User talk:CarlosTheBadger

August 2018
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 Bay City, Michigan, 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. John from Idegon (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Bay City, Michigan, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. John from Idegon (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Boris Johnson
With you undid a good edit made by  and previously by. You then, which I thank you for, though you repeated your edit summary. Two points: I hope you'll try to go a bit slower in future, consider why someone might be making a change in good faith, and, if you're going to revert them, give more thought to the reasons you give for doing so. Personal attacks are given very short shrift here so if you want to help make Wikipedia better, you'll find the going a lot smoother if you avoid them. If there are situations where you'd appreciate advice, my talk page is open as is the Teahouse. All the best, &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 00:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) EddieHugh was right in his edit summary when he  this - this phrasing does not accurately reflect what Johnson said. What he said was "The real divide is between the entire class of people now reposing their fat behinds on the green and red benches in the Palace of Westminster, and the bottom 20 per cent of society – the group that supplies us with the chavs, the losers, the burglars, the drug addicts and the 70,000 people who are lost in our prisons and learning nothing except how to become more effective criminals". That's ugly enough as it is, but it doesn't imply that all poor people are chavs etc. Assuming "bottom 20 per cent" refers to wealth/income, which isn't clear from the quotes in the Independent article, what he said is the opposite—that all chavs/drug addicts are poor. Including the text as phrased in the article would be wrong.
 * 2) It's a very bad idea, not to mention against WP:AGF and WP:NPA, to accuse someone, unless with very clear evidence and in a suitable forum, of being, for example, a "Tory Central Office worker". It's rude, unfair, unhelpful and liable to lead to blocks if you continue in that vein.