User talk:Mark83

So, maybe I couldn't immediately think of an exact or more fitting policy to use to convey the reason for my edit on Airbus A350 other than PUFFERY. Perhaps my leaving it un-grounded and just putting "unnecessary wording" in the edit summary would have been better? Or had I been more awake I would have also used "extraneous" as you did in your reversion? In either case - I am sure the idea behind it was/would have been understood. Even if not - I don't believe that an edit summary which isn't rigidly accurate is sufficient grounds for undoign the edit, outright. A simple note or comment to me would have done more good in this situation, vs. restoring the poor wording back to the state it was. It has now necessitated another editor coming in behind you to make a different edit to re-remove the unnecessary/extraneous wording - while yet also not appearing to be reverting an admin's edit - which of course comes with its own bad ju-ju.. Please reconsider this type of reversion/result for an imprecise edit summary in the future. Thanks, --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The fault here is you misquoting policy. Yes, "unnecessary wording" word have been better. I really can't believe you have taken so much time to write such a long comment about a very simple issue. My first instinct was to write you a quick message but I thought a revert was much more efficient use of my time whilst allowing you to take a second swing at it. I suggest we both move on and not waste any more time on it? But of course I don't mean this in a disrespectful way and if you wish to comment further that is of course your choice. Mark83 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah - I have always tended to get overly wordy in trying to be clear on what I am saying. My boss hates my emails. :) --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 19:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hercule Poirot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Moffat. 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) 08:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The article UKAMS has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not finding any significant coverage online to satisfy WP:GNG. If desired, what little information there is could be merged into the PAAMS article (EUROPAAMS already redirects there) or to MBDA

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Dumelow (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)