User talk:Anthony22

Hello Anthony, you can call me 74. Noticed your work adding the info about the Tower of Power, thanks. I went ahead and added your sentence back in, with the URL you cited. Here is what I did:

EDITING

This earned him a nickname — "''The tower from Power''."<ref name="PhillyDotCom">http://articles.philly.com/1989-05-25/sports/26109975_1_power-memorial-high-school-kareem-abdul-jabbar-power-basketball</ref>

And here is what it looks like:

READING

This earned him a nickname — "The tower from Power."^[1]

No need to be all fancy, though. Any time you want to use a URL to cite something, you can do it like this:

EDITING#2 The sky is blue.[http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/Why_is_the_Sky_Blue.html]

Which looks like this:

READING#2 The sky is blue.

That is pretty much how I usually do it. Hope this helps, and thanks much for improving wikipedia. Feel free to drop me a note on my talkpage if you ever need anything, or if you want fast answers to quick questions, I highly recommend the friendly folks at WP:TEAHOUSE. p.s. Very jealous you got to be there in the 1960s to see it all.  :-)   Talk to you later. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harlem River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spuyten Duyvil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Creepy Halloween Goblin 2013.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your upload of File:Battlement Terrace 02.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Beach at Lake Minnewaska 2011.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Best Swimming Spot in Lake Awosting.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Blanche Yurka Footstone February 2012C.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Charles E. Wilson Mausoleum February 2012.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lou Gehrig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Heights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 16:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Anthony22. You have new messages at Dismas's talk page.
Message added 02:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dismas|^(talk) 02:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. The information you added was unsourced and could be considered unpublished personal information, in violation of our WP:BLP policies. Accordingly, I have reverted your edit. Please let me know if you think I made a mistake. Pburka (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Citations belong in the article. For details see WP:CITE. Putting the sources on my talk page is OK but inadequate to include the information unsourced in the article. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The caption doesn't say "Oswald's right". And standard procedure is to identify the subject from the viewer's perspective (e.g., "the orange is to the right of the apple"). 107.15.200.87 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You've recently added over 200 words to a plot summary that was already too large. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Please consider trimming as much as you have added so that other editors don't have to do it. Thanks. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Tiger Woods, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ted Kennedy. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You may think your personal experiences are better than reliable sources on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia policy requires reliable sources. You have been told this repeatedly, and you have edited Wikipedia long enough to know these kinds of policies. Other editors and I have given you links to these policies. I suggest reading them. This is not a blog. This is not your personal website. This is an encyclopedia. You basically have three choices: start sourcing your additions to Wikipedia, continue adding unsourced information and get blocked for doing so, or stop editing. Thank you. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

White racist police who beat up blacks. But so many white kids in yonkers think they are hip hoppers. A jim crow like segregation still occurs. The poor communities are full of drug addicts, and their is little housing in Yonkers. Yonkers is not a place people should be proud of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.9.43 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Merrill upload 800.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Please provide a source for anything you add to an article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, I'm sure you mean well, but please remember to provide citations to reliable sources when adding or changing content. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Independent contractor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Security. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Anthony22. You have new messages at Magnolia677's talk page.
Message added 00:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John from Idegon (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Anthony, regarding this edit: they're helpful changes, but I see that the file itself refers to the player as Abdul-Jabbar, not Alcindor. I only bring this up because captioning the photo as Alcindor is confusing to me when the file itself states otherwise. I realize that this was the same year that he changed his name, but just wanted to point it out. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 20:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hugh Hefner may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 9333521 | deadurl=no}}</ref> the older of two sons (himself and brother Keith) of Grace Caroline (née Swanson (1895–1997) and Glenn Lucius Hefner (1896–1976), both teachers.<ref>[http://books.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ted Bundy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Daniel Ek. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

BMK (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, that the Heisman presentation is made in a theatre in Times Square (at least recently) does not have any part in making Times Square "famous". BMK (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in the source attached to the content at the Linda McCartney article does it say "Upper" when referring to Manhattan. Please change your addition of "Upper" to the article as incorrect and unsourced. What you've added - according to your edit summary - is original research. You've been here long enough and I know you know better than to try to add something unsourced like this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

At the Jackie Kennedy article, regarding your latest edit here, I'm going to request you revert it back. There is currently a discussion on the talk page about the usage of last names per MOS. You can take part there, but really shouldn't change anything in deference to the discussion and possible consensus reached there. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect in regard to this edit. When McCartney was college age, Fine Arts was a common major, especially for women. Please replace it in the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If you wish you had a dollar every time you may not make as much as you think. Are you sure it needs a capital every time, as opposed to when it is part of a company name or at the start of a sentence? Telephone doesn't have a capital all the time, for instance. Britmax (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It does indeed clarify matters; thank you. I thought the Prohibition example was a very good one, by the way. Britmax (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits like this one and this one you made are unacceptable. Do keep your POV out of your edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Flyer22 Reborn: I was here to post something and just saw your comment. For what it's worth, I might have made the same changes for encyclopedic tone. It seems that often the more brief and dispassionate the better. And the article makes it quite clear that she committed and recommitted crimes, which caused her to be on the sex registry and serve jail time. I don't know anything about the addition of unsourced material, but of course, I agree that should not be done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, were you agreeing with the reverts to Anthony22's wording? If not, it seems you read the above links backwards. Changing "Fualaau" to "her child lover" and adding "for the illicit liaison" is not encyclopedic wording. It is POV wording. And Anthony22 has made other problematic edits to that article in the past, and those were reverted. SarekOfVulcan was right to revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Flyer22 Reborn:, Yes, I am agreeing to the reverts to Anthony22's wording - and are consistent with my experience working on the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article. Sorry that I wasn't clearer. I know that there are cupcakes that follow, but it was a way to smooth over the back-and-forth that we've had on the article. When I saw good edits, I pointed it out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Great job editing, polishing, and clarifying items in the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article!--CaroleHenson (talk)

Again, great editing! I reverted the last edit because it was an attempt to limit close paraphrasing. Sometimes the facts in the case made that job pretty tough (only so many ways to word some sentences).--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are commonly called this. More often than anything else, in my experience. Britmax (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you changed the wording on the Kennedy assassination page (talking about Oswald) from "mortally wounded" to "mortally shot". I'd like you to reconsider that change for a couple of reasons: 1) "Mortally wounded" is a much more common phrase-Google turns up 575,000 results for it, while "mortally shot" brings up less than 8,000, and it drops to less than 7000 if you exclude "mortally wounded" from the search for "mortally shot". 2) A mortal wound, is, by definition, a fatal one, regardless of how it happened. In this case, "mortally" is a synonym for "fatally", and I don't think anyone would argue that "fatally wounded" implies the chance of recovery. Almostfm (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why the cop gets "black" assigned to his name and function. It is entirely possible that "white" is the transparent normal in Mountain Brook, an overwhelmingly white community, and the richest in Alabama--but perhaps you could consider adding "white" to every incidence of a white person in our article. Or are you inserting that term to suggest something? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anthony22. Thanks for your series of thoughtful edits. You'll notice I undid or modified a small number of the changes you made, and several of my edit summaries might be less than fully illuminating. I'm limited to typing with one hand at present, so long summaries are challenging. If anything isn't clear, please don't hesitate to ask. Hope you have a happy new year. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 08:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anthony22, regarding your edit today of Harry S. Truman's article, mentioning the bombs in the lead: I don't know if you saw there was a recent discussion of that subject on the talk page under "Recent edits." Personally, I agree it should be there, and I wouldn't remove it, but it might need further discussion. However, I wouldn't say Truman is "best remembered for..." because that is subjective. I actually remember him best for being a fellow Missourian. RM2KX (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I see that the bombs are mentioned already in the fourth paragraph of the lead, and again in the text of the main article. So now I'm thinking it may be redundant in the first paragraph. Actually I'm thinking the whole lead is way too long, so whatever you want to do is appropriate enough, I guess. RM2KX (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Since someone fixed your errors, I'll not revert your edit to the JFK article. I will point out, however, that Gen. Doolittle said the plane exploded, so please don't try to "correct" that fact in other articles. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
As I am impressed by your contributions; I really dont want to do this, but i have to do this. So here i go:
Kindly read Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#John_F._Kennedy. If further disruptive editing takes place, it will need to be reported to WP:ANEW.

