User talk:Goldenpeacock123

National varieties of English

In a recent edit to the page Violet (color), you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, please visit the help desk. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Blindness in animals. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 02:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It did not include a citation of an independent, reliable source, hence it was effectively your opinion and not permitted here. See WP:BURDEN. General Ization ^Talk 02:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you used ([1]) a misleading edit summary, "Small grammer[sic] fix", even though your edit was clearly controversial and had nothing at all to do with grammar (note correct spelling). Using such edit summaries makes it appear that you are attempting to dissuade others from verifying your edit. This may be construed as deliberately WP:DISRUPTive. In the future, please use edit summaries that fairly describe your changes. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Plantation, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Plantation was changed by Goldenpeacock123 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.958664 on 2016-03-21T02:14:21+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Horses in World War I.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Horses in World War I was changed by Goldenpeacock123 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.983815 on 2016-03-21T02:20:01+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

calm down, no need to go ballistic

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]