This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Re your edit, um, but "massacres in Sweden" is a subcategory of "massacres", so there's no need to list the article in both; the most specific will do. This is per WP:SUBCAT. Am I misunderstanding something? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@71.41.210.146: Ok, my apologies. Please go ahead and revert my edits. Though, add a proper edit summary which specifies this clearly. This is a big reason why most edits are considered vandalism by myself and most other editors here. I apologise and own up my mistake. I will remove the relevant warnings from your talk page as well. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Yashovardhan Dhanania: What warnings on my talk page? The edit you reverted was by 158.169.150.4. Yes, in general I really wish people would use edit summaries more (I try to set a good example, with the exception of talk pages where it's kind of moot), but that's a separate issue. It seemed clearly a constructive edit. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@71.41.210.146: Yeah, I just realized that! I will revert my edits soon! Oh and why don't you consider creating an account? Regarding the edits, it seemed constructive but the account was a bit debative as well. I didn't really know about this sub category thing, so that's where I lost it! I am really sorry again, Thanks for bringing this to my notice though! I will fix up the mess I created Yashovardhan (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