This was mainly done because of two other editors (not you). But I thought you ought to know about the incident. Thanks, and I apologise again. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your contributions related to JFK. Thanks a lot for your contributions. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A page that you have edited in the past, Ted Bundy, has an active Request for Comment here. I'm pinging experienced editors who have worked on this page in the past to ask for their opinion. Thank you! Rockypedia (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not engage in disruptive editing as you did at Sean Spicer (see ). If you wish to experiment please use the SANDBOX. Continued disruptive editing may result in a block on editing privileges. Quis separabit? 12:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your name appears on my Watchlist a lot today, but that's not a bad thing. Thank you very much for your relatively minor fixes that make big improvements to the readability of both articles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
I am not sure if this edit should be reverted or not. Also, there has been many edits which need attention. Would you please take a look at the page history? I am not much familiar with Clinton, nor this particular article. My knowledge is limited to a few Kennedys, Eisenhower, and related persons to that era. Thanks a lot for the consideration of my request. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 20:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

PS: I apologise on behalf of my firefox browser; because of a glitch, it blanked your entire talkpage, and saved one conversation. —usernamekiran(talk)

Good work improving the writing at Trump. That gets little attention since not many are good at it. I'm good at it, but I lack the motivation! I agree with pretty much everything you've done there. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You have been making a series of grammar changes to articles like John McCain and Ted Kennedy and Bill Gates under the edit summary "changed present tense to past tense", all of which are incorrectly motivated. Instances include this edit and this edit and the edit. To take the first one as an example, there is nothing wrong with the sentence "He became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers". The "flying" in it is not present tense. Like -ing verbs in general, it is tenseless – it gets its tense from the main verb of the phrase or sentence. Thus, "she was flying", "she is flying", and "she will be flying" are all valid uses of "flying" in three different tenses. In this case, the main verb of the sentence is "became", which makes the whole sentence past tense including the "flying". (If you are really in doubt about this point, consult some sites on English usage such as this one.) Therefore there is no need to change the sentence as you did to "He became a naval aviator and flew ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers". While there is nothing wrong with that sentence per se, it is a bit duller and more verbose and lends to more repetitive prose overall, whereas the use of "flying" in the original helps the prose have a more varied style. Thus these changes of yours are ill-advised. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

More than two years and several warnings and requests later, this is still going on.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you made the wrong net worth well if it wasn't you I apologize but the real and 100% accurate net worth is 85.7 billion dollars Bigman999 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Please change it to 85.7 billion. Bigman999 (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There's other coincidences too. (ie, Gregg Allman and David Bowie die of liver cancer at 69, David Bowie and Alan Rickman die of abdominal cancer at 69 in the same week, Gene Cernan dies the same day as a picture he took is on the main page (which admittedly made it into the article for a while), Walter Becker and Glenn Frey die at 67 of complications from surgery, etc) Will all of these be placed into the article too? Also, I google searched for something like "farrah fawcett sister death cancer 62" and didn't get any notableish results.

Versus: "Coincidentally, she died on the same day that American singer-songwriter Michael Jackson died."

"Media coverage of Lewis's death was almost completely overshadowed by news of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, which occurred on the same day (approximately 55 minutes following Lewis's collapse), as did the death of English writer Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World."

"Coincidentally, he died on the same day as Airplane co-founder Signe Toly Anderson."

"She died on the same day as Airplane co-founder Paul Kantner, also aged 74." (okay, these two didn't overshadow each other, but still...)

The Michael Jackson coincidence was mentioned because it diverted media attention quite significantly (ie, a google search, I figure anything there mentions Farrah Fawcett) while I can't find single source with anything on her sister. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't remove these from song titles; they're supposed to go in quotation marks per WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Minor works. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

RE your summary on Donald Trump: There are indeed public boarding schools. See Canadian Indian residential school system or Residential treatment center for example. Meters (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Youth detention center would be another example, perhaps one which some would wish had been used in this case. I have no commenton your edit (didn't bother looking at it), I'm just commenting on the content of your edit summary. Meters (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to educational institutions, not reform schools or drug rehabilitation facilities.

Anthony22 (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The native residential schools are nothing but educational institutions, and the other institutions must function as schools when they hold children. No big deal, I just thought that your edit summary was a bit too definitive onteh point. Meters (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line, the wording of that caption is the product of consensus at the talk page, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 65#His faux military uniform. It should not be altered without consensus, and I have reverted your second attempt at rewording it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't make Wikipedia make value judgments in her own voice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Anthony, please slow down with your editing at 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. If you change something and someone reverts the change, go to the talk page and talk about it. SHOUTING your opinion in an edit summary does not count as talking about it. Repeatedly changing the lede sentence when other people are changing it back calls for discussion, not simply changing it again. I have seen your work on other pages, and I appreciate your methodical approach, doing many small edits that mostly do improve the article. But: trying to impose your own version over the objections of other people does NOT improve the article and is not the Wikipedia way. Please don't revert these things again, and please do come to the talk page and see if you can reach consensus about them. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

...and you are still edit warring - this time over the word "standoff". There is a discussion at the talk page about that very phrase, see "the opening section doesnt match with the chronology below". Please help at that discussion, where we are still deciding how to handle the real problem: the fact that the existing sentence (the one you restored) implies that his dead body was found 11 minutes after he started shooting. Now THAT is inaccurate. This article is still under development, and highly experienced editors are working on it; please become part of that process. You do not get to just keep imposing your own preference and ignoring the community. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Melanie:

I did not initiate the use of the word "standoff" in the article. I don't even know if there was a standoff. He might have committed suicide before the police arrived at his hotel room. As I said, there are a lot of inaccuracies and false statements in this article.--Anthony22 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And I asked you there and I ask you again here: please identify specific inaccuracies and false statements, so that we can correct them. --MelanieN (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony22 and MelanieN: - Related to this in what style guide are you referring to where "Room" is always capitalized like this? -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: AFAIK I wasn't involved in capitalizing the word "room" and I don't think it should be capitalized. And Anthony, there you go again: you made a change (room --> Room); somebody undid it; and you immediately reinserted it, citing only your own opinion. You need to STOP THIS. Your behavior, insisting on your own edits even after someone else has undone them, is in danger of becoming disruptive - and I don't use that word lightly. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - Apologies for the mixup, I meant to just inform you of the situation, not to put any blame on you. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony22: - As MelanieN said, your editing is veering into the area of disruption. We've tried to assume good faith but if you're not working cooperatively after repeated warnings, then perhaps you should find another article to edit. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Anthony: As opposed to GA and FA rated articles that have already been vetted, I would suggest "sinking your teeth" into some lower rated articles. There are plenty that need copy edit and grammar work. Here is one for a suggestion, which could also use some edits for concision. Kierzek (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that the LHO article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. The article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest: "At about 2 p.m., Oswald arrived at the Police Department building, where homicide detective Jim Leavelle (1920–) questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit". But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time.

