User talk:WikiToaster1

Grammar edits
Hi WikiToaster1, unfortunately most of your edits so far have had to be reverted, because you have changed the wording of articles to introduce language errors, factual errors, or text that does not follow Wikipedia's manual of style. For example, in this edit, you changed the wording "Other coaches can be boarded with an unreserved ticket" to "[...] and you may board other coaches with an unreserved ticket"; Wikipedia articles should not be written in second person. You also made a number of unexplained, pointless changes to the phrasing of perfectly well-phrased sentences ("an express train which runs daily" was changed to "an express train that runs daily"). "It is numbered 16301" was changed to "It's numbered 16301" (which is also against the guidelines in the manual of style). Your edit did fix a couple of grammar errors and instances of unidiomatic use as well, but the majority of the changes were not improvements. In another edit, you changed e.g. "It will be designed to deliver" to "It will be able to deliver" (that doesn't mean the same thing!) and "...thought to offer access to the lava tubes suspected to exist below the surface" to "...thought to offer access to the lava tubes that exist below the surface"(!). It looks like you consistently try to remove passive verb constructions, which is sometimes an improvement, but usually it leads to a null change (the old and new versions are equally acceptable) or to a construction that works less well, or that is simply not correct. Please remember that passive constructions are often perfectly fine to use, and that there is often no equivalent active construction. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020: Your edits are getting reverted
I notice that you are making rather extensive edits to articles, with the aim to have them align with your tastes in English prose, among other things. These edits are being promptly reverted by more seasoned editors, which may provide you some valuable feedback. You appear to be most confident in your ability to communicate clearly and with appropriate nuance in written English. Unfortunately, I see a person who has not done a lot of reading in English, with regard to various styles of writing and language. This makes your efforts at clarity resemble those of a person who has only recently mastered the rudiments of written English. Predictably, errors are inevitable, and quickly reverted.

My advice is to read a lot within article space in Wikipedia,to become familiar with the idioms of our encyclopedic style, so that no more resources (yours or those of other editors) are needlessly expended on inappropriate edits. In general, most articles will not require extensive stylistic changes unless they have been written by a person whose English is below a rudimentary level. As the perfect is [often] the enemy of the good, we don't, as novice editors, go around extensively fine-tuning the prose of most articles, unless they violate the Manual of style or basic rules of logic.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)