User talk:Maxeto0910

Minor edit flag
Hi Maxeto0910! I noticed that you are marking spome edits as minor that don't seem like minor edits. Minor edit has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that, such as typo corrections and reverting obvious vandalism. That also includes adding templates like short descriptions, removing duplicated information, and adding, removing, or moving links in a way that could be interpreted as changing the meaning of article text. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know of this Wikipedia-specific definition. Thanks nonetheless for pointing that out just in case I didn't know about it. I thought that simply removing duplicate information, correcting links, adding short descriptions, etc. could never be considered controversial.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems you are still having the same problem, if you are having trouble interpreting what can be considered controversial or not, then I would suggest using the mark more sparingly, such as for when correcting only obvious errors. TylerBurden (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I wrote in my edit summary, the edit was, in my opinion, as trivial and uncontroversial as it can get.
 * This is particularly obvious from the fact that you have not put forward a single real argument against my edit and have instead only referred to guidelines, both of which turned out to not apply to the edit.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need to mark any edit as minor. Problem solved. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are having multiple editors point this out in a brief period of time, maybe you should start considering other people's opinions and not only your own. TylerBurden (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There can be a million editors complaining about it. However, if they don't give a single argument along as to why an edit shouldn't be labeled as minor, that doesn't help me to evaluate it at all. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You can save yourself the bother of ever needing to "evaluate it at all" if you stop doing it. Free your mind for more important things. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea, yes. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The test for when you should use the minor edit flag isn't "trivial and uncontroversial". You've made many recent edits that were not minor, yet still marked them as minor, and that's both unnecessary and unhelpful to other editors. For example, the specific edit pointed out by is definitely not a minor edit. It's a small edit and it would be fine to note it as such in the edit summary, but the minor edit flag should not be checked.
 * As stated in Minor edit: and  If those guidelines are not clear enough, any time you're adding, removing, or changing words (aside from spelling corrections), simply don't use the minor edit flag. In fact, it's fine to never use it. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But the edits I marked as minor neither modified content nor affected the meaning of the article, so that should clearly be in accordance with the guideline.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing "commonly referred to" to "doing business as" is definitely a significant change in meaning. It's probably best if you simply stop using the flag entirely if that doesn't make sense to you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But then please explain at least why you think that it changes meaning. Because in the context of a business, I fail to see how it does.
 * I may stop using the flag when I finally recognized a case of me not seeing how it shouldn't be used, but so far, there hasn't been any, which is why I'm asking for at least an explanation for an example.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, "commonly referred to" indicates informal or colloquial usage of a name, while "doing business as" refers to a legal mechanism that allows a company to operate under a different name than the registered one. They are not synonymous. At this point, I would strongly recommend that you stop using the minor edit flag entirely. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and I fail to see how that changes meaning in the context of my edit. The company operates under a name that differs from its full legal name which happens to be the same as its informal name, making the wordings, though not synonymous, interchangeable in this context. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
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 United States, 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. ''"president" and "vice president" are usually lowercase. See MOS:JOBTITLES'' — Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add   to your message. 21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * According to that guideline, the word is wrongly written in uppercase in the article in the "National government" subsection of the "Government and politics" section, in the first sentence of the "Military" subsection of the "Government and politics" section, and in the "Government" subsection of the "External links" section, since it is preceded by a definite article. And my change in the "National government" subsection of the "Government and politics" section was correct according to the guideline, since the pure title is given without any modification. And in the "American Revolution, Revolutionary War and the early republic (1776–1820)" subsection of the "History" section, the word could be interpreted as "a title [that] is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office", which would make my change there correct as well.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Regarding this. Or perhaps understanding what you are doing better rather than just gnoming without thought. There was ONE instance of non-British style and you converted the whole article to that rather than checking what it should be. That's just creating pointless extra work to correct your error. DeCausa (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there's no Wikipedia guideline that explicitly prescribes the use of "US" rather than "U.S." in articles which use British English spelling.