This is also on the Oswald talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.68 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Given your extensive editing history, I am sure you can understand the fact that featured articles have gone through the collaborative revision of many editors.

This means that, being a featured article, there is a reason the intro of Dinosaur is written the way it is.

Please do not change it without discussing on the talk page.

Thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anthony22. That's a lot of edits in succession. I hope to get a chance to go over them individually sometime over the next day or two, but I don't want to conflict with you if you're planning on making more. Re the out-of-state hospital (I happened to mouse over that diff on my watchlist), I really don't suppose that needs to be said unless you can find a source that makes something of it. It's pretty routine to transport gravely ill patients to larger hospitals farther away. I can check, but my guess is that the Ft. Collins hospital was better equipped than the Laramie hospital, probably a mid- or high-level trauma center. If he'd been taken to the local hospital initially, they'd probably have transferred him to Ft. Collins anyway, and precious time would have been wasted. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, you can also temporarily revert all of the edits in one go, like I recently did, to look at all of the changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I might do that. I've been waiting for a good time when I have a free hour or so and am not fatigued, because I'm quite sure that some of the recent changes are not improvements—and there are so many to go through. I'll see if I can get to it tonight. I'm always a bit disappointed when I try to engage another user in conversation and fail, especially a user whose edits I often agree with, but I guess it's slightly weird mentioning it on that editor's talk page. :-p Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• laughs* I was surprised when I read that on the article. I actually hunted Knight's testimony down just now, thinking to myself “there is no way that Ruby would have said that” and.. well.. I am still questioning how on earth he pulled that Paul Newman comparison, as they don’t really look alike to me at all? But I cracked up when I read this because it actually made me imagine Oswald as a movie star for a second. Just look it up.

And I’m just going “if you thought he was goodlooking, why on earth did you shoot him and rob the planet of his pretty face?” at Ruby non-stop right now, sorry. xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.155 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm telling you that we don't know, and that it cannot just be tossed in unsourced. Britmax (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There have been questionable edits on this article today, and many were reverted. But so far I have agreed with every single edit you have made, Anthony. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Jack Ruby page is in need of some revamp. Past tense, etc.

Please take better care with what citations you insert and don't use subpar quality sources in articles, especially for contentious personal claims, even if the person is long dead. What we need are publications that overall are known for fact-checking rather than those that often fabricate things. We want articles to be accurate instead of filled with questionable content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with SNUGGUMS; if needed, please refresh your recollection by reading: WP:RS. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The article currently says that Marrion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, but JFK historian Stan Dane has pointed out in his book and research, “Prayer Man”, that Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, a man who doesn’t match Oswald’s description, and that original interrogation reports say Oswald was on the first floor, at the entrance, (not in the first floor room or second floor lunchroom) and may have captured on film outside, and is the figure called “Prayer Man”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.62 (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

At least we are on the same page. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Given your extensive editing history, I am sure you can understand the fact that good articles have gone through the collaborative revision of many editors. This means that, being a good article, there is a reason the page Chapter 27 is written the way it is. Please do not change it without discussing on the talk page, seek consensus before editing again. Thank you.--Earthh (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the work you did on the Scott Peterson article. I think that most of the changes in wording you made may have been for the better. However, I reverted some of your edits for the following reasons:

• Per WP:SURNAME, Wikipedia generally does not refer to the subject of an article by their given name. Aside from those instances when their first name is given (or when it's an exceptional case like the entertainer Madonna), we use their surname.
• notice that you've been warned more than once on this talk page for adding material to articles that is not supported by cited sources, and I noticed that you did this in the S.P. article. For example:
  • You added years of birth and death to Jacqueline "Jackie" Helen Latham, even though that is not found in the citation that follows that information
  • You changed multiple mentions of Peterson reporting his wife missing to read that Laci's father reported her missing. This is also not found in the cited sources, which state that Peterson made the report.

Even though you may not edit as often as I do, you've been editing Wikipedia for almost as long as I have, so you should know by now that you should not add information to articles that is not supported by inline citations of reliable sources. Nonetheless, I appreciate all the tweaks of wording you made that improve how the article reads. Thanks again! :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tonya Harding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boxed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 18:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with Charles Lindbergh! Anyway I found this edit the statement "upgrade kidnapping from a state crime to a federal crime." IMO this "upgrade" wording isn't accurate, because in the US state law and federal law are in "separate sovereigns" or separate realms. Congress established kidnapping across state lines as a federal crime on top of kidnapping already being state crimes. Since they are separate realms, a person may be prosecuted under both state and federal law for the same criminal act, and this does not violate the double jeopardy clause. http://volokh.com/2013/06/13/cert-petition-asks-court-to-overturn-dual-sovereignty-doctrine-in-double-jeopardy-law WhisperToMe (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Lee Harvey Oswald article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest. But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.72 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I reverted some of your edits - apologies. I'd like to point out that, while in this case it doesn't matter so much, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses., and thus not Selective Service System registration card either. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I see you received a similar notice on May 3, 2016 but they need to be given once per year to have effect. Please be especially aware of the WP:1RR requirement at the Donald Trump BLP. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Anthony Weiner, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. He did not resign from Congress because of sexting with minors. REad the article more closely. Meters (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Anthony Weiner, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Per WP:BRD take this to talk or leave it alone. Your source does not say that there was more than one minor, and it does not say that he resigned from congress because of the case involving the minor. Meters (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Once again, please be very careful not to introduce mistakes to the article. It's very tiring having to correct them. Remember that this article has gone through a thorough review before. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I have to agree with TrueHeartSusie3. As I suggested above, as opposed to GA and FA rated articles that have already been vetted, I would suggest editing some lower rated articles that actually need improvement; also, please use discernment when making changes and "re-working" text. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the numerous people who have tried to raise this issue with you on your talk page, the fact that you actually did a revert and not just steamroll your atrocious grammar and overlinking back in is some sort of progress, I guess. TheValeyard (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you've made a total of five edits to your user talk page. 240 edits to talk pages overall. Not a talkative one are ya? It'd be nice if you responded more to some concerns. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

When he was shot, Oswald didn’t went out right away, because you hear him moan a few times.

Jim Leavelle’s article crites an interview by Doctor Robert McClelland, in which he says Leavelle spoke of having "leaned over Oswald and said, 'Son, you're hurt real bad. Do you wanna say anything?' He looked at me for a second. He waited like he was thinking. Then he shook his head back and forth just as wide as he could. Then he closed his eyes."

Should it be possible for you to add any reference be made to Oswald’s last moments, or can you find any more information to the story?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.90 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.12 (talk)

Police generally don't show up to any crime scene until after someone calls them, which happens after the crime. This doesn't mean they don't investigate it to learn what happened. They pass their account onto reporters, who pass it onto us. When we pass it on to readers, it makes sense to tell them where it came from. So this edit doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's not particularly bad or anything, just a bit confusing. How does it make sense to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

I learned a long time ago not to pay any attention to hearsay, no matter WHERE it came from. Initial accounts of crime scene activity or any other activity are usually riddled with inaccurate information. Police officers dole out false information just like anyone else. If you want the truth, go directly to the source.

While we're on the subject of the police, I have made the observation that nobody breaks more laws or regulations than the police themselves. While they're on patrol, they go through red lights and stop signs in non-emergency situations. They also use police identification badges to park their private vehicles in no-standing zones when they're off duty.

I try to stay away from anyone who is in possession of a gun, the police included. A long time ago, somebody cracked a joke about the police: "What's the difference between cops and crooks? They wear a uniform and get a pension!"

I wouldn't try to count the number of times that off-duty cops have been involved in DWI crashes.

