User talk:Esplanader1871

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Boudica, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your 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. Thank you. 45dogs (they/them) (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes. I’m not sure how the changes were non- constructive. As far as I can tell, I mainly noted that Boudica’s story has only three ancient (primary) sources extant. This seems important given the immense cultural/national importance she acquired in Great Britain in the modern period. The article is good in discussing archeological evidence of the tribes and clear that while Boudicca is not extensively attested to by the ancients, the rebellion in Britain are (in written works and archeology). Unfortunately, the text of the article is repetitive and needs cleanup for clarity BUT I did not attempt an overhaul since the repetitively confusing passages emphasize differing points Seemingly at random. I did not feel comfortable in reframing contrasting points of emphasis without consulting known critical sources. However, since you seem to have greater immediate expertise, it would be constructive for you to shorten the summary and reorganize the main body to be less discursive. It is a confusing article in places, which I only understood clearly because I have recently read two historical books on the subject. Esplanader1871 (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed you made some edits to St. James Theatre and Longacre Theatre earlier. Unfortunately, your edits needed to be reverted because they didn't improve the article for two reasons:

1. Your edits changed the headers from "Sentence case" to "Title Case". We generally do not use title case for headings on Wikipedia per our guidelines. Except proper names, only the first word in each heading should be capitalized.
2. You also made some edits that changed the section hierarchy of the article. "Seating areas" and "Other design features" were intentionally put under the "Auditorium" subsection, but you made them into their own sections. If you want to change the font size, don't do that by modifying the section headers; that does something completely different. In fact, in general we should not be modifying the font size; the font sizes of the headers are pre-defined in the software.

Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not know some of that. The use of sentence structure for headings has not been consistent over the articles I’ve read but now that I know, I will follow your the standard. I think it odd that section title are a smaller font size. I was trying to increase the font size of headings it is not usual for heading fonts to be smaller than the text below. The headings are bold, so they still standout.

As an Architect, I found the relation of references to the “auditorium” section to the subsection awkward but defer to you.

Thank you again for your explanation. I find the formatting of Wikipedia odd at times and have not always seen consistant application. Esplanader1871 (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kansas City, Missouri, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, did not see this until now. I do not recall all the changes I made but I do know that I try to limit changes to grammar issues and removal of duplicate paragraphs on an article. I do not know what factual change I may have made. I do understand that factual changes need sources and do not recall making content changes that did not come from the sources that are already referenced (and attached as archives). But again, I cannot trace the change right now, so I cannot tell what did or did not need new sources. Thank you for your comment; I will be mindful of your point. I may review the article again at a later date but the now article appears clearer in content and intent. Esplanader1871 (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, for future reference, please do not wikilink nationality in Wikipedia articles (as you did for Kim Jong Un in this edit on the 13th March 2026) as it violates MOS:OL, where nationality, ethnicity and etc. should generally not be wikilinked. Thanks. SpyroeBM (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)