User talk:DepthsDoes

Hello, I'm ElHef. An edit that you recently made to Craig Electronics seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your 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! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. In a recent edit, 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 another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article 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, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Hello. When an article is not clearly about a British or American subject, we don't change the spelling from one to the other. I usually scan for the word meter or metre to decide which language is in use for a particular article. Constant314 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please can you link the page in question? DepthsDoes (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lenz's law Constant314 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also please take a look at Wikipedia:SULFUR which supersedes language variant for scientific articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is a special manual of style of chemical articles. See MOS:CHEM. Constant314 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

But sulPHur is correct bc Wikipedia prefers British English. I believe it's noted in the Manual of Style. DepthsDoes (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

FYI that is absolutely false. And that is extremely nonsensical for any community content site whatsoever, but especially an American owned one. There is no such thing as Wikipedia preferring one sitewide language setting. He perfectly clearly explained it, and linked to the relevant policies, and you denied all that with a baseless guess. I know that comment is old, but you haven't learned much in these last two years and are still now stubbornly broadcasting content that is antithetical to an encyclopedia. — Smuckola(talk) 23:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's British english, therefore it is the correct spelling. Sorry, but this is how dialects work. DepthsDoes (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sulfur. 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. Please do not change the variety of English in articles. The particular article you edited was plainly marked with American English. Constant314 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You recently edited the article Stack Exchange. Thank you for contributing! In this case, I removed your edit, as it seems that Stack Exchange is not in fact a pun on "Stock Exchange" at all, as multiple users there have confirmed. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] If you disagree with me, please do not revert the edit, instead please reply to me here and I will respond as soon as I can. Thank you, and have a nice day! NOTE:I am a new user here. If I am doing something wrong or in any other way being disruptive or stupid, please let me know (or whack me with a wet trout). TheTopRocketFan (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Raspberry Pi OS, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Raspberry Pi OS, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Stop writing WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:FANCRUFT. Every edit you make needs to be completely backed with a WP:RS. WP:VGRS has a list for video games. Stop editing altogether until you have solidly read and comprehended all those links, and then try to confine your contributions to typographical issues. Even genres and dates must be sourced. You are still mass spamming so much unencyclopedic content, even after countless warnings, that it indicates that you think Wikipedia is a toy, or is a fansite for your hobbies. You and I are interested in a lot of subjects that attract a lot of fancruft abuse, and two wrongs don't make a right just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Users can be blocked for this and you're lucky you haven't been. But that's only because nobody has been actively watching you that reports chronic abuse, until now. It has been hard for me to find any valid edits in your history. I haven't reverted all of them, sometimes because it's just that annoying to dig lots of things up in articles that are already so full of unencyclopedic content. Again, users can be blocked for edits like most yours that I've seen for months. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 23:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Smuck! I know you're a big name on this site, but you should know that I was just trying to help out. Let's take it from the top now. Firstly, WP:OR doesn't apply here. There was no OR in this edit: The date of release for the first version of the OS can be seen in the RPDx86 file archive. The official install guide says that 8GB of HDD space is recommended, and everything was taken from the official RasPi website, which IS a WP:RS (the manufacturer's website would be usually considered a very reliable source). Secondly, the info does not fall under WP:TRIVIA, because this isn't trivia. Infact, it's quite the opposite - it's a version of Raspberry Pi OS that barely anybody seems to mention. I felt it was only obvious that RPDx86 be added to the page. In addition, I do NOT fancruft, nor have I ever AFAIK. And Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has nowt to do with this. Simply put, I'm trying my best to provide good information and cite it with my edits. Finally, for reference, I am only human, and I am only an adolescent, so cut me some slack, okay? Thanks. Now I'd like those changes reverted, as you are in power to do so, and yet again, I apologise. DepthsDoes (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello my friend. FYI if you type @Smuckola: (or {{reply to|Smuckola}}) then it'll notify me. Yeah Wikipedia's features are primitive and janky from apparently before you were born ;) Ok well yeah I know you mean well my friend, but you really need to stop and study what everybody here is saying, and remember that encyclopedic principles are very very very hard. The number one culprit in any problem on Wikipedia is Wikipedia because it is lures in anybody with the false promise that anything goes, until you get a door slammed in your face with surprise rules. The rules are actually as complicated as a bachelor degree that not everybody could get, but Wikipedia has no credentials or certifications or formal training. I see people who actually have bachelor degrees in mass communications and journalism violating the most basic concepts of journalism on Wikipedia all the time. Yeah it's an insanely unfair public trap which isn't your fault. To make it much worse, your favorite articles are already full of unencyclopedic junk that nobody has deleted yet so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a bad example and as further bait to dogpile upon it.

However, you're just discounting everybody. In other words, it could be said that especially because you're an adolescent you need to cut everybody else some slack and actually stop and study hard because you're wasting a lot of volunteers' time over misunderstanding bedrock rules.

WP:OR WP:N WP:RS are a tough philosophy down to the core of what we are: subjective bias. They are core policy of Wikipedia because it is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and admins can block for violating it. That's not anybody's opinion and it's really hard to comprehend, and everybody of any age or experience needs to read those a zillion times because we are only human! You said basically "this isn't trivia because it isn't trivia" which is a tautology, and then you defended it by stating an essential component of the definition of what trivia is. You just waved your hand to dismiss everything I and everybody else have said to you on this page, and continuously made the same mistakes which are at the heart of what the encyclopedia is. People get blocked for stuff like that all the time and I'd be real sad if that happened to you.

The manufacturer's site is categorically absolutely not a WP:RS, which you said because you feel like it should be, not out of understanding of WP:RS. It is rather a WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY and you need to study the difference. The WP:RS should be secondary, not primary, and be written by a journalist with an editor standing in oversight. If we cited a primary source, it could only be a situational source for minor details well after secondary reliable sources were given, and only sometimes. What we subjectively think is "good information" is totally irrelevant, and is usually WP:TRIVIA, WP:FANCRUFT, or WP:NOTMANUAL.

Sorry for writing a lot. Let me know when you fully read WP:N WP:OR WP:RS several times and start to understand. — Smuckola(talk) 19:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply