Reverts

Why do you always revert my edits? Most of the time I don't care, but why would you undo my edits on Christopher Saint Booth and Philip Adrian Booth? I added infoboxes and more detailed information. Furthermore, on the Ulterior Motives article, you also reverted my edits when the article itself is a song and should be written like a song article (with the other info surrounding its status as a lostwave song). Autograph84 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

On Ulterior Motives it was just an unhelpful rewording on your part that even introduced grammatical errors, and you added a second short description when the article already had one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulterior_Motives_%28song%29&diff=1221564712&oldid=1221556784 "The song's was discovered" --FMSky (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted your comment at Talk:Antifa (United States)

You know that wasn't helpful. Telling an editor something you know will be provocative and perhaps confusing is basically a forum style comment. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sheldon Murray

Hello FMSky. I wonder do you think that this user's edits need some discussion somewhere? They seem to be contrary to infobox advice. Or perhaps a Talk page warning might be required? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply