Is really my contribution not "constructive"? Or is it maybe vandalism? Why did you revert my contribution, I believe it is interesting and informative and let other people know that as well. "Wikipedians who undertake Recent Changes patrol. These users use the recent changes section to monitor what others do to Wikipedia articles, and revert or undo the changes if they are identified as vandalism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- The main reason I reverted your edit was the address of the Ponant offices on the island and the link to the hiring page of their website, which would be prohibited per WP:ELNO. I'm also note quite convinced their headquarters are on Uvea - the Compagnie du Ponant article lists it in Marseille, and while the careers link you placed gave that address for crew applicants, there's also an address for office staff applicants. If you could find a source that definitively says their headquarters is in Uvea that would indeed be interesting information. Cannolis (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm Amilea Wang :) I'm currently taking most of the Kpop Fandom by my raps and the fact that I'm a trainee under a full storm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- See [[WP:RS] and WP:COI]. Anything you add to Wikipedia needs to be supported by sources, and it is almost never a good idea to write an article about yourself. Cannolis (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
What was wrong with my change to "Weyl law"?
At 12:48, 22 May 2006, I edited the page "Weyl law", and during that very same minute (!) you reverted my change with a justification that "it did not appear constructive". Thus I have to say that:
- It's certainly minor and unimportant but hardly unconstructive. It may be useful for those who come to the page looking for a specific formula and don't want to waste those few minutes that it takes to compute the constant in it.
- Are you a bot?
- My mistake, I use a 3rd party browser to scan through recent edits as they go through, misread this one. Have undone my revert, and apologies. Cannolis (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Strictly, that only applies to stuff like printer's pie ("gfyttyv uivyutrrfgfc") or stuff that is otherwise incomprehensible ("steak rotifer flanges overcasting breadfruit commonwealth"). If it can be read as an English statement, it doesn't count as nonsense. Bronzefish was an attempt at humour, and mildly funny (to me, at least). I deleted it as A1 (insufficient context), but hoax would have done too. Peridon (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk Italo-Greek War
It is important to remove the reference to the brave Italian soldiers who fought in that campaign as the "macaroni boys". It is derogatory and unnecessary and adds nothing to the Analysis section. Secondly, it would be right and historically accurate to include a brief statement about the surrender of the Greek forces to the Italians and the terms of that surrender. After all, the armistice was signed by the Greeks to both the Germans and the Italians. Why mention only the German armistice and not the Italian one a few days later? The omission is rather odd.
I have tried several times to rectify the above but my good faith edits are constantly reverted because I am suspected of being a sock puppet of a previous banned editor called AnnalesSchool. I can only verify that I am not he! Generally, natural justice dictates that one should be presumed innocent first until proven guilty! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)