This is the reason why I deleted "According to the police" from the beginning of the sentence. Anthony22 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is exactly why I think it belongs. You're far from alone in distrusting police, especially in America. If we told readers where we learned the story we're selling them, they can choose to take it with (or without) a grain of salt. When Wikipedia uses its own voice, people trust us more. If what we heard from police turns out to be false, people will feel Wikipedia lied to them and our institution takes a knock it didn't deserve. If they know the police say these things, it's on the police, good or bad.

A good rule for veryone. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Anthony. The facts stated in that sentence are entirely uncontroversial. How about taking a brief look at a random sampling of other shooting articles, and let me know if you see any that attribute the date and location. If we need attribution there, we also need it for about 90% of the other wiki voice in that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed this was 6 days stale and probably settled, but I'm leaving my comment just in case. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(If Hulk intended the "According to police" to apply to the entire section, (1) that isn't how attribution works, and (2) again, see similar articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Why did you deleted the link for "Mass shootings in the United States" from the "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" article? The "Mass shootings in the United States" article lists the "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting". They have an important connection. Doug4 18:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug4 (talk • contribs)

I did not delete the link. Somebody else deleted it. Anthony22 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit is not helpful as we have to keep WP:NPOV in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In regards to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Its fine if you want to add additional 2nd sources to things, but could you not use bare URLs? Not only for preventing link rot, but to follow the already established citing methods being used in the article. Thanks WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I second this request. You can quickly generate well-formatted citation templates by using the "cite" menu in Edit toolbar or VisualEditor, and pasting a URL, DOI or ISBN. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Good advice in general. At that particular article, at least as long as I'm around it, I'm going to clean up virtually any cite created by automated means for cite consistency within the article (and some automated means don't even conform to all cite guidelines). That being the case, it's little additional effort for me to go get the cite parameter values using the URL. Any bare URL won't be in the article for more than about 24 hours. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Today you did 24 edits at Hillary Clinton, introducing (in the most generous analysis possible) three clear typos—how can an editor who presents as a stickler for good copy editing, very often using a lecturing tone in their edit summaries, be so careless about copy editing?—and one factual error—in a high-visibility BLP article. If you had corrected more errors than you created, those 24 edits would be a net positive, but most of the improvements were not error corrections but rather marginal improvements in wording. I don't think I saw a single correction to a clear error. Therefore your editing session was a net negative.

I am not going to follow you around to clean up after you. I worry that few other editors will examine your edits closely, so many of the errors you leave in your wake will remain in articles for an unacceptably long time.

I have asked you to slow down, and you removed that without responding. I'm asking again. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• I concur; your re-wordings on Donald Trump often correct things that don't need correction; add unecessary words; confuse wording - the sentence is saying that since his ascendancy that sentiment has increased, not after his ascendancy studies have shown Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I will take your advice and slow down. I will state, however, that the majority of Wikipedia articles are very poorly written. Everyone makes editing mistakes, but I think that the majority of my edits are constructive. Anthony22 (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said, your editing session at Clinton was a net negative. In other words, the article was better before it. I could have made a good case for rolling back all 24, but I didn't. If most of your sessions are better than that one, good for you, but I don't know why that would be the case. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It would have been wrong to roll back all 24 edits, because not every edit was counter-productive. Many sentences are too long for easy reading, and people in photographs are often identified from right-to-left instead of left-to-right. A couple of months ago, I made several edits to the article on Adolph Hitler. A number of errors were corrected by my edits, and I even received a few "Thank you" notifications on those edits. Yet somebody came along and rolled back all of the edits, and the prior mistakes were reinstated. Does that make sense? Certainly not. Also, over the years I have uploaded many interesting photographs into Wikipedia articles. A number of those photographs have mysteriously disappeared FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON. Anybody can edit Wikipedia articles. The editor could be grade school dropout, a convicted felon, a terrorist, a spy, a child molester, or a serial killer still on the loose. An article is not necessarily improved by a revert. You can take that from somebody who knows. Anthony22 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak to other cases about which I know nothing. If you corrected actual errors, they shouldn't have been rolled back. In this case, the case for rollback would have been that (1) the article was better before, (2) there were no error corrections, most of it was improving wording beyond what most editors expect and most readers need, (3) four errors were introduced, and (4) why should I or any other editor spend our limited time correcting errors made by editors who don't have inexperience as an excuse?
Anyway, as you know, I didn't roll back. Instead, I spent about 35 minutes of my limited time reviewing your edits and quietly fixing your mistakes, and I did you the courtesy of saving my criticism for the relative privacy of your talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you of the fact that I corrected more mistakes than I made. This is the reason why all of my edits should not have been rolled back. Also, what makes you think that a talk page involves relative privacy? An editor's talk page is open and available to ANYONE who has access to the Internet, and that includes most of the people on the planet. A talk page is not like email, which IS private. Anthony22 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the word "relative"? I suspect a language maven such as yourself knows what that means. My point is that I didn't lecture in my edit summaries for all to see (as you do so often and so annoyingly) or start an article talk thread about your editing.
I can assure you of the fact that I corrected more mistakes than I made. - As I've said, you didn't correct any mistakes per se. If you don't know what I mean by that, simply compare what you changed to the four errors I linked above. You made some copy editing changes that were tangible improvements, some that we didn't really need, and four errors that could have very easily been avoided. But you didn't correct any mistakes. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

In reference to the FBI director, what makes you think that "embattled" is an unnecessary word and a mistake. Use of this word as a descriptor is strictly a matter of opinion and not necessarily a mistake. A person who is fired is usually embattled.

On the issue of "relative" privacy, an edit summary is also relative privacy. A lot of people read articles without going into the edit section to make edits. Also, many people who do make edits do not bother to peruse the edit summaries of other people. A user's talk page and the edit section both involve "relative" privacy. The theory of relativity applies to journalism as well as physics. Also, no matter where you go, it's impossible to avoid mudslinging. Anthony22 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who reverted "embattled"—and that's a different article from what we're discussing here—but I did think the word was unnecessary when you added it and I support the revert on that basis. That's literary tone, not encyclopedic tone.
Since you're intent on debating a minor point about relative privacy while ignoring the main thrust of my comments, I'll leave it with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing you of the "embattled" revert. I thought all of the reverts were done by you. You have to understand, however, that there's a distinction between a "mistake" and an edit that involves judgment or opinion. "Mistake" and "judgment" are two completely different things. It's a mistake to say that Trump did not fire the FBI director. It's judgment or opinion, not a mistake, to say that the FBI director was embattled when he was fired. Anthony22 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with my comments, which were limited to your editing today at Hillary Clinton. Have a good day. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anthony22 . I noticed that you used odssf.com as a source for information in a biography article, Jeanine Pirro. I had hoped you might join the RSN discussion a while back about it, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#odssf.com. I'm going ahead and removing it from all articles. Let me know if you think this could be problematic in any way. Thanks.--Ronz (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Really nice work on the Bill Cosby article. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, these are the edits I was talking about when I wrote that. I just looked them over again, and I still think they improved the article. I know that there is now an AN case about Anthony22's edits, and I am purposely not expressing any opinion one way or the other on what is being discussed there, because I haven't looked at the history of edits myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think the word "born" needs to be there twice? 32.218.35.124 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice use of the word "born" at the beginning of the sentence. Thanks for calling that to my attention. I made the fix. Anthony22 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted many of your edits at Audie Murphy. Generally, featured articles don't benefit from continued wordsmithing. Further, I get the distinct impression that you're editing just bend Wikipedia to your preferences, not to improve the encyclopedia. This sort of arrogance will not do. You show contempt for our community by editing in this fashion. Please stop. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree, once again. As another editor stated in relation to your changes to the FA rated Marilyn Monroe article: "we really do seem to go one step forward and two steps back with many of these post-FAC edits". Please keep that in mind. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chris Troutman and Kierzek: I'll third that, and I've said as much - in detail - on at least two occasions on this page. I'd estimate that about a quarter of these edits are clear improvements, and the rest range from annoying changes from one acceptable wording to another acceptable wording to clearly worse wording.
At Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, for a typical example, Anthony22 feels strongly that "transparent book bags" is unacceptably ambiguous because "transparent" has multiple senses. As if the meaning isn't clear enough from the context that the school wants to make it harder for students to bring prohibited items to school.
I sought the advice of a respected admin and they advised an elaborate, multi-step course of action that would have required an unreasonable amount of my time and introduced undue stress into my life (I don't care to make this a personal project). I would strongly support a proposal for TBAN from copy editing, if such a thing exists. Clearly Anthony22 is not going to respond in a significant positive way to complaints from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Retry botched ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, "thru" will probably be the correct spelling in 30 to 50 years. It just isn't quite yet. GMG^talk 00:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree that the user's changes to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting are less than useful. Insisting on changing from "transparent" to "see-through" is not really an improvement (the original source actually used "clear"), but at least it's better than his or her subsequent attempt to change it to read "see-thru". Meters (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Anthony, I'm forced to agree with the other editors here. Your edits have caused problems in multiple articles that I've seen so far: this is a partial listing of the issues I've seen with your work, in the limited variety of articles (namely sports-related ones) that I have an interest in. Bearing in mind that I don't edit politics articles or numerous other pages where you are active, the volume of concerns in a limited sample size raises alarm bells for me:

