Hi Vic Park! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bop34 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dry port, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United State.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Perth metropolitan region, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

• Copying text from other sources
• Policy on copyright
• Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
• Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted with thanks. Vic Park (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got your points, but the article of Zhongshan Island you referred to was not all relevant, as the description of the same article in English version is contradictory to the original contents from the Chinese counterpart.

In Chinese version, if you can understand or translate it, clearly pointed out that the island no longer exists and widely regarded as part of the the mainland by conventional cognition from Chinese themselves, quoting from the Chinese version "香山島是中國宋朝之前位於珠江出海口西岸的一個島嶼，目前已和大陸相連" [Xiangshan (Zhongshan) Island was an island located in the western Pearl River Delta before the Song Dynasty of China, which is now connected with the continent.] 118.163.139.3 (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, I am aware of this. However, the term "river island" has different meanings in Chinese and English. In Chinese, a landmass separated by one or more natural rivers on one side and the sea or ocean on the other side is considered a part of the mainland. In English, this type of landmass is still classified as a river island. Hence, in English-speaking countries, Marajó is considered the largest river island in the world. In English Wikipedia, the description in Zhongshan Island is correct, the classification of Macao as an island territory is also correct. Vic Park (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits to the Watershed article, and for all your work on Wikipedia.

One of those edits, though, runs counter to the result of a discussion on the article's talk page. The use of "watershed" to mean "drainage divide" is not restricted to Commonwealth countries, but is, even in North America, the most common meaning when the term is used metaphorically. So one definition is regional and the other is universal, and the universal meaning should therefore be listed first.

I invite you to read that discussion and, if you don't find it persuasive, to add your view to it. TypoBoy (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It happens that a headline in the Washington Post today quotes President Biden calling Finland and Sweden’s decision to join NATO a "watershed moment". So yes, Americans do use "watershed" to mean a divide. TypoBoy (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TypoBoy, thank you for your comment. I had discussions with people from different English-speaking countries on the Internet, from my personal experience, I noticed that:

1. Among Commonwealth countries, watershed is the preferred term for drainage divide, but we know what drainage divide means and we mainly consider this term to be the preferred term used by Northern American countries.

2. For drainage basin, some Commonwealth countries prefer to call it catchment basin or catchment area, but we would never use watershed to describe drainage basin and we consider it a strictly Northern American usage.

3. For Americans (general people, not journalists or academics), a lot of them don't realise that the word "watershed" has a different meaning in Commonwealth countries.

I once had a discussion with a guy on the Internet about a geography-related topic. He was confused and didn't really understand what I was talking about. I suddenly realised that he could be an American, so I asked him: "Dude, are you American?" He said yes. Then I changed my wording and replaced watershed with drainage divide, then suddenly he understood what I was talking about.

