User talk:Mark Recio

Hi Mark Recio! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Naypta (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 17:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

When editing Template:Punctuation marks, please don't modify the first line, which should be {{Infobox. Changing that breaks the template. clpo13_(talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to W may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *ω : [[Omega]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to T may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *† : [[Dagger (typography)]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

]

Inaccurate edits

Hi Mark Recio. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I just want to ask you to be more careful when adding information, as some of your recent edits to

]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to B. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. B is just an example of an article where your edits appeared, but you did the same with other Latin alphabet articles, such as P or A. Just because a letter looks in your view similar to another (such as 'V' to 'A'), it doesn't make it related, which is what those sections are about. Stop doing this, it's hard to even keep track of and revert. LjL (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at E, you may be blocked from editing. You did the same to B and I reckon you are currently doing it to the articles I've been fixing. STOP IT NOW. Do NOT add new 'information' unless you can source it. if some digits look similar to some letters to you, that is NOT encyclopedic information. Interact on this page if you have objections. LjL (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at I.

Your recent editing history at I shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thomas.W ^talk 12:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is here. LjL (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at T. You did similarly on V and X, apart from the countless (well, probably no more than 26) articles you messed up previously. LjL (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your string of edits on letter-related articles, which are being strongly contested. Instead, you should weigh in at

]

Now that you are blocked and people like me don't have to chase your edits, I've taken the opportunity to fix the articles related to the Latin alphabet a little, and would like you to understand what I'm doing and why, and why your edits were not constructive. Things on Wikipedia needs to be

. A source doesn't always have to be immediately provided for every statement made; however, if something simply isn't able to be shown evidence for, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Now, if the letter 'P' looks similar to the letter 'B' to you (for example), that only makes them vaguely visually similar in your opinion, but it doesn't mean they are "similar" or "related" in an objective, measurable way that can be backed up with sources. So, that tidbit doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Letters from other alphabets (such as manner.

Another thing is that while, of course, versions of Latin letters with diacritics are derived from (and thus related to) the corresponding letters, it's not useful to have them all listed as separate entries with the same stature as actual (related) letters from other alphabets or derived characters (especially given there is almost a version with each possible diacritic of each possible letter). It just clutters the article. Therefore, I have consolidated all those into a single line per letter, where all the versions with diacritics are listed and linked. I hope you understand the reasoning behind this and cease littering the articles.

Lastly, if you don't understand English well, as I've been suspecting might be the case, please just mention this and we'll work it out; just not responding on your talk page or on your ANI report and continuing with the behavior is not a valid option.

LjL (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello Mark Recio,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged [[{{{1}}}]] for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Edidiong (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your addition of

]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]