• This edit to the Monroe article mentioned above introduced Find a Grave as a reference. This is a user-generated resource, not unlike Wikipedia, and is the very opposite of a reliable source. It shouldn't be used in any article, much less an FA.
• This edit, this one, and this one introduced bare reference links into the Monroe article. These edits require time-consuming cleanup from others after the fact, not to mention that the references likely aren't as good as the books that article relies on for the bulk of its sourcing.
• This edit to Babe Ruth again introduces a bare link, which I had to clean up after. Again, this is time-consuming for others. If you're going to add references, please take the time to format them properly so others don't have to spend valuable editing time doing so themselves.
• Going back a little farther, in the edit summary here you state, "I guess that the score and the numbers told the story". This strongly implies that you didn't check the given source before adding this bit. There's no reason not to have done so, because the source is available online. It would have taken only a quick read to show that the information was not in the reference, but you didn't do that and I had to spend time taking out the unverified addition.
• For a copy-editor, leaving "when they started season at 41–3" in an article is really sloppy. Please take the time to review your work in preview mode and prevent these kinds of glitches from sneaking into articles. We all make mistakes, of course, but why not try to make sure your edits are polished so the readers don't see errors such as this?
• Most concerningly, this is a totally unsourced addition that introduces jargon that many readers won't understand. The "one and done" concept didn't even exist in the subject's day, so there's no reason to even bring it up in the first place. Even if it did, the fact that you're putting jargony content in without citation is highly worrying. Someone who has been here for 12 years shouldn't be making edits like this.

I don't know what should be done here. This editing is clearly problematic, but I don't see how a topic ban against copy-editing could possibly work. All of us who edit Wikipedia copy-edit on some level when working in mainspace. Nothing short of an indef block or full ban is going to solve this, I'm afraid. That is unless you, Anthony, can stop making these questionable edits altogether and stick to simple typo fixes and the like. I must confess that your lack of a response here makes me more amenable to supporting a block or ban should it come to that, but I sincerely hope that your editing improves so that things don't reach that point. No one likes having their work criticized, but please do take what we're saying to heart. It will make your experience on Wikipedia better, as well as ours. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There are tons of ways to contribute to the encyclopedia that don't involve copy editing. Many important things are no less important because they are "under the covers" where their effect is not immediately apparent to readers in the prose.
For just one example, I'm currently working my way through a long list of the most-viewed articles, changing "px" values in thumbnails to the equivalent |upright= parameters per WP:IMGSIZE. This conversion is necessary for the user preference for thumbnail size to have any effect, and I consider that important to the encyclopedia. This is something that has been neglected for years and I felt it was time somebody actually implemented the community consensus rather than leaving it on the WP:WIP pile indefinitely.
For another example, citations are fundamental to the encyclopedia, sloppy or incomplete citations are a widespread problem, and one could make a career of cite cleanup.
Starting perhaps at Wikipedia:Maintenance, any intelligent editor should be able to find some type of work that (1) the encyclopedia needs, (2) they find rewarding, and (3) they are good at. I'm sorry but copy editing is not your forte, and if you continue on your current path you are probably approaching an involuntary retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm another editor who finds Anthony22's edits problematic. One particular issue I keep seeing is his insistence that "-ing" verbs indicate that the present tense is being used and that they have to be reworded to the past tense. See recent examples here, here, here, and here but there are dozens of other instances. I tried to explain to him at User talk:Anthony22#Mistaken "changed present tense to past tense" edits above that "-ing" verbs are tenseless and that they take on the tense of the main verb of the phrase or sentence. But as usual with this editor, there was no response and he keeps on doing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

If the past tense is incorrect, then revert it back to the present tense. When I first began editing in Wikipedia, I was informed that the past tense usually supersedes the present tense in articles. It's OK to use the present tense for breaking news. Mickey Rooney performed a long time ago. It's rather silly to think of him in the present tense. Anthony22 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You're not understanding. Yes, most WP articles are supposed to be written in the past tense, and certainly ones like Mickey Rooney. But the sentence In a career spanning nine decades and continuing until shortly before his death, he appeared in more than 300 films and was one of the last surviving stars of the silent film era. is not written in the present tense. Here "spanning" and "continuing" are tenseless. The tense of the sentence comes from "appeared" and "was", which are in the past tense. Thus the sentence was correctly in the past tense and there was no need to change it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see I'm not the only one. Mickey Rooney: 'In a career spanning nine decades and continuing until shortly before his death, he appeared in more than 300 films and was one of the last surviving stars of the silent film era.' You have 'replaced present tense with the past tense' and changed it to 'In a career that spanned nine decades and continued until shortly before his death, he appeared in more than 300 films and was one of the last surviving stars of the silent film era.' The first sentence is already in the past tense- as one can readily tell by the verbs 'appeared' and 'was'. I can only assume you wrongly believe 'spanning' and 'continuing' to be verbs in the present continuous, which they're not. These are gerunds, and they are without tense, as they function as nouns.

I would politely suggest that an inability to understand how gerunds work in a sentence should perhaps result in fewer copy edits, as this is, frankly, very basic grammar indeed. It's quite worrying to think that you're madly changing Wikipedia articles as you believe that gerunds cannot be used in an article about anything that took place in the past.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anthony 22. I just wanted to take you up on your edits to the Usain Bolt article.

You changed, 'The rush of medals continued as he won four golds...' to 'The rush of medals continued when he won four golds...'

You changed 'Bolt had become the school's fastest runner over the 100 metres distance.' to Bolt had become the school's fastest runner in the 100 metres distance.

You changed 'Speaks with' to 'talks to'

I am a qualified EF/SL teacher and I'm passionate about grammar. Indeed, I often make minor edits myself, but only when I believe that a mistake has been made or the sentence is not as clear as it could be. The changes you have made above simply cannot be seen as corrections; they seem really just to be alternative ways of saying the same thing. The only reasoning I can imagine that lies behind them is that your preference is for what you changed them to. I don't think that's particularly helpful. Everything in English can be rewritten and keep its meaning, but that is not to say that it should.

