User talk:Pats322

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Hoodoo Mountain did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the Talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Janan2025 (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Hoodoo Mountain, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Volcanoguy 15:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Pats322 (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)What are you talking about? I was told to move that to the talk pages?

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Careem. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

it is touty press releases and about promotions - not content for WP Pats322 (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Pats322, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Pats322, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Pats322, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pats322, I temporarily reverted the edit you made on the Now, Now page, for the following reasons:
On a procedural level, you overhauled the entire article without bothering to provide an explanation, which is typically done by adding an edit summary. Doing so reduces your chances of having your edits reverted and of being suspected of bad faith, even vandalism, as it lets other users know what your intentions are for changing content in an article.
More substantively, while I can see that you've added a number of references to the page, which was (and currently is) in dire need of them, you also removed all subsections, turning the body of the article into quite an ugly mess, compared to the way it looked before, warts and all.
Anyway, I encourage you to restore your edit but to do so in a manner that doesn't remove valuable components of the page, i.e., subsections and any other stylistic features you may have previously removed. Once you have done this, I will go ahead and perform a copy edit of your work, and collaboratively, we can work toward improving the article. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Peter Sloly, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. GiantSnowman 18:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Television licence, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sangdeboeuf. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Bonnie Blue (actress), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

The Nottingham Post is a tabloid newspaper and should not be relied upon for significant claims about living persons. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sangdeboeuf. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Bonnie Blue (actress) in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Removing and/or altering relevant citation details goes beyond simple copy editing. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. You have recently been removing self-reported environmental information about corporations, particularly their CO2 emissions. This information does not need to be covered by Secondary Sources, because the standard for reporting this information is similar to financial reporting and can be used as a citation for a statement of fact. Many of the pages you have removed it from are companies that have outsized impact on the environment, including through emissions. For more context on using primary sources to cite facts, see: WP:PRIMARYCARE Sadads (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Not only did you not provide an edit summary for your edit in Lost Girl season 4, but your edit of the citation template changed the url to the source's online archive, which no longer contains all that was originally published. You also changed the name of the source. The article was published in 2013 and although the source ceased operations years later, the cited source name was the correct name. Please do not make changes to citations until you've learned how to edit correctly. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 10:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dick Cheney, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at CRH plc, you may be blocked from editing. Dormskirk (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Criticism of Yahoo. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 01:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Pats322 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)There is a valid explanation......

That is what edit summaries are for, as you have been told multiple times!

On the other hand, you are an excellent copy editor. So please use edit summaries to reduce the drama. Or do you like the drama??—Finell 19:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Johnny Cash, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pats322, I had left a message for you on the Airbnb Talk page, just wanted to see if you had seen it. Cheers ~2026-74865-7 (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Trap music, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Please don't delete encyclopaedic content.

The edit, creating a redirect, essentially removed a lot of information from the encyclopaedia. That content is not at the target of the redirect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encana&curid=62918229&diff=1343283786&oldid=1308323290

There is maybe an argument for merging, but the Encana article, before you removed it, had history since 1971 that you deleted.

I am about to revert your edit. ~2026-15973-89 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC) Pats322 (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)The "history" from 1971 is for another company that merged to form Encana. There is a separate article for that company. None of the important information was deleted...only the info that is off-topic.