User talk:Finn the awesome


 * }

July 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Pen spinning has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Pen spinning was changed by Finn the awesome (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.916643 on 2013-07-24T11:52:05+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to English determiners with this edit. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

MOS
Hello Finn, Your first four edits all appear to be good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. However, all have been reverted because they took away elements we consider helpful. Please don't be discouraged.

I have added a navigation box at the top of this page with links to many useful Wikipedia pages to aid you with the mechanics, etiquette, and style we use when editing on Wikipedia. Realistically, it would take several dedicated hours to read the most important parts. The other topics can be useful to answer questions and resolve issues you might have in the future.

Your first edit to Electronic billing removed a citation, added a superfluous aka, added unneeded capitalized words to a section header, and added the useless and distracting words "is the word which" to the phrase This refers to an.... The removal of a proper citation, especially without explanation, is worrisome. We see it thousands of times per day in vandalism, but since you are new, you probably did not understand its use or significance and thought it unhelpful. All your other changes are not considered improvements since they make the article comply less with the Manual of Style.

Your second edit to Reflexive pronoun removed maintenance and navigation templates. The former help identify articles which need specific kinds of work. The latter help the lay reader find intended or related articles. Removal of any of these is not an improvement.

Your third edit to English determiners changed a sentence from active to passive voice. That is the most minor of writing faux pas, but it is not preferred style. The reverting editor was probably following your edit history and considered the edit to be guilty by association rather than being without merit.

Your fourth edit removed boldface redirect target aliases which help reassure a reader that they page they landed on was intentionally redirected from whatever they searched for, like "pen tricks" showing them Pen spinning. You helpfully removed some silly content, but then added original research which is a significant problem. All content must be verifiable through reliable sources. Ideally, the reverting editor should have redone your removal of silly content, but that takes additional time and effort.

Any edits you make which improve Wikipedia will generally be defended. That's why we are here: to make the worlds greatest encyclopedia. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)