To sum up, I wouldn't say that drainage divide is a universal term, it appears to be "universal" because people in the Commonwealth countries have more knowledge about the different usages of "watershed", but I agree for disambiguation purposes, we should place it ahead of drainage basin (coz our English is the pure form of English, haha). Vic Park (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice in this series of edits you change piped links to avoid redirects and link common words and geographic expressions such as Africa and plant. Both are incorrect and contravene WP:NOPIPE and MOS:OVERLINK respectively. I was going to revert your edits but amongst them are occasional beneficial edits. Although the correct edits are in the minority I frankly couldn’t be bothered to sort it out to leave those in place so have left all your edits. But please refrain from doing this in future and review NOPIPE and OVERLINK. On NOPIPE, as a rule of thumb, if a link is blue and links to the correct article then leave it be. It doesn’t need to match an article title. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment about the overlinkings. I thought about deleting the link to plant too, but I decided to left there because the previous editors had not removed it. I will remove these links now. As for the redirects, redirects are supposed to serve as an indication for possible articles in the future. Plain redirects such as nongovernmental organization serve no real purpose other than adding extra bytes and loading time to the server. They are not worth retaining at all. Getting rid of unnecessary redirects isn't really a violation of the policy either. You have done the good thing by not abusing your revert function. When dealing with non-vandalism/non-misleading edits, we should never use the revert function as it is a proven stimulus of edit wars. Vic Park (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? “When dealing with non-vandalism/non-misleading edits, we should never use the revert function as it is a proven stimulus of edit wars.” is nonsense and not how things work at all. There are multiple reasons why an edit can and should be reverted - lack of WP:CONSENSUS is just one. What you shouldn’t do is re-revert if you’re attempting to change the article. I see your account has had a few hundred edits and existed for a few months. You have a lot to learn. I would have been entirely right to revert your failure to comply with NOPIPE. Your comment seems to reveal you don’t understand it. Read it again. If I see you making those unnecessary changes again I will revert you. And by the way, have a read of WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make threatening comments in other editor's talk page. Not all edits lack of WP:CONSENSUS should be reverted, especially if WP:RS is provided. I know I can't change the way you make your edits. Please don't try to change mine. When other people aren't making vandalisms or misleading edits, their work should be respected. I will never revert other people just because I don't agree with them. If parts of their work are incorrect, I will fix that part only. Vic Park (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their work should not and is not respected if it’s not an improvement to the article, does not meet standards of WP:COMPETENCE, WP norms or WP policy or guidelines and it’s expected to revert those sort of edits. In your case if you don’t comply with WP:NOPIPE again – which you failed to do on Socotra, and have not corrected despite it being highlighted to you – you will be reverted by me or anyone else. DeCausa (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am partly agreeing with you. However, deciding whether an edit is an improvement to the article or not would be subjective, that's why we need WP:CONSENSUS from other people if there is a dispute. The policy you've quoted does mention my point of view, but I get what you meant. It is not a consistent policy, I reckon it should be reviewed for improvement. Vic Park (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve misunderstood our policy. Yes, “improvement” is subjective but WP:CONSENSUS is required to change an article but not to revert the change immediately. In principle, a revert should stand unless a new CONSENSUS comes in to support the change. In other words, the status quo ante normally stands. You don’t need to find a CONSENSUS to revert to the existing text. There are exceptions: vandalism, and WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO infringements should be changed and shouldn’t be reverted. In the case of your edits that we are talking about my reverts (if I had made them) should stand and you shouldn’t revert them for two reasons: you infringed WP:NOPIPE (that’s not subjective - you did by trying to avoid redirects) and because you wanted to change the existing text. The existing text is deemed to have WP:EDITCONSENSUS and you are deemed not to have consensus because you are making the change. If, however, others come to support your changes then, and only then, consensus is deemed to switch to you. In the current case, as I did not revert you, your edits may over time acquire WP:EDITCONCENSUS status and to then change them would require a new consensus. (How long it takes to acquire EDITCONSENSUS is a judgment question). However, there is a grey area here. Because you didn’t comply with WP:NOPIPE some future editor may feel they can revert your changes whether or not they acquired EDITCONSENSUS. That’ how a lot of disputes start. I hope that’s clear now. DeCausa (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like your explanation and it does make sense. I just want to pointed out that the policy you've quoted isn't a perfect policy. I have provided a strong reason why some unnecessary redirects should be avoided as they are wasting our resources. I reckon the policy should be adjusted to correct this issue. In my opinion, you have done the good thing by not overinterpreting the WP:NOPIPE policy. As you've noted in your previous post, I am a pretty active editor and none of the other editors involved in the articles which I've contributed extensively seems to have a problem with my edits so far. In other words, they think my edits were fine, so my edits are likely to be fine (i.e. there is a de facto WP:EDITCONSENSUS in place). You could be the first editor to challenge my editing style, but without getting WP:CONSENSUS from other editors, your point of view would likely be labelled subjective (i.e. no evidence to prove what you said is what it should be). Vic Park (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not your editing style. Your editing against policy - and you’ve done it over a very short time with very few edits. You’ll just have to find out the hard way. I’ve done my best to explain it to you. I’m done. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your input. I might not be an old hand here, but I am very active. So far, I've received a few thanks from other editors along the way, so I think I am doing fine. If there is a problem with my edits in the future, I will make some adjustments accordingly. Vic Park (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have reverted my edit of that lists Indonesia under countries in the continent of Australia. Let me just say several things: 1) no part of Italy, mainland Spain or Portugal is located within Africa. On the other hand western Papua is an integral part of Indonesia, not an overseas department. 2) I have specified that only a part of Indonesia is located in Australia, I did not list the entirety of Indonesia as an “Australian country”. 3) Speaking of being in line with other geography articles, we do in fact list Egypt as a country [partly] in Asia and Turkey as country [partly] in Europe - even though they have the majority of their land in Africa and Asia respectively. Best regards. Andro611 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Here is my response:

1) Italy has the Pelagie Islands and Pantelleria in Africa. None of the parts of Italy, Spain or Portugal are overseas dependencies. In fact, all French overseas departments or regions are also integral parts of France under the French Constitution.