Overall, I believe that respect should be given to the original author. This means not changing copy for the sake of it, but rather to correct mistakes, remove ambiguity or, perhaps in certain cases, to increase readability and (rarely) elegance. None of these applies to the few edits I have highlighted above. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Audie Murphy. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, you have a dozen other editors above telling you that you're being disruptive by wordsmithing featured articles. If you want to be useful, join WP:GOCE. If I see you make a problematic edit again, I'm dragging you to a drama board and you'll face consequences. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

FTR, my complaints have not been limited to featured articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Lee Radziwill. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

In the case of Lee Radziwill, if the information on her place of birth (New York City) was poorly referenced or controversial, you should have reverted the edit back to Southampton. The sources that give her place of birth as Southampton are also poorly referenced and unreliable. Just out of curiosity, how do you determine what source is truthful, reliable, and worthy of inclusion into the article?

In my edit summary, I explained that New York City was a better choice over Southampton because Radziwill was born on March 3, which is winter. I don't think that the Bouviers spent winter in Southampton.Anthony22 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's original research. Sources are required, not optional. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The article currently says that Marrion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, but JFK historian Stan Dane has suggested in his book and research, “Prayer Man”, that Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, a man who doesn’t match Oswald’s description, and that original interrogation reports say Oswald was on the first floor, at the entrance, (not in the first floor room or second floor lunchroom) and may have captured on film outside, and is the figure called “Prayer Man” (a very blurry image of a man in the TSBD doorway in the Couch film who, the author and others claim, was Oswald). Plus, it's a new original theory, and it does put Baker's claims into question and seems to suggest that Oswald's claims of where he was at the time Kennedy was shot have been misinterpreted. I am aware it is a "fringe" theory as it dismisses, out of hand, positive, corroborating evidence in order to accept flimsy evidence placing Oswald elsewhere. If it cannot go here, then it more properly resides on the conspiracy theory page, If realible sources for this research can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that the LHO article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest with the words, "Oswald was taken to the Police Department building, where homicide detective Jim Leavelle questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit". But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. When Leavelle testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963. When Counsel Joseph Ball asked Leavelle if he had ever spoken to Oswald before this interrogation, he stated; "No, I had never talked to him before". Leavelle then stated during his testimony that "the only time I had connections with Oswald was this Sunday morning [November 24, 1963]. I never had [the] occasion to talk with him at any time..." In various interview since the 1970s and up to the mid 2010s, Leavelle said that he was the first to interrogate Oswald after his arrest (contrary to his Warren Commission testimony).

In the course of my research into the JFK case, I encountered a number of examples where I had testimony or accounts by people from 1963/64 as well as from years or decades later. It became apparent that the testimony and writings from 63/64 were superior. These were obtained when the events was still fresh in their memories, and as a result were clearer, usually more detailed, and consistent with what other people wrote or recalled at the time. Whenever I had conflicting accounts by a person to deal with, I would use the earlier of the two. As Jim Leavelle’s interview testimony to the Warren Commission were so specific that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963, and that he had never talked to him before. I would place no value on second-hand information based upon various interviews with Leavelle which had occurred over two/three/four decades after the event.

Bart Kemp has done an article looking at the differing accounts, called "Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's interrogations" that can be found on the internet. Kemp is pro-conspiracy, so be warned if you want to read it. :)

Should the words "homicide detective Jim Leavelle questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit" be removed and/or Leavelle's warren commission testimony used instead? I read his WC testimony again; Leavelle never "interrogated" Oswald about the JFK assassination or Tippit murder on Sunday morning, Nov. 24th, or any other day. He merely "spoke" to Oswald about the upcoming transfer while Oswald was changing clothes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Please be far more careful with the sources that you choose. Please check WP:RSP, search WP:RSN, and ask for help if you are not sure about the reliablity of a source. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh, yeah he is, but I'm not up to a discussion about it. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

...for your attention and improvements on the Monroe articles. A good Wikipedia-style collab, because of your putting attention onto those pages and their images I thought of adding the two images of Monroe at the Kennedy birthday function to Happy Birthday, Mr. President, and they make the page look much better. Well, anything with more Monroe makes something look better. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree; once again, many of your edits are not an improvement and some have changed the context and meaning of RS cited points made. Especially with the main article, which is rated FA as you well know. It is a waste of editors time to have to read through your personal preferences and original research to revert your disruptive edits. Sorry Randy, you and I usually agree, but I’ve seen too much of this guys “editing”. So Anthony try for a change to work with editors towards consensus instead of disruption. Kierzek (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kierzek. I meant specifically the series of comments and edits which resulted in eventual good changes in the Kennedy birthday song article. I agree that some of the edits are not helpful, and hopefully Anthony is taking accuracy and the readers understanding of POV nuances into consideration of each word. Better to improve the page, but if a few editors are questioning many of the edits the talk pages seem the best way to sort the thought process out. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits can be classified as original research, constructive, destructive, disruptive, or vandalism. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a constructive or disruptive edit. The majority of Wikipedia articles are very poorly written with all kinds of grammatical, punctuation, sentence structuring, and spelling mistakes. Very few people have a superior command of the English language, and that includes college graduates who took the wrong courses (humanities, philosophy, history, theology, English literature). How do you arrive at a consensus? That is a very difficult thing to do. No two people have the same mind or the same opinions. For example, two people will see the same motion picture or read the same novel; one person will say it was fantastic, and the other person will say it was terrible. Debating is essentially a waste of time and effort.Anthony22 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to thank you again, for caring for the page and topic enough to plow through the criticism (some justified, but maybe given too harshly) and continue to add some good edits to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to repeatedly write superior-sounding edit summaries about correct use of the English language, please at least make sure they are consistent with the English dictionary. There are multiple online dictionaries with free access. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anthony- welcome back. I am afraid I don't believe your hiatus to have helped address the issues that many editors above have highlighted. Edits like this, this, this and this all show the old bad habits of mistakes being presented as corrections and/or edits that make the text worse being presented as improvements. Please take note of the discussion above. Please also understand gerunds. I am sure you're not being intentionally disruptive and of course I assume good faith, but do please reconsider your approach.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Larry Hockett. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to New York Yankees seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, New York Yankees. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 11:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Amazon (company), you may be blocked from editing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Scuba diving, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. The article clearly has the template {Use British English} and editors are expected to respect it. There is no default variant of English for articles, and US readers make up a minority of readers of the English Wikipedia. RexxS (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You are now sailing very close to the wind.

The use of "which" as the relative pronoun is normal in British English in both defining and non-defining relative clauses. Microsoft Word is not a useful authority for English grammar. In the cases where you changed "which" to "that", you are altering the English variant from en-gb to en-us again. Stop it.

Scuba is now considered an anacronym, that is, its meaning is now fully associated with the word, rather than being associated with its derivation from the initials. This is more fully discussed in Scuba set #Etymology. It's therefore both inaccurate and original research to mislabel scuba as an acronym.

