User talk:Venqax

Welcome

Hello, Venqax, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - wolf 02:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

August 2014

unanswered questions: When did she changer her name to Osborne, Osbourne, Osburn etc? She married again? And the nickname (?) Goody is introduced without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venqax (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to List of demonyms for U.S. states has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: List of demonyms for U.S. states was changed by Venqax (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.85585 on 2015-12-28T01:39:20 00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo's name

The point raised by you often crops up. Important Italians are known by their Christian name. Dante's full name was Durante degli Aligheri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.137.131 (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:General of the Armies were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. - wolf 02:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm KylieTastic. An edit that you recently made to General of the Air Force seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! KylieTastic (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - wolf 03:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added note

On Talk:United States Army officer rank insignia, you posted a comment in the middle of another editor's comment, which I'm sure was just an error, but just the same I corrected it for you. As it was an older thread, (one that should've been archived before now), and a lengthy thread, I moved your comment to the bottom, and added a quote of the paragraph from the comment you were replying to. As the thread is from 2007, normally one wouldn't expect a reply, but the editor you were replying to appears to still be active, so... maybe.

Going forward, please use the proper means to sign your posts, use the WP:PREVIEW function to review your edits before saving, to reduce errors and the numbers of edits in the page history, and take care where you add your comments, so not to disrupt others editor's posts, or threads in general. Thank you - wolf 03:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Hello, just saw your comments at Talk:Five-star rank and thought you might want to have a look at Talk:Admiral of the Navy (United States)#Higher rank review (if you haven't already) and perhaps contribute to that discussion. Also, just reminder to sign all your posts. Thanks - wolf 22:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Pronunciation of GIF are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

I've reverted your unexplained and tendentious removal of sourced content at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Please don't do that again. Bishonen | tålk 16:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Who are you, Bishonen? Venqax (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Tendentious editing is a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view." Does this not apply to the original text, only to edits? Just asking, because there is so much tendentiousness in this article, it's hard to know where to start.Venqax (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article text doesn't go by your opinion or my opinion, but by reliable sources. The text you removed was sourced. If you want to make changes, please bring sources of your own. As for who I am, I'm an administrator who happens to watch the article in question; that's how I noticed your edits. Bishonen | tålk 19:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

PS. I see you have continued making poor edits to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Sorry, but who does "they" refer to here? It seems to refer to Trump and his allies, but that's probably not what you meant. Mysterious. I suppose I can hardly ask you to source something I can't parse... oh well. Anyway, it has been reverted, not by me. I don't think you're exactly following the contentious-topics advice above: "Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations". You realize you can be topic banned from post-1992 American politics if you persist in editing in an opinionated way without regard for sources? Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Then don't tendentiate, Bishonen. If you are an administrator, you should be doing what I am, and remove tendentious adjectives, at the least. You don't need sources for that. Nothing I changed requires sourcing. E.g. "legally cast ballots" vs. "ballots they claimed were illegal". I am a professional writer and editor. It is also not aceptable to hide behind "sources" when the issue is the language itself. You can quote biased reporting and say it's sourced. You don't let Trump's claims go just because they are "sourced". That is lazy and dishonest. Do your job. Venqax (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

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! Bishonen | tålk 16:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]