2) Which is confusing. Countries with only a small part of their land on another continent should not be included in the country count of that continent, instead, they are listed under "internal territories" as separate regions. That's a standard practice when editing Wikipedia geography articles.

3) Egypt is not listed as an Asian country. The general consensus reached in Wikipedia is that Eurasian countries (transcontinental countries with land in both Europe and Asia) are counted as both European and Asian countries. That's because these two areas are treated as separate continents due to historical and cultural reasons rather than clear geographical barriers. The boundaries between Europe and Asia are also heavily disputed, hence Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan have been listed as countries of both continents. For other transcontinental countries, only one continent is applicable: Egypt (Africa), Indonesia (Asia), and the United States (North America). Vic Park (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vic Park:

Thank you for your latest contributions to this article. However, I must respectfully disagree with the premise that the Indian subcontinent and Myanmar are not generally considered part of Asia-Pacific, as your latest edits seem to suggest. I have several sources suggesting they are in fact considered part of that region. Here they are:

https://dkiapcss.edu/about/ap-countries/

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/apac-countries

And here is a link to a Wikipedia article about the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement. Sri Lanka, India, and Bangladesh all signed it. Further evidence that the Indian subcontinent is part of Asia-Pacific https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia-Pacific_Trade_Agreement207.255.243.110 (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC) 207.255.243.110 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. As stated in the article, there is no consensus about the exact scope of Asia-Pacific (e.g. your sources include the likes of the United States and Chile in the Asia-Pacific region too). I understand what your mean, I will rephrase my edit to make it more WP:NPOV. Vic Park (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vic, Buka is part of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, which in turn is part of Papua New Guinea. Bougainville is absolutely not part of Solomon Islands, although the Shortlands used to be part of North Solomons but now part of Solomon Islands even though all these islands are within the Solomon Islands (archipelago) There is a separate article for Solomon Islands and for the Solomon Islands archipelago because they are two entirely different things. Please read both articles before changing this again. I shall leave your change for the time being but there is a very confused understanding of this region at the moment. Ex nihil ^(talk) 18:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. The reason I mentioned about Buka is because the version you tried to maintain states that only Bougainville Island is a part of the Solomon Islands (archipelago) instead of the whole the Autonomous Region of Bougainville (See link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solomon_Islands&direction=prev&oldid=1129208807), which I've now corrected it. I think both of us have a clear understanding of the difference between Solomon Islands (country) and the Solomon Islands (archipelago), but you have misunderstood my edits. I edited both articles to make them more clear to the readers and I've inserted edit summaries which I think you've not read attentively. For Infobox, we don't include the definite article "the" unless it is a part of the subject's formal name (compare the Netherlands with The Bahamas). Also, the proper name for the archipelago is "the Solomon Islands", not "the Solomon Islands archipelago", hence the word "archipelago" is in the parentheses in the title. Vic Park (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks!      — Freoh 10:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I generally contribute with minor edits. When reverting vandalisms/false information, or if my edit generates more than 100 characters, I would generally leave an edit summary. In the future, I will leave as many edit summaries as I can for non-minor edits. Vic Park (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Continent has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted with thanks. Vic Park (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Continent shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization ^Talk 04:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sending me a reminder. I've provided reasons and reliable sources to back up my edit in the edit summary. I think there won't be any more disputes among me and the other editor now. In the future, I would follow the 3RR rule if anyone disputes with my edits. Vic Park (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Ppt91 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vic Park I realize this is second such notice in the last 30 days and I think it's a good practice to make edit summaries a habit especially for articles with multiple editors. You obviously have a track record of valuable contributions, so please do make sure to leave even short edit descriptions. Thank you! Ppt91 (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for your compliment. I often focused on editing the content and forgot to leave an edit summary, especially the minor edits. I would do my best to leave more edit summaries in the future. Vic Park (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Water resources, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Kyle Anderson (basketball), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Specifically per MOS:BIRTHPLACE is not placed with the birthyear in the lead sentence. Also, there's no evidence that he's not still American, so let's not use "American-born" instead. —Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. You are right about his basketball position, according to the source, Kyle played as a small forward during the first few years of his career.

