User talk:Heididoerr061

National varieties of English
In a recent edit to the page Jim Carrey, 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 India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author 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. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  Talk   16:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you violated MOS:ENGVAR again despite the warning above. Changes like this and this are unnecessary and can be seen as disruptive. Vaccine doesn't really have a strong national tie to any nation, but it was written in British English first and there is no reason to change this. See MOS:RETAIN. In the case of Jim Carrey, he's Canadian so there's a good reason the article should remain written in Canadian English. Sro23 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop! You are continuing this. Your edits are not generally constructive. If you don't take the time to slow down and discuss your changes, we are going to have to block you. --Yamla (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. If using the visual editor, there is a field when saving changes which asks for an edit summary. Thanks! Eagleash (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Aurora (Disney character). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Valenciano (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Design, you may be blocked from editing. Dr.  K.  01:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please
Please do not add funny images into edits as you did here. You make lots of good changes, please make only good changes.

Anyhow, if you keep doing this, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you in advance for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * From looking at a number of your recent edits that whenever you change references you are adding small images (☃☃) into the text which end up displaying (see your edits to photography and Claude Monet). This may be happening due to editing software you are using so I am assuming good faith, however I see you have had a number of warnings about this before.
 * Due to your edits including some good copy-editing it is difficult to find these odd changes and they are not easily reverted. If you continue to do this we will have to assume you are doing it deliberately and that will result in a ban from editing as others have mentioned.
 * Feel free to reply here to discuss why this is happening, and I hope you continue to make constructive changes. Best wishes, |→ Spaully τ 23:57, 29 December 2016 (GMT)


 * I'm having trouble finding these additions. Could Spaully or someone please show me diffs? How many snowmen are we talking about here?


 * Continuing after warnings could indicate carelessness, but should not lead us to assume they are deliberate acts. This editor may not be using preview to inspect, and that is all. Furthermore, he makes plenty of good edits. Let's not jump to the idea of bans just yet.


 * Heididoerr061, can you see this? Please communicate with us. You have yet to respond here to any of this. You can read it and your English is good. Please explain. Let's get this sorted out. By the way, you make plenty of good edits and we want you to continue! Let's just sort out the mystery of the teensy snowmen. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk)


 * Hi Anna. I agree it seems like a glitch coming from editing software but they are very difficult to find amongst large copy-edit changes and so are generally missed. I have found 3 diffs, the 2 that I mentioned and another more recent one, they all appear to occur when Heididoerr061 is making changes to references - specifically moving references seems to cause two snowmen to be included:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Monet&diff=prev&oldid=757158479
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Photography&diff=prev&oldid=756954447
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_M._Schulz&diff=prev&oldid=757335404
 * I've just seen you posted on Anna's talk page, thanks for that. Given the glitch seems to occur when editing references and is related to editing large pages I agree with - best to edit sections at a time and be aware that moving references might make the snowmen pop up so take a look with Preview prior to submitting. BW |→ Spaully τ  10:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Italics
Rather than Sesame Street, try Sesame Street.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
PLEASE DO NOT hyphenate superlative–participle phrases such as "best known". See item 2. — ATS &#128406;  talk  20:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to hyphenate superlative–participle phrases, you may be blocked from editing without warning. — ATS &#128406;  talk  00:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comma fidgeting
Since you are so prolific, I keep seeing your edits pop up. Many of them have bothered me, especially the "comma fidgeting". I am not an expert on English by any means, but this edit illustrates two problems. First, you throw commas in apparently at whim, in many many edits. Do you really think the original editors and all those reviewing/reading the texts simply 'forgot' they were needed? All of those you add? This looks more like a nervous tic than considered, judicious editing. Second, in that edit at the word 'accordingly', look at that carefully again. You are changing a *quote*, a section of text copied from somewhere else verbatim. You are damaging the article! That is astonishing, and again leads me to wonder from where these actions stem? Are you *really* editing to improve texts, or to satisfy tics? Oh, and "indulges" is wrong for the sentence. And "cultur,es"? Anna was far too polite above. Please show more care and consideration for the texts you are touching. Shenme (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comma misuse is one of the most frequent errors people make. We have a style guideline at MOS:COMMA that covers their proper use, which all editors should follow. It's also important to note that the MOS:SERIAL guideline neither mandates nor prohibits the so-called Oxford comma, and thus it's usually easier to leave articles the way they are, in this respect. Ibadibam (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No more warnings
Please read and heed the warnings on this page. Some of your additions change direct quotes or the meanings of phrases, or are simply wrong. ''If you do not apply your changes more judiciously, we will have no choice but to block your ability to edit Wikipedia, which is a privilege, not a right. — ATS &#128406;  talk  02:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, one more warning. I have been asked to block you from editing. Given that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you have not responded to most editors posting their concerns here, a block might be the best course of action. Is there any reason why you haven't been responding? Please reply here before doing any more editing. --Neil N  talk to me 00:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 02:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 19:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

These blocks are only going to get longer if you don't engage here. --Neil N  talk to me 19:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Thank you for your use of edit summaries and more judicious use of commas.

I'm going to ask again that you read MOS:SERIAL, as noted above by. Many of the commas you prefer to add are so-called Oxford commas, separating the penultimate and final items in an inclusive list; the Oxford comma is neither recommended nor eschewed in general, and MOS:SERIAL offers guidelines as to their correct use and why.

Finally—and I cannot stress this enough—your talk page (this page) is designed specifically for other editors to engage you, and for you to engage back. Communication makes us all better editors, and better Wikipedians.

— ATS &#128406;  talk  18:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Harry Belafonte
Your edit to the article removed the comma from "Belafonte has been involved in prostate cancer advocacy since 1996, when he was diagnosed and successfully treated for the disease." The comma is correct, since it separates the what and the why into distinct sentence fragments.

Proof of comma requirement: the first fragment can stand alone as a complete sentence ("Belafonte has been involved in prostate cancer advocacy since 1996."); the second fragment can serve as a parenthetical ("Belafonte has been involved in prostate cancer advocacy since 1996 (when he was diagnosed and successfully treated for the disease).").

— ATS &#128406;  talk  18:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you are allergic to talk pages
... I do hope you are reading my follow-up-edit summaries. — ATS &#128406;  talk  20:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Department_of_Education&curid=70919&diff=781532834&oldid=781017567 this edit to "United States Department of Education"] was the last straw for me. As an agency, not represented in the president's cabinet, ..." is not standard English anywhere. Graham 87 01:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)