Re: I need someone to edit an existing articleEdit

Hello CommanderWaterford, I made an appeal for someone to help me and edit an existing article and you very kindly responded offering your help.

I wanted to reply to you and thank you for coming forward, I did have a couple of other people reply to me as well as your good self and have started a dialogue with one of them. It is very kind of you ....thank you again.Nulius in Verba13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NULIUS IN VERBA 13 (talkcontribs) 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you rerate the article about Region of Murcia, please?Edit

CommanderWaterford,

This article was assessed with C-Class status some years ago, but a lot of information has been added to it. Therefore I think that a reassessment is convenient.

Regards,

--Yolanda95 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Yolanda95

Buenas Yolanda95, puedes indicar me el enlace por favor!? :) voy a echar un vistazo... CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

--CommanderWaterford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Region_of_Murcia

Recent WPCleaner editsEdit

Hi there. I noticed your recent edits using WPCleaner are not really fixing the problems they were intended to fix – i.e. they have corrected one rogue section header, but erroneously subsectioned the subsequent sections; e.g. [1], [2], etc. Please can you double-check them? Regards. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wjemather, thanks for notifying me, I will check them. CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Cool. I have already fixed several of the most recent ones. FYI, the majority of cases are simply erroneous "===" sub-sectioning of "References" & "External links", but a few have added an extra level to almost every section/sub-section! wjematherplease leave a message... 10:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to bang on about this, but almost all of your edits on May 30 to correct section headers still need fixing: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34].
I also noticed that some articles obviously just needed vandalism reverting rather than headers fixing (e.g. [35] "fixed" by [36]; [37] "fixed" by [38]; [39] "fixed" by [40] – this one from today). The same is probably true of others including some from May 30 not listed above that I skipped over due to only scanning resultant refs & ext links section headers. I have spot-checked a few from May 29 as notice the same issues. I have not gone any further back. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Wjemather, Well you are of course free to fix any errors you find although I am somewhat irritated of you checking only my edits. My last Wpcleaner Edits had been double checked before sending and they fixed exactly what they stated for, of course there might be other errors which need to be fixed as well. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way, but please be assured that I am not singling you out for special treatment – anything that is symptomatic of wider issue grabs my attention, and your edit to Obsolete golf clubs (correcting one header while incorrectly changing two others) did just that. That concern is borne out by the numbers (well over 50 articles and a not insignificant percentage of your contributions). As per the above, at least one edit today did not fix the real problem (i.e. vandalism) only embedded it. Please be aware that careless use of tools & bots is a quick way to getting a block, and simply take extra care in verifying why the problem(s) you seek to fix exists, and that you haven't generated further problems. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)