American-Chinese and American-born Chinese are the same thing though. Vic Park (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Order qualified teams table per Confederation. Consistency with past editions. Island92 (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then all past editions need to be changed. Wikipedia is not a place to be wrong in all the right ways. If you look at other stats tables, including both sports articles and non-sports articles, they have always been ranked by the first and most important column (i.e. teams, clubs, cities, countries, islands, continents, personal names etc.), not the second column or the third column. Rank teams by confederations doesn't make any sense here. Why should teams from the South American confederation always rank first? Why not the European teams? Why not teams from other confederation? Vic Park (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a consensus reached in the Project. To make things change, discuss it again. For the time being, it must be per previously established. Island92 (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw you used the name "Türkiye" as the name of the country generally known in English as "Turkey" in your recent edit.

Q: Why don't you use the name Türkiye, the correct name for this country?

A: Because the English-language Wikipedia has a WP:COMMONNAME policy. We use names for countries and places that are the names commonly used for them in English, regardless of what official organizations use. Technically, this kind of name is known as an exonym. For example, we use the name Germany, instead of the native endonym Deutschland, and we use the name Japan instead of the native name 日本.

Q: But the Turkish government, U.S. State Department, and United Nations all use "Türkiye", so it must be correct.

A: Indeed they do. But WP:COMMONNAME is not authority-based, but usage-based.

Notice that this does not apply when we are quoting a literal name in Turkish; for example, the newspaper is called Türkiye, not Turkey. To do that would be hypercorrection, and we don't do that. Nor do we mangle the name into English in direct quotations, including titles of documents, nor in URLs. But it does apply for all uses in Wikipedia's own voice in the English language, including article titles (so the capital is Ankara, Turkey, not "Ankara, Türkiye")

If or when that general English-language usage changes (as has happened in the past with place names such as Mumbai and Beijing), the same WP:COMMONNAME policy implies that the English-language Wikipedia will necessarily also follow suit. So far, that hasn't happened.

This has been discussed many times, with the same result every time because of the common name policy. If you'd like to discuss this further, please take it up at Talk:Turkey. — The Anome (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about the "Turkey vs. Türkiye" issue. The common name for Türkiye is Turkey, I get that and I wasn't changing Turkey to Türkiye in my edits, but the country's official name is the "Republic of Türkiye" (read the first sentence of the article Turkey). I agree with you that when we mention the country in general, we should use its common name, which is Turkey, but when we mention the country's official name, we should use the proper one by keeping consistency with the first sentence of Turkey. Vic Park (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vic Park! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Christchurch that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please undo the changes to the lead. Your grammar is incorrect. Schwede66 18:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Someone has already made the changes for me.

I can understand the in/on preference. I think New Zealanders are treating North Island and South Island as two areas instead of two actual islands. Hence, they prefer to use "in the North/South Island" instead of "on the North/South Island".

However, I still don't understand why the definite article "the" is omitted before Banks Peninsula in New Zealand English. As far as I know, all peninsulas should have the definite article "the" written before their name. There are plenty of sources, including local NZ sources, which use "the Banks Peninsula" instead of just "Banks Peninsula", so I think your claim that the definite article "the" should be omitted before Banks Peninsula is invalid.

Sources:

• https://www.discovernewzealand.com/destination/akaroa-banks-peninsula-1445 (Discover New Zealand)
• https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/new-zealand/articles/top-10-things-to-see-and-do-in-akaroa-banks-peninsula-new-zealand (The Culture Trip)
• https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2020/12/Banks_Peninsula_New_Zealand (European Space Agency)
• https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia12062-banks-peninsula-new-zealand (NASA)
• https://services.math.duke.edu/~das/travel/new%20zealand/Banks%20Peninsula/ (Duke University)