 * Just because "US" might be more common in British English doesn't mean it's used exclusively or even prescribed to use it. In general and in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, regardless of British or American spelling, it's written as "U.S." (except perhaps in some short descriptions and edit summaries to save space). Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As stated in MOS:US: For commonality reasons, use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it." I don't know how the MOS could be any clearer. In ignorance of that you illogically changed the three instances of US to match the one instance of U.S. So ignorance of the MoS and illogical editing is one thing but what gets my goat is you reverted me with the snarky and uncalled for then be consistent with the writing style instead of just restoring the inconsistent version. If you are going to be snarky you'd better make sure you are right. You weren't. DeCausa (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of ignoring the guidelines makes absolutely no sense at all, because I literally corrected the spelling according to the guidelines to be consistent. Also, I didn't revert your edit there. I simply used one consistent spelling of "US" within the article, after you was the user who wrongly reverted my edit and restored the version which was inconsistent, though your reference to the guideline itself was correct. If you had just referred to the guideline on the talk page of the article or used a consistent writing style instead of restoring the inconsistent version, I wouldn't have been able to criticize anything. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop gaslighting. The guideline says to use US not U.S. Read it. And you did revert me - I linked to your revert of me in my first post in this thread. DeCausa (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not true. The edit of me which you linked wasn't a revert, but a correction in which I used a consistent writing style of "US" instead of "U.S.", based on your mention of the guideline, because you simply reverted my edit to the inconsistent previous version instead of just using a consistent writing style throughout the article. Show me the alleged edit where I supposedly reverted you. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was wrong - maybe you really do have a WP:CIR issue. I'll spell it out for you. This is your edit in breach of MOS:US, then this is where I reverted you, then your next edit is this. In that last edit you undid my revert of you. You may not be aware, but that is called a "revert" in Wikipedia. That's because you reverted my edit. So we use the word "revert" to describe it. It might help you to read Reverting which explains further what a revert is. On the other hand it may not as everything in this thread indicates your comprehension of written English is a problem. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Still wrong. I have not restored a previous version of the article at all. It was a completely new, unprecedented edit in which I enforced a consistent writing style. Not a revert at all, since I have NOT reverted your edit. I have used one consistent writing style, and that also included changing the inconsistent instances of the previous version which you restored. It was at most a partial revert by coincidence. It's also funny to accuse me of gaslighting (without any explanation at all) when you accuse me of simply being incompetent and not understanding English well enough. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And I see you've been making the same mistake in other articles as
 * And I see you've been making the same mistake in other articles as here. That was an American English article but you changed 8 instances of US to match the 2 of U.S. Are you going to correct your error in those articles? DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am not going to change the spelling of the article (when you write articles in plural, then give at least 2 examples) because there is no error. As you already figured out, the article uses American English, where it's commonly written as "U.S.". And since the article already used instances of "U.S." before my edit, I just made it consistent. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. The MOS says to use US whether the article is in British or American English. U.S. wasn't established - you changed 8 instances of US to match 2 instances of U.S. If you are incapable of reading the MoS you shouldn't be gnoming and I'll need to go to ANI to have your WP:CIR issue examined. However, I assume all that's happening here is an ego that can't coped with being called out. (There may be other examples of your breach of MOS but China jumped out at me because it's on my watchlist and you've just done a bunch of edits on it. I'm not gong to trawl through your contributions to see check your failure to understand the MOS - I've seen enough to know that is the case. DeCausa (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "The MOS says to use US whether the article is in British or American English."
 * Except it doesn't in all cases: "[...] retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established [...]"
 * "U.S. wasn't established"
 * The article already used "U.S." before I did any edit related to the writing style of it, so there really wasn't any spelling style that prevailed until then.
 * "[...] you changed 8 instances of US to match 2 instances of U.S."
 * Yes, and I fail to see why that should be a problem. Show me the part of the guideline which claims that whether a writing style can be considered "established" or not depends on the number of times used. I'd argue that when the article uses two different writing forms over a long period of time, it hasn't developed an "established" writing form at all.
 * Apart from that: I've simply made the spelling consistent, which, viewed in isolation, is an objective improvement over the inconsistent writing style it used to be, regardless of which writing style one prefers.
 * Since you are apparently the only one here who is bothered by the use of "U.S." instead of "US", you are welcome to change it accordingly. No one will hinder you, especially not me, because I couldn't care less about whether it's "U.S." or "US". All I care about is that it's consistent. However, your irrational complains about the fact that I simply made the spelling of the article consistent does not result in anything useful for Wikipedia at all. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop your gaslighting. I'm going to cut this short. If this is just your ego stopping you admitting you got this wrong...then fine (sort of). However, if you genuinely think what you di waa right and I see you doing it. agin I'm going to go to ANI to get you TBAN'd from MOS editing. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)