describe what you were actually doing in your edit. Descriptive edit summaries are preferred, but an empty summary is preferred to a false one.

Lastly, when someone asks a question or leaves you a note, do not respond in riddles. I see you have been advised of this on this page several times already; you are now being warned. Respond and communicate in plain, comprehensible English, or you will be blocked from editing. See Competence is required. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Izno (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Like the notice says, it does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. But what I'm about to say does so imply: stop fucking around or you'll likely be blocked, quite possibly indefinitely. Everyone's tired of your random churning and breaking of things and incomprehensible edit summaries. And I personally am tired of cleaning up your messes. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 00:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 03:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Aww--Brogo13 (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)