94.254.177.222

March 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Morgan le Fay—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Bare URLs

Please do not use bare urls as citations. You will find instruction on how to cite sources here. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Anything you add with only a bare URL for citation will be removed. You do not get to create work for other editors. You are expected to take the time to do things right. Skyerise (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There no such rule at all. And tou can use auto refills on pages if it pains you so.

So you'd prefer to be blocked from editing? Also, I'm allowed to revert inferior additions: whether the problem is grammar, spelling, or poor citation style. You want your changes to stick? Use full citations. Clearly you're already on the Google page How much trouble is it to click the "Create citation" button and copy/paste it? Lazy a... Skyerise (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If there's such a rule saying people are allowed to revert just "poor citation style", you forgot to link me to something while saying you can disrupt editing as you do. Because I don't think it exists at all. But now I'm going to show you something:

Because I'm not doing this manually if I (or anyone else later) can do it automatically anytime later with literally few clicks, not unlike how you revert with few clicks but constructively and not unconstructively. I myself did this (the reFill option) repeatedly in this very same one article a number of times only several hours ago, without anyone interrupting me like you then suddenly began to do now with reverting perfectly good (and cited) content. You could ask me about that without reverting and antagonizing me so, the "please" and "thanks" were good, the reverting was not. Yes, it's antagonizing people to be treated like that. Think about this if you don't realize.

In sum, stop unreasonably gatekeeping and maybe start editing. You can make Lady of the Lake in popular culture for starters to be useful. This stuff takes almost half of the article. The 19th century stuff is probably not what is supposed to be meant by popular culture (also a notion of her pretty often appearing in the romanticist painting should be probably added, there's a mention of this in Merlin's). But anything from 20th onward should fit it, I guess.

Also restore my edit.

---