![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Mainly posting this so the box isn't the only thing on your new page, but I've responded to you on my talk. Also, I'm sure you know I'm very pro-IP editing, but if you don't want to change, you might want to consider registering (I won't press it, but I thought now might be the time to point the advantages of registering out). TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Please don't removed full dates of birth/dates from articles (including the introduction) unless there is a privacy issue for BLPs; IE, the date(s) are not public knowledge. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Stewart Headlam, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
05:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your request at
Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. Regards,
GMG
talk
17:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm reading, "Post-nominal letters ... should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated." I'm not sure why a knighthood should be excluded as Graham has had a longstanding association with England. You may want to explain more fully on the talk page. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi when tagging pages for copyright problems make sure to complete all of the steps. Your tagging of the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus article didn't add it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems or notify any editors as required. Sakura Cartelet Talk 01:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you reversed some of my edits on the Nicky Gumbel page. Could you explain your thinking on the talk page section, thanks, Keith Johnston ( talk) 20:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit summary. The Amazon link shows "Tom Wright" as the author's name. Also, in common conversation he is often called "Tom" but that's difficult to reference. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Please stop removing post-noms from honours sections: eg Fellow of the British Academy (FBA). This format serves two purposes, showings that the award/honour comes with post-nominal letters and explains what the initials stand for. This is the only place this is explained in plain text (rather than through a link or hover text. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This format serves two purposes, showings that the award/honour comes with post-nominal letters and explains what the initials stand for.How would someone who is not already familiar with the award or appointment realize that the initialism provided can be used post-nominally? 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 01:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Please see WP:DESTUB - "Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template". The article has been expanded (twice the original size). Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I have recently undone your good faith edit at Asexuality. If you think I’m wrong, please ask me at my talk page. Anchorvale T@lk 06:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this and this, why did you change the spelling to British? Are you aware of WP:ENGVAR? If you were changing the article back to a style it used years ago, it remains that the consistent style now is American spelling and that the article's main editor (me) is American. I'd prefer not to use British spelling when editing the article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm especially speaking of the MOS:RETAIN section of WP:ENGVAR. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed here, here and here. It seems you used the British spelling and date aspect because the article had Template:Use dmy dates inside of it. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
As for date style, I didn't notice that the article had that template ... There had been recent expansions to the article that used dmy style for references (rather than for the text), but that style contrast the mdy style in the article.Given the use of {{ use dmy dates}}, however, I think it is reasonable to infer that dmy dates had been in use previous to that. Accordingly, I will restore the format. 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 22:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I've replied to your message. Sakura Cartelet Talk 04:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Your input has been requested. Even though the semi has been removed from the article, it'd be better if the parties involved discussed it rather than going back and forth in the article history. Cheers. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 22:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Institute on Religion and Democracy has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
Institute on Religion and Democracy was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
https://vimeo.com/381786) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy, as well as other parts of our
external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
06:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Thanks for adding the infobox to Catherine Pickstock! Just a quick heads up about article quality: stubs are about lack of quality rather than length. WikiProject Biography's quality scale is a good starting point and has example articles too. The idea that articles are stubs if they don't meet DYK criteria (eg 1500+ characters) is misleading ( and isn't a fixed rule) and each article needs to be "marked" on its content rather by an arbitrary number. I've expanded Catherine Pickstock further and once more removed the stub templates as it is now at start level. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
|thesis year=
parameter is there in
Template:Infobox academic because it provides built in formatting: please use it rather than adding the year to |thesis_title=
. Also, infoboxes are summaries and therefore any content in an infobox should also be in the main text. Thank you for finding the various theses/supervisors that you have added to infoboxes but please also add them to the main body of text. It is here that the reference should go, rather than the infobox.
Gaia Octavia Agrippa
Talk
19:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)I have re-added academic to the opening sentence: please stop deleting this from other articles too. Saying that someone is an academic is not redundant: it shows that they teach and research at a university/higher education establishment rather than being an independent scholar. This is its use in British, so it maybe that where you are from it is used differently.
The term is used in the same manner in Canadian English, so I am well familiar. I assume the article to which you are referring here is John Blair (historian) (though I'm not sure what you mean by "other articles"). While the term's use does indeed provide the further detail that the scholar in question is affiliated with an academic institution, that is already indicated by the following words "He is Professor of Medieval History and Archaeology at the University of Oxford". The repetition of that fact is what could be described as "fluff", especially when independent scholars are very much the exception to the rule in the field of archaeology. Accordingly, it is for good reason that the term's use in the first sentence of articles is very much the exception to the rule in articles about scholars in such fields (hence its exclusion in all other articles we've discussed).
Please stop removing initialisms for degree. You have stopped removing them for honours (thanks for that), so hopefully I can explain why they are there for degrees too.
