User talk:OriginalKajukenboGrandmaster

May 2020
Hello, I'm PlanetJuice. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kajukenbo have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. —PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

They are constructive and needed, fraud is unacceptable. OriginalKajukenboGrandmaster (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi PL, are you the one who put this information on Wiki? Or do you work for Wiki? Thanks OriginalKajukenboGrandmaster (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I hope that you and PlanetJuice don't mind my answering here, since I also edited the article. You see, your changes broke the infobox and several of the links to other articles, see the version PlanetJuice reverted here and compare it to the current article. Also, articles are supposed to be neutral in tone and somewhat formal. This means that exlamation marks and text urging the reader to do something (like your addition in the link above) is almost always not in line with the conventions here on Wikipedia.
 * Your removal of Tom Bernos was entirely correct since he was not mentioned in the Kajukenboinfo.com source, but it was understandable that PlanetJuice missed that good edit among the other non-constructive ones. In the future, you might consider writing e.g. "not covered in source" or "correction per source" instead of only "correction". Wikipedia relies heavily on reliable sources and changes that are supported by good sources are likely to remain in the articles. Sjö (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing that up, Sjö. Apologies that I did not see OriginalKajukenboGrandmaster's post earlier—in the future, you can mention another editor in a talk page discussion by wikilinking their username (PlanetJuice). I am mainly involved with recent changes patrol, so I was monitoring the recent changes feed at the time I reverted your edits. As Sjö mentioned, I reverted all three of your edits because two of them appeared unconstructive: one broke the infobox on the page and needed to be cleaned up, and another did not use an encyclopedic style. Providing more descriptive edit summaries is also always a good thing and could help prevent accidental reversions. Please keep Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in mind when editing. The Teahouse is a great place to ask questions, and you can learn more about contributing here. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for helping out the project! —PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 11:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)