The pronoun "they" is a gender neutral singular pronoun and is generally used instead of "he" or "she" when the gender is unknown or indeterminable. Its use as the singular gender neutral pronoun dates back to Shakespearean times and is quite normal in Wikipedia. You must not go around changing "they" to "he" as you will cause offence to many editors. Whatever source for grammar you are using, it is not appropriate for modern English usage. I'm going to strongly suggest that if you can't grasp the nuances of English variations and of writing in a gender-neutral style, then you avoid attempting to correct any further articles. --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: I don't know how much you know about the long history of this issue. I have encouraged Anthony22 to find ways to contribute better suited to his skill set, including specific suggestions, and he has declined. There have been numerous other editors complaining on this page; when the heat got too great, Anthony22 took a months-long wikibreak, then returned and continued doing exactly what resulted in the heat. I eventually stopped even looking at his edits, feeling forced to adopt a philosophical "not my problem" stance. I felt some time ago that some "next step" was in order, as it's clear to me that Anthony22's copy edits are and will remain a net negative to the encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to José Fernández (pitcher). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. You have been changing the colors maroon and gold to Maroon and Gold. Colors are not proper nouns. Imagine the sentence 'I saw a red bus'. Changing it to 'I saw a Red bus' would be absurd, and that is effectively what your edit has done. Please don't restore your changes again without discussion. Here is the best place as taking such an elementary discussion to an article talk page would be a waste of editors' time. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Jackie Robinson. Describing Robinson’s strikeout as “inconsequential” in WP’s voice is not an appropriate use of neutral tone. There are only five big rules - WP:NPOV is one of those. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Tapered (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Charles Lindbergh. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Anthony, but your source does not support the idea that he landed in Newfoundland. Britmax (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Lindbergh lifted off from Roosevelt Field on Long Island, From there, he flew to St. John's in NewFoundland, Canada. He did not make a stop at St. John's. He flew east from St. John's because that is the eastern tip of North America. He did not fly across the Atlantic from Roosevelt Field. For your information, the Roosevelt Field site is now a shopping mall and next door to the Mitchel Athletic Complex. I have been there many times. Do me a favor and watch the film, "The Spirit of Saint Louis," which stars James Stewart as Lindbergh. You will see the plane flying east over St. Johns. There seems to be a conspiracy going on against me.Anthony22 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem, Anthony, is that when you write "In the early morning of Friday, May 20, 1927, Lindbergh took off from Roosevelt Field, Long Island, to St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, and then across the Atlantic Ocean for Paris, France.", you give the impression that Lindbergh flew from Roosevelt Field to St. John's, stopped there, and then flew on to Paris. Any mention of the waypoint in Newfoundland doesn't really add any important information to the article and creates an ambiguity that readers might misinterpret. For what it's worth, the shortest route from NY to Paris by air almost certainly passes over Newfoundland as most airlines use that route for their transatlantic flights. HTH --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, just to note, a biopic like The Spirit of St. Louis is not a reliable source for facts about the historical event it portrays. Films routinely ignore historical accuracy in favor of dramatic necessity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chronic disruptive editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Anthony22—with the best intentions I am trying to get you to engage in calm dialogue with others. I want the present issue to work out for the best for you. I've always enjoyed our glancing encounters. Obviously others are complaining. Therefore if I could offer advice, and I am hesitant to offer anyone else advice, I think it would be a good idea if you tried to say something to placate the concerns of others. It is being discussed here. If I were you I would just say that you are taking the points made by others to heart and that you will try to incorporate into your editing habits the types of changes they are recommending. It is the interaction that matters, in my opinion. You could calmly explain that you can and will alter one aspect or another of your editing habits so as not to arouse the ire of any of your detractors. Believe me—I'm just trying to be helpful. These are merely suggestions. You should handle it any way you want, but calm, measured input is what I'd recommend. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Anthony22, coming here from the AN/I discussion. Would you be willing to discuss this with me? I would like to see a resolution that doesn't involve messy sanctions (blocks/bans/restrictions/whatever) and I think such a resolution is possible, but only if you are willing to engage, recognize that there is a problem, and then make significant changes to the way you edit. The big 3 questions, in order, are: 1. Are you willing to talk about this? 2. Do you recognize what the problem is? 3. What changes are you willing to make voluntarily to resolve the problem? ~Awilley (talk)

OK, now it looks like you're just ignoring me and continuing on with the problematic behavior that is being discussed at AN/I. This isn't a problem that is going to just go away if you ignore it long enough. I get that you might not like talking to people, but this is a collaborative project, and at some point you need to communicate with your peers. You're free to ignore me for as long as you want, but if you're going to plow ahead with the problematic copyediting as if nothing is wrong I will block your account from editing altogether. ~Awilley (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see Special:Permalink/914804289#Formal proposal 1: Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia. They may add information which is supported by a citation from a reliable source, and may delete information currently in an article if they think it is incorrect, inaccurate, or not properly sourced, but must immediately follow up any such edit with an explanation for the deletion on the article talk page. This topic ban can be appealed no earlier than 6 months after it is imposed. You are free to continue editing Wikipedia, but you must abide by this restriction. See WP:TOPICBAN for more information about topic bans. You will need to wait six months before you can appeal this restriction. After that time, you can post to WP:AN and point to the constructive edits you've done. If you engage in any copy editing, it is likely you will be blocked, so please be careful. You can ask other editors questions if you are not sure whether an edit would violate this restriction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to block me from editing, you're blocking the wrong person. I have uploaded many excellent images that have been removed, and I have made many constructive edits that were reverted by people who didn't know what they were doing. I'm beginning to think that some editors on Wikipedia are grade-school dropouts who are vindictive and spiteful. Everyplace you come into contact with people, there is nothing but irritation, discourtesy, aggravation, and friction, and Wikipedia is no exception to this rule. There is only one place where you can escape rudeness: the Wilderness, which is basically free of people.Anthony22 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

So basically your defense is "all of those editors who reverted me and all of those editors who called for me to be topic banned are grade-school dropouts who are vindictive and spiteful". Are you sure that this is the position you want to take? See Law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"grade-school dropouts who are vindictive and spiteful" Mrs. Smith told me in seventh grade I would amount to nothing, and boy, did I show her. I helped pile-on an unconstructive editor so they can't continue to deface articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God. Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.

Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.

And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein. No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:

And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Isaiah NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• As explained by Mandruss on the AN/I thread which resulted in the sanction to Anthony22, A22's typical response to things such as this is to disappear for a while and then return to make the same kinds of edits. Now that he cannot make the same kind of edits, and given his implied threat to sock made on that thread, watchers of this page should be aware of any new accounts or IPs which edit in a manner striking similar to that of Anthony22. If any such editing is found, they should be reported to WP:SPI as evidence of topic-ban evading sockpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Topic bans and blocks can very easily be circumvented. A person can use the account of a family member, co-worker, friend, schoolmate, or another person to continue editing. If I were to continue editing in this fashion, you could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am the culprit. As I said before, I have made many constructive edits that were reverted by silly people. The classic example of this is my upload of the photograph of Billie Burke's gravesite. The original photograph was excellent; somebody modified and blurred the original image with a new image. I re-inserted the original image but that edit was reverted. THE ORIGINAL IMAGE WAS MUCH BETTER. I must admit that I don't understand why I have wasted so much time and effort making good edits that were reverted. Wikipedia articles are poorly written with terrible grammar, syntax, sentence structuring, chronology, and punctuation. To use a classic analogy, too many chefs spoil the soup, and some of the chefs don't even know how to boil water.Anthony22 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that circumventing a topic ban can be easy ... until it no longer is. The point is that if you do any of the things you mention above, and you are found out, you will be blocked from editing indefinitely. And if you continue to do it after that, you will be site banned. And once you are indef blocked or site banned, there never needs to be any discussion about your edits ever again. An edit made by an indef blocked or site banned editor can be reverted by any editor at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. You will be fighting an uphill battle. Oh, sure, you'll have your little victories, get a bunch of edits in without anyone noticing - but for the most part you will not be able to contribute to Wikipedia ever again. You will be a pariah.

