User talk:Manderston#At the age of

What have you got against the perfectly normal English usage "at the age of"? DuncanHill (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:"at the age of" is the preferred usage on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Manderston}} please provide your justification for changing "at the age of" to "aged" in countless articles. This is non-common English and there is no policy on "verbosity" that would justify such a thing. Moreover, "at the age of" is clearly acceptable and MOS:VAR says you should not change a variation without some substantial reason. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 19:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm BlueboyLINY. I noticed that you recently removed content from :Simon Callow without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BlueboyLINY (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information orange.svg Please do not add or change content, as you did at :Helen Whitwell, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DANGA14^talk 17:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

25px Do not WP:EDITWAR, as you did with your recent edit to :George Robey. If you continue to do so, you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Instead, use the WP:BRD process, if your initial suggestion is rejected, to open a discussion about the reasons for your proposed changes. Also, every time you edit an article, please leave an edit summary in the box at the bottom of the edit screen to explain why you are proposing changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Nuvola apps important.svg 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 :Andrew Lloyd Webber, you may be blocked from editing. BlueboyLINY (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hi Manderston! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a 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. Read the guidance. Before you do, do NOT tick the minor edit box. Schwede66 01:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|accept=I have unblocked you. In future, please leave an edit summary, and respond to user talk page notices. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)|reason=Blocking my account is pointless and actually utterly ludicrous. The editing was not at all disruptive and in some cases I was reverting vandalism. Most of my edits were merely changes as per MOS:POSTNOM. How can implementing something as per MOS be disruptive editing?!}}

File:Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on :William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Serial (speculates here) 20:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:(ec) {{re|PhilKnight}} I object to the unblock. this editor has a long history of refusing to communicate. Doesn't respond here, doesn't leave edit summaries, and then when you block makes what is a pretty clear threat to sock. "Blocking my account is pointless". Edit has shown no understanding whatsoever of the necessity for communication, just doubled-down on "I am right and everyone else is wrong". DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Yep. They've literally gone back to doing what they were doing before. Vive recidivism! Serial (speculates here) 21:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, I third (?) this. They've just gone back to spam reverting and trying to force their preferred interpretation of the MOS onto others without consideration for the fact that other editors disagree and consider it content removal. They haven't learnt, and the block should be reinstated as a preventative measure, until they understand that they can't just mass revert when challenged. Billclinton1996 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|PhilKnight}}, I also suggest that reinstating the block is the right thing to do. User did not respond to my request above, but carries on editing without edit summary, and incorrectly marking their edits as minor when they are clearly not minor (removing content, if only a single word, is never a minor edit; there are good reasons why such edits should not be marked as minor). Schwede66 07:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm Darth Stabro. I noticed that you recently removed content from :Pope Benedict XVI without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 18:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hi Manderston! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a 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. Thank you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 18:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi PhilKnight, this user is continuing to engage in some of the same behavior for which they were previously banned; no edit comments, marking things as minor edits that are not, etc. Would appreciate a review. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 19:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You must stop tagging your edits as "rvv". rvv means reverting vandalism, when in fact you are reverting editors who have a good-faith disagreement with you. I'm suer you were told about this on one of your previous accounts. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Your changes to George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham have broken the WP:3RR rule. It appears you are only here to WP:GAME the system. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Please don't leave edit summaries of "rvv" for good faith disagreements like you did recently. Please stop marking your edits as minor when they are not. And please leave an edit summary, which you stopped doing recently. PhilKnight (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• You are still misusing "rvv". You have been warned. Blocks could follow. PhilKnight (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

(Permalink to the ANI.){{pb}}

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 19:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

By "Disruptive editing", I mean edit warring, misusing minor edit, calling other editor's edits vandalism. You're also refusing to engage with other editors. All after a block for the same behavior was undone with a warning. This is a collaborative project, you cannot ignore other editors. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:Oh, one more thing. If there is an unblock request, the reviewing admin should (a) look at the ANI report mentioned above for more specifics, and (b) look at the previous unblock request. I'd recommend some kind of acknowledgment that this behavior is going to change. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::Here's the link to the discussion in the archive for anyone who needs it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180#User:Manderston WaggersTALK 12:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)