By the way, I thought my edit was a minor one as I was only correcting typos and grammar mistakes. No significant changes were made. Vic Park (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you've been told elsewhere, "the" certainly does not belong there. The "in/on" issue may well be regarded as a minor issue (even if you got it wrong, as it were), but adding a definite article squarely falls outside the definition of a minor edit: Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Schwede66 19:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Banks Peninsula is a special case, it violates the general grammatical rule. Adding "the" before a peninsula shouldn't be considered a significant change as most people would treat it as "correcting a grammatical error". Vic Park (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. You have added a word to the article and therefore it’s not a minor edit. If you were to follow the link and read the definition of minor edit, you would find that it does not include grammatical corrections. Schwede66 15:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In English the plural of aircraft is aircraft and not aircrafts. See plural of aircraft. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the mistake. Vic Park (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you re-inserted all of the excessive links. Please DON'T. See WP:OVERLINK. Tony (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you would consider those links to be excessive links. As far as I can tell, most infoboxes do link the person's occupations. I have partially restored my edit and kept her main occupations linked as a compromise.

By the way, Bai Jia-li is a woman, so she is an actress, not an actor. Vic Park (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, edits like this one are pretty useless, as they don't change anything for our readers. Edits without changing visible output are strongly discouraged, because not only are they irrelevant, they use bandwidth and clog up other editors' watchlists. Why someone would waste time changing "Reflist" to "reflist" is beyond me (and note that automated edit scripts will revert that particular edit and that the wikimarkup listed for insertion underneath the edit window displays this with a capital...) Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I know it is a minor edit. I tried to implement WP:CONSISTENCY among Wikipedia articles. As far as I can tell, most articles use {{reflist}} instead of {{Reflist}} as their reference template, so I just changed the few ones which still use {{Reflist}} to align with the majority. I know it doesn't change anything, it is just my personal editing style. Vic Park (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not just a minor edit. It's an edit without any visible change to the article and as such discouraged. Do you have a link to where it says the "reflist" is preferable over "Reflist"? CONSISTENCY doesn't say anything about that. --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it is a fact. I've edited a lot of articles, that's just a plain fact. Vic Park (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that these edits (1 Aug 2024: [1], [2], [3]) are even worse. Please consider whether you are making constructive changes to the project, and not just wasting your own time. Edits like this can give the impression of edit-farming. Note that your edit count does not matter. — HTGS (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's just my editing style, it doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies. None of them are WP:SPAM or WP:VANDALISM either. If you think they are wasting time, it is my time not your time. I think people should just let go and focus on their own edits instead of caring about other people's business.

By the way, please don't insist on changing hosts to host. A host is a person who receives or entertains other people as guests. When a country or a company is organising an event, it is called the hosts (a team of hosts) not the host. Vic Park (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was being polite. You are wasting your time, my time, anyone else’s time who goes to check the edit, and you are forcing servers all over the world to update their version of the page, and creating a new version of the page that has to be archived in its page history, this is spending the Wikimedia Foundation’s money, and burning energy (often coal) to do so. The capital letter at the start of a link, and especially to a template, does not matter. Nobody will ever see or care the difference between reflist and Reflist. It makes zero difference. It is like getting out with a dust brush to sweep dust off the highway. The same goes for line breaks that are rendered out in the visible version of the page. I have no issue with you making such changes if you see them while making more substantive edits, but please don’t go out of your way to “fix” things that don’t need fixing.

On the unrelated issue of your changing host to hosts [4] you should know that “host country” or “host city” is most common in English (see, eg List of Olympic Games host cities). But more importantly, when your edit is reverted, it is your job not to insist on making your change over and over, but to make the case for what you want changed at the talk page. This is described well at WP:BRD, and I really recommend you read it, as it makes the case for avoiding edit wars pretty well. — HTGS (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Those edits are useless and just clog up peoples' watchlists and waste their time as they have to check your edits. Edits that result in no visible change are strongly discouraged. Continuing making such edits is disruptive and may get you blocked from editing. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note: this kind of editing is covered by policy, specifically WP:COSMETICBOT (which ends with While this policy applies only to bots, human editors should also follow this guidance if making such changes in a bot-like manner.) While it's not a strict ban, cosmetic-only changes are definitely discouraged and it's worth listening to and considering other editor's feedback here. Retro (talk | contribs) 23:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this talk page to say the same thing about this and other edits. Please stop; I wouldn't want to see you blocked over such a trivial issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FINAL WARNING. You have now been warned by multiple people. The next time you make such an edit, you will be blocked from editing. --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]