174.53.34.144

I just removed puffery from an article about Rio de Janeiro in this part of Wikipedia. You should change the word simple in the URL to en to see the talk page on the main Wikipedia. --174.53.34.144 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have been blocked on the regular English Wikipedia, both from editing and editing my talk page. That's not right because they have no proof that I vandalized anything. They should show proof so I can look at the proof and learn from this proof so I know what to and what not to do. The definition of vandalism is not clear enough on Wikipedia. --174.53.34.144 (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Also all the silly edits I did on my regular talk page before the administrators removed all that silliness from the page was deleted from the Wikipedian archives. I hope that stuff I messed up the page with is somewhere within WP:BJAODN... --174.53.34.144 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I looked at one of your reverted edits on EnWiki and am unable to say why it was reverted. Based on the edit summary of the revert, the editor used the Rollback tool and might not have reviewed the edit before reverting it. Likely, the editor had found problems with a number of your edits, and was simply reverting everything. So I cannot say why you were being reverted on that project without more research (which I don't have time for today) but I will suggest some things to help prevent the same thing from happening here: First, create an account. It requires no personal information, just come up with a user-name and set a password. You do have the option to add an e-mail account, but this is not required. Creating an account will ensure that edits you make are not confused with edits from other users. (If you already have a named account on another Wikipedia project, you can and should use that one here.) Second, make sure you understand the differences between Simple English Wikipedia and the regular English Wikipedia. If you write or edit here, keep those differences in mind. Third, be aware that we have a rule called WP:ONESTRIKE which means that if you have issues here that are similar to issues that got you blocked on EnWiki, you could be blocked here without further notice -- so stay away from anything that got you warned or blocked on that project. If you aren't sure about something, ask first. The place to ask is at Wikipedia:Simple talk (which is our help desk and general discussion page), or right here on your user page. Asking at Simple talk is probably the faster way to get a reply from an experienced user here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  13:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Simplifying, removing puffery, etc.

Hello. I noticed that you changed some pages here using edit summaries about removing puffery. Unfortunately, some of the changes you made changed the meaning of the articles, so your changes were reverted. Please be careful not to change the meaning of something in the process of trying to improve it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk)

My edits were intentionally for good faith. The Simple English Wikipedia cares about weasel words such as 'most French peasants think that Napoleon is a great military man'. The word 'now' suggests that this time is the default. But that will eventually be outdated. Words like interestingly, notably, unfortunately, likely, thankfully, luckily, and other editorializations suggest a point of view. Pufferous statements such as famous, brilliant, all-time, world-famous, world-class, valuable, superstar, etc. suggest a positive point of view instead of a neutral one. Award-winning should be replaced with a list of awards won by such thing. Cutting-edge should only describe edges of something used to cut things. Star should only be used to refer to the five-pointed shape or the balls of gaseous plasma in space. Replace "John Doe was the greatest superstar of the 70's" with "John Doe was listed on top of Acme Magazine's Top 100 Superstars of All Time in 1974". Detrimental statements such as controversial, bigot, myth, worst, etc. should be avoided. They display a negative point of view instead of a neutral one. Wikipedia articles should not assume that some time (now, last time, next time, soon, later, in the past, long ago) or some place (here, over there, in this place) is the default. "Adolf Hitler was the worst person ever to exist in history and many people wish that he never existed in the first place" is not NPOV. Weasel words are not good. Unsupported attributions such as science says, research shows, studies have shown, experts declare, many scholars state, scientists think, most feel, etc. should be avoided. Euphemisms such as make love, passed away, collateral damage, living with cancer, sightless, nonverbal, etc. should not be used. Use these: have sex, died, casualties, inflicted with cancer, blind, mute, etc. those are more neutral. Personal or common opinions should not be integrated into Wikipedia articles. But you don't have to use the R word for 'mentally disabled/impaired' I find the R word offensive and it's a swear word though. Cliches and idioms like lion's share, tip of the iceberg, gild the lily, take the plunge, at the end of the day, etc. should not be used. Tip of the iceberg should only refer to actual icebergs. We don't take the plunge, we just do things. And share is not a noun. What do you mean 'at the end of the day'? At the end of work shift? Sunset? Midnight? "Former president Bill Clinton improved schooling" should be replaced with "Bill Clinton made education reforms". Former means no longer. He was actually president at the time. Don't use 'then-president' unless the context calls for it. 'improved schooling' suggests a positive point of view towards Clinton's reforms on schooling and education. Replace "President Obama pardons people and commands soldiers" with "the president pardons people and commands soldiers" or "President Obama pardoned people and commanded soldiers". See https://en.wikipedia.org/Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch --174.53.34.144 (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all that very well. I believe that your edits were in good faith: that's why I didn't call most of them vandalism. It's just that there are ways to fix those problems without changing meaning. Here are some examples:

• In Earth, you changed "The Earth is generally 150,000,000 kilometers or 93,000,000 miles away from the Sun" to "The Earth is 150,000,000 kilometers or 93,000,000 miles away from the Sun". Just removing the word generally changes the meaning and makes the statement less accurate, because the Earth isn't always the same distance from the Sun.
• In United Kingdom, you changed "Today this empire does not exist" to "this empire diminished in the 20th century". I understand that you were probably trying to eliminate the word today, but the way you left it sounded like the empire is smaller but still exists. A better choice would have been to say that the empire ended, and give as specific a timeframe as possible.

Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What about giving the Earth's closest and furthest distances from the sun? And what would it mean to use the word 'soldierly' as a pun on 'generally'? --174.53.34.144 (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments on your editing

You have plastered a number of our pages with templates about sources. In the first place, it achieves nothing. Why did you not provide the sources yourself? That would have been constructive. In any event, if an article generally lacks sources then preferable is to place a general flag at the top of the page.

Another helpful way to go is to place comments on the talk pages of articles. These comments do get read, and are the proper place to put general comments about an article.

Please don't make snippy comments in your edit boxes, nor do we wish to read about your grumbles as to what happened on English wiki. Move on, and do something useful. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

You have been blocked from changing Wikipedia for 1 week for vandalism and using inappropriate edit summaries.

Once the block has ended you can make helpful changes. Please read Wikipedia's blocking policy and remember that adding spam, making changes that do not have a neutral point of view, making personal attacks on others, not respecting other people's privacy, and vandalizing pages are not allowed. If you do any of these things, you will be blocked again.

If you think this block is unfair, you can ask to be unblocked by adding {{Unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to read our guide to unblock requests before asking to be unblocked. Auntof6 (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the change, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

"User tock"

If you create an account, then you're more than welcome to make humorous pages in your userspace, as long as they meet the policy. Unfortunately, the "User tock:Turkeybutt JC" page will have to be deleted. This is because "User tock" isn't a real namespace, and you're actually writing in the article namespace, which should (usually) be kept free of jokes. Laptop Fizz (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)