Regarding the inclusion of initialisms for academic degrees in prose:
Even though academic post-noms are not to be used in the lead of an article, there is nothing preventing them being included in the main body of the text.Of course, and I would support their inclusion where they benefit the biography.
They are helpful for those who do not know that BA/MA etc actually stand for something and therefore provides detail.When BA/MA/etc. aren't included elsewhere in the article, I'm not sure why the reader would be seeking to know what they stand for. Their inclusion provides detail, but not detail pertinent to their understanding of the article's subject.
The use in brackets, as with other post-nominals, shows that an "honour" (in this case a degree) grants post-nominal letters.How does it indicate that? Honours can have an initialism without that initialism being used post-nominally (see, eg, some French honours).
There are no space restrictions/word counts/etc for articles so there is no need to remove such a small bit of information.With respect, that sounds like the copyediting equivalent of WP:HARMLESS. No one has suggested there is a space restriction, but a lack of space restriction is no excuse for cluttered prose.
Writing, for example, Bachelor of Arts (BA) then allows BA to be used elsewhere in the article.I would not oppose it in cases where the initialism is being used elsewhere in the article (per MOS:ABBR).
They aren't used because of what they portray as per 3.I am not clear as to what you mean here.
It is therefore not "non-standard" to use commas. The template now used almost all the time was originally created to be used only for those with lots of post-noms, eg generals etc. ... So I'd appreciate if you didn't "correct" post-noms using commas.
If you believe that seventeen-twentieths-sized post-nominals are the exception to the rule, rather than the reverse, you're free to propose that full size be made default. The community has discussed and rejected that in the past. Given that they are the default for the time being, however, I have seen no argument that we are dealing with an exceptional circumstance.
The
|thesis year=
parameter is there in Template:Infobox academic because it provides built in formatting: please use it rather than adding the year to|thesis_title=
.
Will do! I think I already went back and corrected some.
|thesis year=
useful.Also, infoboxes are summaries and therefore any content in an infobox should also be in the main text. Thank you for finding the various theses/supervisors that you have added to infoboxes but please also add them to the main body of text. It is here that the reference should go, rather than the infobox.
You're right that the information should ultimately be included in the body of the article as well. I've just been putting the footnote in the infobox in the interim per WP:INFOBOXREF. 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Suppressor 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto), did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Me-123567-Me (
talk)
17:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding the speedy deletion tag to Gays for Trump. Speedy deletion is only for obvious, uncontroversial cases (see WP:SPEEDY for more information), and I think it is obvious by now that Gays for Trump is not an obvious, uncontroversial case. If you want it to be deleted, please use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 02:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to
Bands (neckwear) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links.
Your edit
here to
Bands (neckwear) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Bands.htm) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
02:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
There is a message for you on this talk page. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 12:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.
PS I have explained why I'm reverting you, your changes are not an improvement. Per WP:BRD when challenged the onus is on YOU to convince other editors why the changes you propose jave merit. I would strongly suggest you self-revert. W C M email 18:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
When I remove a comment from my talk page, that's the end of the discussion. Do not restore the comment. Thank you. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Someone using this IP address, 142.161.81.20, made test edits which have been reverted or removed. If you did this, please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. If 142.161.81.20 is a shared IP address and you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors and further irrelevant notices.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Here are some other hints and tips:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! If you need
help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or type {{
helpme}}
here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Thewinrat (
talk)
21:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Thewinrat. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Circassia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Thewinrat (
talk)
01:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Thewinrat: What was with the unexplained reversion at Birinus? 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 21:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (142.161.81.20) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on this page.
Again, welcome! Thewinrat ( talk) 01:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. A {{
coi}}? Feel free to discuss, with evidence on the talk page. Adding poor sources and using incorrect templates.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
05:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems your edits are not entirely straightforward and you have drawn some negative attention in the past.As you can see, editing from an IP inherently generates "negative attention". In this particular case, it seems you didn't bother properly look at the edit before immediately reverting, making unfounded accusations, and issuing threats. And even after this was pointed out to you, rather than apologize, you attempt to shift the blame. 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 22:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly
harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, as you did at
User talk:Walter Görlitz, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Stay off my talk page. I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article. I have already stated that I did assume good faith and the next communication I have with you will either be on the article's talk page or an admin forum. Your choice.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
05:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
One of the most unvandalism-like IP Adress i have ever seen! Also sorry for a undo at one of your edits... i will not do that again. anyways, Want a burger? Thewinrat ( talk) 21:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
One of the most unvandalism-like IP Adress i have ever seen! Also sorry for a undo at one of your edits... i will not do that again. anyways, Want a burger? Thewinrat ( talk) 21:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, you seem to have some concerns with my edits. Straight forward, newadvent.org and earlyjewishwriting/earlychristianwritings are considered blogs because they are personal sites of its creators. Please read WP:NOTBLOG. Over the years, the Wikicommunity has decided to remove or replace these links with academic sources. Any content that is typed up as a claim or controversy without a reliable source can be removed. Claims written only in the lead section of the article must also be supported in the body of the article with reliable sources per WP:LEAD. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 05:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:142.161.81.20 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
05:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Another IP address contested 4 of your requests — IVORK Discuss 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed you have making so called "dummy edits" on
Birinus. Dummy edits are called "test edits" and are not allowed on this wiki. thank you.