Is that really the Wikipedia future you're looking for? Right now, your sanction still allows you to edit under certain restrictions. If you continue to follow those restrictions, after six months you can ask that your sanction to be removed. If you sock, that will never happen, and the future I outlined above is more likely than not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Anthony, if you threaten again to circumvent your topic ban by creating a new account or using someone else's account, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Anthony. After a lengthy process you have been banned from making grammatical edits. This was a grammatical edit, which (not that it matters) is wrong. You have changed the adjective first-team to a noun. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Kramer&diff=prev&oldid=916220328

I will not report this but please stop.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Anthony22. Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The capitalization changes you made look very much like testing the limits or a breaching experiment. Don't. If you think something should be changed, post it on Talk, wait 48 hours to see if anyone objects, then make the edit. We don't need this drama OK? Please just play it safe and play nice. Guy (help!) 22:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I must say that I don't know what the hell you're talking about. The capitalization changes that I made are correct. I made very good improvements to the article on Barry Kramer, if that's what you're talking about.Anthony22 (talk)

That's real smart, mouthing off to the admin who shut down the latest ANI discussion about you despite calls for further action from several experienced editors.

This edit shows ignorance of not one but two MOS guidelines, WP:SURNAME and MOS:POSTABBR. I have corrected it on both points. Please improve your game if you are going to make this type of edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of the surname rule in captions. Go the Jennifer Jones article and down to the Section of Biography. You will see a photo of Ray Corrigan, Jennifer Jones, and John Wayne in the Section. I changed the caption from Jennifer Jones to Jones, and they changed it back to Jennifer Jones. This is what I mean about reverting my good edits. There is no double-standard with respect to surnames. Wikipedia moderators can contradict themselves. I have had many good edits reverted by people who didn't know what they were doing.Anthony22 (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

My advice to you is to stop acting as if you are free to violate your topic ban if the edits are good (you aren't), stop standing with your toes over the line you are not allowed to cross, and in general start behaving in such a way that if anyone reports you at ANI for violating your topic ban, there is zero debate as to whether or not you violated it, but instead there is a 100% unanimous consensus that the person who reported the violation is crazy and deserves a WP:BOOMERANG for wasting ANI's time. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

So you got incorrectly reverted once on a SURNAME edit, and, instead of using the talk page and pointing to the guideline, you stopped observing the guideline in other edits? How does that make sense?

In many cases you can even avoid being reverted in the first place, if you link to the guideline in your edit summary, as I did in my correction and do in most of my edits where a guideline applies. I don't get reverted much, both because I know the guidelines and because I show I know the guidelines by linking to them. The shortcut names are not exceedingly difficult to learn if you put your mind to it.

And your contribution to the project is multiplied with little effort if you educate less experienced editors by pointing them to the guidelines via your edit summaries. At least some editors will click through and read that stuff. If it's truly about the project and not your own needs, doing that is an easy decision. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Anthony22, you are under an editing restriction. That very rarely happens in cases where the editor agrees that what they did was bad. We use restrictions because other people judge that some editors' actions are disruptive in some way that the editors do not see for themselves. I understand that you don't see the problem. But other people do, and since you're already under restriction, and nobody wants to see that converted to blocks or bans, I am counseling you to play it straight and don't give even the slightest hint of testing the limits of the restriction, please. Otherwise this will almost certainly come up again and next time you are likely to end up blocked. Thank you. Guy (help!) 14:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Anthony I'm sorry to come in again but when your edit summary is 'replaced ambiguous wording with more specific wording' it's impossible not to. That is almost the exact description for what the community has expressly asked you not to do. Please just don't do wording or grammar edits. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You were warned above not to test the limits of your topic ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The next block will be for a month. After that, it'll be an indefinite block. You are not allowed to make stylistic or grammar changes to Wikipedia articles ("copy editing"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Anthony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I will now repeat the advice I gave you a month ago: Stop acting as if you are free to violate your topic ban if the edits are good (you aren't), stop standing with your toes over the line you are not allowed to cross, and in general start behaving in such a way that if anyone reports you at ANI for violating your topic ban, there is zero debate as to whether or not you violated it, but instead there is a 100% unanimous consensus that the person who reported the violation is crazy and deserves a boomerang for wasting our time. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Except for the error in changing quoted text (superfeminine), my edits over the last couple of days were NOT disruptive. If the stylistic or grammatical changes are correct, that is not a valid reason to extend the block.Anthony22 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That's either a stunning failure to comprehend the meaning of the TBAN, or a stunning display of contempt for it. Either way, it's stunning. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Anthony22, you need to read Special:Permalink/914804289#Formal proposal 1 and User talk:Anthony22#You are now subject to a topic ban again. Print the second one out and tape it up next to your monitor.

EIGHTEEN uninvolved editors looked at the edits that you keep insisting are "not disruptive" and determined that, yes, they are indeed disruptive.

What part of "topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia" are you having trouble understanding?

Do you see any sentence that says "topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia unless they are correct"??

No? Then OBEY YOUR TOPIC BAN AS IT IS WRITTEN.

Your continued refusal to abide by the restrictions the community has placed upon you is a great way to end up blocked indefinitely. Is that what you want? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm just noting that this still seems to be an issue, looking at today's series of wordsmithing edits to Leon Czolgosz. Since this topic ban has been in place for weeks, I'm not sure where the disconnect is. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The edits to Leon Czolgosz are not wordsmithing. "Assassination" means death. Technically, McKinley was not assassinated until the day he died. This is similar to Robert F. Kennedy and Anton Cermak. A defendant cannot be charged or accused of an assassination while the victim is still living.Anthony22 (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Your topic ban mentions that you can correct certain inaccuracies if you immediately follow up with a note on the article’s talk page. That seems especially important in cases where you are citing technicalities to make wording changes. Was this addressed immediately on the talk page? What are we missing? Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is at Anthony22 again. Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The diffs presented at ANI make it clear that you have repeatedly violated your topic ban. Unless you change your behavior, an indefinite block is highly likely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I would classify this as a copy edit.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Tolan&diff=926518526&oldid=926505647 There are others of course. Please don't make this type of edit.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Anthony22. Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for refusing to adhere to your topic ban.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a staggering difference of opinion on the issue of constructive versus disruptive editing. I still maintain that the vast majority of my edits are constructive. If you go over to the Talk Pages of William McKinley and Elin Nordegren, you will see that I made constructive suggestions for correcting obvious errors, but the suggestions were ignored. Wikipedia editors would rather keep these errors in place than admit that I might be right. William McKinley was NOT assassinated on the day that he was shot, and Tiger Woods was never a nanny.

On the Issue of Anthony22, what makes you think that Anthony22 is a "he"? I could be a woman in disguise. Do you remember the songs "Judy in Disguise" and "A Boy Named Sue", which are more than half a century old? I could be a girl named Anthony22. Also, I'm certain that you've heard of Susan B. Anthony.

Concerning my topic ban, I could have a large extended family and several friends who would let me edit Wikipedia on their personal devices. Would you be able to recognize my modus operandi?

I'm glad that you had brains enough NOT to revert my edits on Natalie Trundy. I knew her entire family personally many years ago. Her mother and father were excellent people.

Anytime two or more people get together in the same environment, there will be friction, aggravation, and differences of opinion. That's part of life. As said before, the only way that you can escape aggravation is to trek into the wilderness, which is void of people. If you go to Bob Marshall's article, you can peruse the photographs that I took of his final resting place in Salem Fields Cemetery. Marshall was greatest wilderness activist in the history of the United States.Anthony22 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It's no longer a topic ban. It's now a indefinite block. You are not allowed to edit any topic, using any IP or account. Meters (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It didn't say Woods was a nanny; it said Nordegren was a nanny--though an unkind reader could read it differently, and an unkind editor could cite it misleadingly. This undoubtedly was one of the things that led editors to support that topic ban (which I disagreed with)--this conviction, the unwillingness to listen and to see things another way. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)