User talk:Ward330

August 2021
Hello, I'm Normchou. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kimco Realty without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Normchou  💬 05:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Invitation Homes
Hello, Ward330! My name is Kristi, and I joined Wikipedia to represent my employer Invitation Homes. You may have seen my edit request to update the infobox, as you made most of my proposed updates in this July 30 edit. If it's not too much to ask, could you also consider removing "Barry Sternlicht, Director" (he is no longer on the board) and update the url to www.invitationhomes.com? Thank you for considering this request. Kristi at IH (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the infobox to Invitation Homes. If you are interested in editing the article further, I also requested updates to the "Overview" section. It looks like the "Overview" section was deleted sometime after my request, but I still believe my draft would be an improvement to the article. Kristi at IH (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ward330 (talk)Sorry that is not encyclopedia content and does not fit the Wikipedia manual of style.
 * Thank you Ward330, for the consideration. If you have any other specific feedback on how it could be more encyclopedic, I would appreciate it. Originally, I was trying to update the very promotional Overview section, but now that section is removed, so my request may be moot. Kristi at IH (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Ward330, I have requested an update to the Invitation Homes "History" section, if you are interested in continuing to review requests. More information is on the Invitation Homes Talk page. Thank you for your consideration. Kristi at IH (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Hello, I'm Gab4gab. I noticed that you recently removed content from Wells Fargo without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Gab4gab (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wells Fargo, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Gab4gab (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Wells Fargo History Museum
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wells Fargo History Museum, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. A reminder, if you are paid in any way for contributing to Wikipedia, disclose it. WP:PAID Myotus (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Ward330! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Evergrande Subsidiaries.
Can you explain your thinking behind removing the breakdown of subsidiaries and business interests on Evergrande Group? Feels like you've made some rather drastic edits with little explanation, and they're a quite an important aspect of what makes Evergrande.. Evergrande, just like any other Conglomerate. --No coffee, please. (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Ward330 (talk)Everything was all over the place...some info in the lead, some in the history, some in that section. Now everything currently owned is in the lead.


 * Please take a look at WP:SUMMARY, this is against MoS and just generally awful to read. Summary should be as brief an overview of the facts as possible, with further details laid out in sections below. There's no longer proper flow. The structure was correct before, even if in dire need of updates. Please also see Inverted pyramid (journalism) --No coffee, please. (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Hello, I'm Love of Corey. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Death of Gabby Petito, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Death of Gabby Petito shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please be very careful when using that word. This is NOT vandalism, it's called a typo. Respectable editors do not like their edits reverted as vandalism. Please review Vandalism. Thank you, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * changed a word spelled correctly and wikilinked.... Ward330 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kalorama (Washington, D.C.), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metrobus. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Death of Gabby Petito) for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is purely pro forma as in fact you can't edit the article anyway as long as it's ECP protected, only editors with 500 edits and 30 days can edit it. You can still edit the talk page, but if you name the witnesses again it will be a violation of the sanctions for the topic of living and recently deceased persons and you can face a topic ban from the entire area. Doug Weller  talk 09:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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 diffs
 * 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. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 09:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Wells Fargo History Museum
In the future please use the talk page to discuss edits you would like to do and the reasons behind them. Currently your edits appear disruptive and possibly motivated by conflict of interest. Myotus (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Ward330 (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Copying quotes from a press release is not encyclopedia content. WP:NOTNEWS You adding these quotes back seems to be the one with the conflict.....
 * Just noticed your edits to Netflix in October. Concur with User:Myotus that your pattern of edits is disruptive. From a small sample I picked at random, it looks like half of your edits are constructive and half are not.
 * It looks like the problem is that you're not taking the time to actually read linked sources before condensing information. As a result, you have a repeated tendency to miss the point, which is greatly irritating to editors who added that information in the first place.
 * For example, you entirely missed the point of the "Corporate culture" section that I had added to the Netflix article. The point of that passage is not the ruthless corporate culture (that's common throughout the Fortune 500) but the way they formally enforce that with the "keeper test" (which is not common, and which is why the original passage started off with that information).  Please refresh your reading comprehension skills.
 * Condensing material is fine, but you must read the underlying material in order to correctly summarize the gist of that material. If you don't, you will create unnecessary work for other editors and get in trouble with the admins. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noticed a pattern with your edits to Netflix and Remote work. Your prose style at the sentence and paragraph level is quite lucid, and I concur with many of your deletions of clear tangents and redundant citations.  But your edits are extremely disruptive with respect to article structure.
 * It looks like you are unable to understand that WP tradition is to group together related things under multiple levels of short section titles (under multiple increasingly broad categories at each level). You have a really bad habit of trying to reduce the number of first-level section headings into categories that are so broad as to be useless.  But at the second heading level, you tend to increase the number of them to a ridiculous number by regrouping prose-level content under second-level section headings which are extremely long and specific (meaning that the subject matter under each heading is thereby limited to only a couple of paragraphs).
 * The result is that you are turning the second-level section headings in the table of contents into unreadably dense and unusable laundry lists. Which is exactly why people who write for a living don't do that. Go read the table of contents in any book from any decent university press to see what I mean.  And then read through such books and notice how the section headings are (usually) as short as they are described in the TOC, and there are only a few of them (10 or less) per chapter.
 * For example, most textbooks don't have a Chapter 1, and then Sections 1.1 through 1.40 (with each section defined extremely narrowly) in that chapter. No.  They have a Chapter 1 with Sections 1.1 to 1.6, or maybe 1.8.
 * Please stop. If you don't understand how to structure formal written English properly at the section heading level, you should conform your edits to sentence and paragraph-level revisions. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Expatriate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

April 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)