Thewinrat (
talk)
15:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Thewinrat. An edit that you recently made to
Birinus seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the
sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Thewinrat (
talk)
15:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
How did you verify that the quote is not in the book? [1]– Lionel( talk) 09:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Mainly posting this so the box isn't the only thing on your new page, but I've responded to you on my talk. Also, I'm sure you know I'm very pro-IP editing, but if you don't want to change, you might want to consider registering (I won't press it, but I thought now might be the time to point the advantages of registering out). TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Please don't removed full dates of birth/dates from articles (including the introduction) unless there is a privacy issue for BLPs; IE, the date(s) are not public knowledge. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Stewart Headlam, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
05:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your request at
Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. Regards,
GMG
talk
17:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm reading, "Post-nominal letters ... should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated." I'm not sure why a knighthood should be excluded as Graham has had a longstanding association with England. You may want to explain more fully on the talk page. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi when tagging pages for copyright problems make sure to complete all of the steps. Your tagging of the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus article didn't add it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems or notify any editors as required. Sakura Cartelet Talk 01:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you reversed some of my edits on the Nicky Gumbel page. Could you explain your thinking on the talk page section, thanks, Keith Johnston ( talk) 20:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit summary. The Amazon link shows "Tom Wright" as the author's name. Also, in common conversation he is often called "Tom" but that's difficult to reference. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Please stop removing post-noms from honours sections: eg Fellow of the British Academy (FBA). This format serves two purposes, showings that the award/honour comes with post-nominal letters and explains what the initials stand for. This is the only place this is explained in plain text (rather than through a link or hover text. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This format serves two purposes, showings that the award/honour comes with post-nominal letters and explains what the initials stand for.How would someone who is not already familiar with the award or appointment realize that the initialism provided can be used post-nominally? 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 01:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Please see WP:DESTUB - "Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template". The article has been expanded (twice the original size). Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I have recently undone your good faith edit at Asexuality. If you think I’m wrong, please ask me at my talk page. Anchorvale T@lk 06:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this and this, why did you change the spelling to British? Are you aware of WP:ENGVAR? If you were changing the article back to a style it used years ago, it remains that the consistent style now is American spelling and that the article's main editor (me) is American. I'd prefer not to use British spelling when editing the article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm especially speaking of the MOS:RETAIN section of WP:ENGVAR. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed here, here and here. It seems you used the British spelling and date aspect because the article had Template:Use dmy dates inside of it. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
As for date style, I didn't notice that the article had that template ... There had been recent expansions to the article that used dmy style for references (rather than for the text), but that style contrast the mdy style in the article.Given the use of {{ use dmy dates}}, however, I think it is reasonable to infer that dmy dates had been in use previous to that. Accordingly, I will restore the format. 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 22:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I've replied to your message. Sakura Cartelet Talk 04:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Your input has been requested. Even though the semi has been removed from the article, it'd be better if the parties involved discussed it rather than going back and forth in the article history. Cheers. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 22:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Institute on Religion and Democracy has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
Institute on Religion and Democracy was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
https://vimeo.com/381786) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy, as well as other parts of our
external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
06:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Thanks for adding the infobox to Catherine Pickstock! Just a quick heads up about article quality: stubs are about lack of quality rather than length. WikiProject Biography's quality scale is a good starting point and has example articles too. The idea that articles are stubs if they don't meet DYK criteria (eg 1500+ characters) is misleading ( and isn't a fixed rule) and each article needs to be "marked" on its content rather by an arbitrary number. I've expanded Catherine Pickstock further and once more removed the stub templates as it is now at start level. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
|thesis year=
parameter is there in
Template:Infobox academic because it provides built in formatting: please use it rather than adding the year to |thesis_title=
. Also, infoboxes are summaries and therefore any content in an infobox should also be in the main text. Thank you for finding the various theses/supervisors that you have added to infoboxes but please also add them to the main body of text. It is here that the reference should go, rather than the infobox.
