User talk:Posaidonman

Copyediting is difficult!

Hi Posaidonman, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I see that you have taken on the task of copyediting articles, and I'd like to ask you to be a bit more careful when you do that. Copyediting is not straightforward, and there are a couple of things I wanted to mention to you. First, while it's best not to make lots of very minor changes, making a single edit with a large number of small changes is also not ideal. This edit, for instance, contains a couple of improvements (I agree that "awarded" is more neutral than "honoured with"), but also introduces several errors (theories are not discovered, the space-time crystal phenomenon shows fermion densities – present tense, not past – and names of professorial chairs don't take the definite article, for instance), and several changes from one correct phrasing to another equally correct one. In such cases, it is a lot of work to revert only the incorrect changes, so often the edit will be reverted in its entirety. What I recommend that you do instead is work on one section at a time, because that way there will only be a few changes in each edit. Also make sure to use the "Preview" button before publishing – I suspect that you would not have made this change from "At age 24, he decided he could not proceed as a priest" to "At age 24, he decided to move away priesthood" if you'd read through the edited text before publishing it! I do agree that the previous phrasing was not very good, and I've rewritten that entire section a bit.

Another thing you should be aware of, which isn't really to do with copyediting, is that information in the introductory paragraph (the lede) does not need a source, provided there's sourcing for the information in the article body. The introduction is supposed to summarise the most important parts of the (sourced) article text. It does happen that the lede contains claims that are not sourced in the body, and then it's of course appropriate to tag for sources. --bonadea contributions talk 13:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anuradha Pal. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. .

Again, please be more careful when you copyedit. If you do not understand why the changes you made to Anuradha Pal were not improvements, it would be better if you worked in areas other than copyediting. bonadea contributions talk 21:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. .

Please be more careful when you copyedit. Have you read the long message above? As I had pointed out in my edit summary, Anuradha Pal was in need of copyediting and it was in rather poor shape, but I'm sorry to say that after your massive edit it is in fact in worse shape. It is equally promotional (you removed some blatant advertising but also added some hype) and it also contains more instances of garbled English such as "As a child prodigy when barely nine years old she countered chauvinism, discrimination and politics" and "making her in the forefront of online music education". bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Sam Byibesho, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See MOS:DATE CodeTalker (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my bad! I will try to be better do you know if you can tell me an issue I did? Posaidonman (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at my mistakes, My bad i was wrong, I corrected to the correct DMY version Posaidonman (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is still incorrect. The first change that you made used dates with ordinal numbers, like "25th of April". This is always incorrect; MOS:BADDATE says that we never uses dates with ordinal numbers. The second change that you made changed dates from MDY to DMY. This is wrong for a different reason; MOS:DATERET says that either MDY or DMY dates can be used, but once established in an article, they should not be changed. I have restored the original MDY dates, which were fine. CodeTalker (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somone added a comment to change to DMY as such I followed the comment, if I was assuming that the community in charge of the article made that a communitywide desicion but if not I am so incredibly sorry, furethermore would you recommend reading the entire MOS so I know better or just passages as a write Posaidonman (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I did not check the article history carefully. You are correct that there is a {{Use dmy dates}} template on the article, and in fact the article used DMY dates for most of its history until they were incorrectly changed on 21 September 2025 in this edit. This was a mistake by User:Salllysings. I have restored your last edit, which was correct. I apologize again for my misreading of the article history. CodeTalker (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its all good! We all make mistakes I dont take any offence dont worry. By the way thank you for helping me improve my edits. Posaidonman (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]