User talk:Manualbadeditfix
Unreferenced content
[edit]
Please stop adding unreferenced content to articles. The following [1] may help you understand where you are going wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF04:D9FE:354F:3863:897F:16B6 (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Manualbadeditfix! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
If you have any questions at all, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Happy editing! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Keep up the quality anti-vandalism work! 🪷 nahida 17:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC) |
September 2025
[edit]
Hi Manualbadeditfix! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Raunaq Yar Khan several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Raunaq Yar Khan, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
- 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.
You have recently made edits related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups. This is a standard message to inform you that the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
September 2025
[edit] Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to change the title of a page by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
+rollback for 2025
[edit]
Hi Manualbadeditfix,
After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
- Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
- Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "
[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful. - Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
- If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.
To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- If you liked the trial and want to have rollback without expiry, please let me know on 29 December or any later date. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)