So you take down a valid argument about western university chancellor mandating experimental boosters. This makes you nothing but a politically motivated censor and a detriment to the truth and humanity. Shame on you I can't wait for your judgment day 2607:FEA8:29E0:6600:F96F:A674:8C5E:62C5 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced opinions to yourself. Wikipedia is not a personal blog. Similar edits WILL be reverted.

Riverbend21 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I made an edit where I put "poly" next to Polyester. Thought it was an accurate abbreviation.

Best,

Zselby7 Zselby7 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for revert: Your edit appeared unconstructive, there's no need to abbreviate "polyester". There is also the possibility that "poly" could mean polythene, polyester, or polymerise, so it is not entirely clear.  

Best,

Riverbend21 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood.

Thanks for the clarification! Zselby7 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you can't tell the difference between "Carlsen insinuated" and "This was perceived by some in the community...", you have an issue with interpretation. None of the sources mentioned Carlsen definitively insinuated that Niemann cheated (e.g. by interviewing Carlsen or by facts determined in a court of law), but rather third-party observers and commentators believed that Carlsen insinuated. This is a very significant difference. It is improper to "accuse" Carlsen of insinuating as though it were fact in the lede and yes, Wikipedia and/or the editors could be sued for misrepresenting Carlsen - which I believe Wikipedia very much wants to avoid (go read up the Wikipedia BLP policy). I see that someone else has changed it to "Many interpreted his withdrawal as an insinuation..." which is similar to what I had edited, even though "many" is considered weasel words - no one knows for sure whether Carlsen insinuated, but it is a fact that people believe that he did insinuate. From other posts on your talk page, you really have to assume good faith and stop going around telling people they are making unconstructive edits. --121.7.1.169 (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice taken. You must also understand that some edits ARE unconstructive and need to be identified as such even though that might not be the case for this specific edit of yours. Riverbend21 (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Riverbend21! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Assault weapon several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Assault weapon, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you. Riverbend21 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I improved the page and you reverted the changes due to some Manual of Styles. can you explain how can I correct it? And would you restore it if I request to correct my mistake Kenddjss (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you point me to the edit in question so I can address that? Thanks. Riverbend21 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhvi Rithambara was the one. I provided citations and route to the concerned website too. Anyway I did the changes again and removed the suspicious part. but for future precautions pls tell me where was I wrong Kenddjss (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're the person who has edited Antara Nandy's article as a fan page. All I did was change the contemptuous phrase "Super Mega hit PS-1" to the film's real name Ponniyin Selvan: I. You have edited her page so bad it's as if it's a fan page. And you have linked all her songs to your personal YouTube account?!? What a shame that such people are determined to destroy every good article in Wikipedia. You've edited my page stating that I'm a disruptive editor?!? If I could ban your account I'd do it a million times. 115.96.87.63 (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has already been rectified, so changing my TP to remove my comment will have no effect. Please be civil. Riverbend21 (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i am all new to this but everytime i put this on All four grandchildren maintain their places in the order of succession. It is removed and i am warned i could be blocked but it is a statement of fact as it was in the statement put out by the Royal House H.K.H45 (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for revert: You did not provide a reliable source despite multiple warnings. Riverbend21 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says it on the statement put out by the royal house H.K.H45 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have to cite it in the article. Riverbend21 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now i understand am new to this and not sure how to do it how would i link the statement in the royal house website to the page thankyou H.K.H45 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this user keeps changing my edits when I correct a spelling error on a wikipedia article and it looks like he's done this before, something needs to be done 169.227.253.8 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accepts more than one version of English. Changing English versions unnecessarily is discouraged. Check WP:ENGVAR Riverbend21 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral, I'm a Turkmen and I researched this war a lot, I'm just adding the missing parts AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORY OF MY ANCIENT FATHERS? Excuse my harsh attitude. Musahan 8989 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on your Talk Page, your edit failed to adhere to WP:NPOV when you used words like "heroically". I apologise for upsetting you; Wikipedia sets the rules here. Riverbend21 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change to the article on non-denominated postage to reflect the present reality in the Netherlands, that there are no separate "World" and "Europe" stamps for sale and that all stamps are "International". For some unknown reason, this change was deemed "vandalism", which I don't get: I live in the Netherlands, I have for the past over two years, and I am rather acquainted with the postal system here. Simply claiming that a change is vandalism for actually updating something to reflect reality is puzzling. 92.108.1.40 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I'm self reverting now. Riverbend21 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your talkpage looks much the same as many other editors who do RC patrol, that's pretty typical, don't worry about it too much. Anyway, in this edit you removed a good-faith (though malformed) effort to communicate with another editor via their talkpage. The editor in question actually had a genuine issue. Removing that sort of thing from editor's talkpages can be seen as bite-y, and can hinder communication. If it's good-faith, just leave it there, and the editor they are trying to contact can either remove it themselves, or format it properly, then respond. If it's obviously bad-faith (personal attacks, obvious vandalism) then by all means revert it. Cheerio and happy patrolling! Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! Riverbend21 (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw your comments of vandalism when reverting my legitimate edits. 142.167.11.9 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you would let me know which edit you are referring to so I can respond accordingly. Riverbend21 (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Kennedy--142.167.11.9 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]