Gaia Octavia Agrippa
Talk
19:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)I have re-added academic to the opening sentence: please stop deleting this from other articles too. Saying that someone is an academic is not redundant: it shows that they teach and research at a university/higher education establishment rather than being an independent scholar. This is its use in British, so it maybe that where you are from it is used differently.
The term is used in the same manner in Canadian English, so I am well familiar. I assume the article to which you are referring here is John Blair (historian) (though I'm not sure what you mean by "other articles"). While the term's use does indeed provide the further detail that the scholar in question is affiliated with an academic institution, that is already indicated by the following words "He is Professor of Medieval History and Archaeology at the University of Oxford". The repetition of that fact is what could be described as "fluff", especially when independent scholars are very much the exception to the rule in the field of archaeology. Accordingly, it is for good reason that the term's use in the first sentence of articles is very much the exception to the rule in articles about scholars in such fields (hence its exclusion in all other articles we've discussed).
Please stop removing initialisms for degree. You have stopped removing them for honours (thanks for that), so hopefully I can explain why they are there for degrees too.
Regarding the inclusion of initialisms for academic degrees in prose:
Even though academic post-noms are not to be used in the lead of an article, there is nothing preventing them being included in the main body of the text.Of course, and I would support their inclusion where they benefit the biography.
They are helpful for those who do not know that BA/MA etc actually stand for something and therefore provides detail.When BA/MA/etc. aren't included elsewhere in the article, I'm not sure why the reader would be seeking to know what they stand for. Their inclusion provides detail, but not detail pertinent to their understanding of the article's subject.
The use in brackets, as with other post-nominals, shows that an "honour" (in this case a degree) grants post-nominal letters.How does it indicate that? Honours can have an initialism without that initialism being used post-nominally (see, eg, some French honours).
There are no space restrictions/word counts/etc for articles so there is no need to remove such a small bit of information.With respect, that sounds like the copyediting equivalent of WP:HARMLESS. No one has suggested there is a space restriction, but a lack of space restriction is no excuse for cluttered prose.
Writing, for example, Bachelor of Arts (BA) then allows BA to be used elsewhere in the article.I would not oppose it in cases where the initialism is being used elsewhere in the article (per MOS:ABBR).
They aren't used because of what they portray as per 3.I am not clear as to what you mean here.
It is therefore not "non-standard" to use commas. The template now used almost all the time was originally created to be used only for those with lots of post-noms, eg generals etc. ... So I'd appreciate if you didn't "correct" post-noms using commas.
If you believe that seventeen-twentieths-sized post-nominals are the exception to the rule, rather than the reverse, you're free to propose that full size be made default. The community has discussed and rejected that in the past. Given that they are the default for the time being, however, I have seen no argument that we are dealing with an exceptional circumstance.
The
|thesis year=
parameter is there in Template:Infobox academic because it provides built in formatting: please use it rather than adding the year to|thesis_title=
.
Will do! I think I already went back and corrected some.
|thesis year=
useful.Also, infoboxes are summaries and therefore any content in an infobox should also be in the main text. Thank you for finding the various theses/supervisors that you have added to infoboxes but please also add them to the main body of text. It is here that the reference should go, rather than the infobox.
You're right that the information should ultimately be included in the body of the article as well. I've just been putting the footnote in the infobox in the interim per WP:INFOBOXREF. 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Suppressor 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto), did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Me-123567-Me (
talk)
17:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding the speedy deletion tag to Gays for Trump. Speedy deletion is only for obvious, uncontroversial cases (see WP:SPEEDY for more information), and I think it is obvious by now that Gays for Trump is not an obvious, uncontroversial case. If you want it to be deleted, please use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 02:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to
Bands (neckwear) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links.
Your edit
here to
Bands (neckwear) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Bands.htm) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
02:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
There is a message for you on this talk page. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 12:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.
PS I have explained why I'm reverting you, your changes are not an improvement. Per WP:BRD when challenged the onus is on YOU to convince other editors why the changes you propose jave merit. I would strongly suggest you self-revert. W C M email 18:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
When I remove a comment from my talk page, that's the end of the discussion. Do not restore the comment. Thank you. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Someone using this IP address, 142.161.81.20, made test edits which have been reverted or removed. If you did this, please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. If 142.161.81.20 is a shared IP address and you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors and further irrelevant notices.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Here are some other hints and tips:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! If you need
help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or type {{
helpme}}
here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Thewinrat (
talk)
21:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Thewinrat. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Circassia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Thewinrat (
talk)
01:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Thewinrat: What was with the unexplained reversion at Birinus? 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 21:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (142.161.81.20) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on this page.
Again, welcome! Thewinrat ( talk) 01:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. A {{
coi}}? Feel free to discuss, with evidence on the talk page. Adding poor sources and using incorrect templates.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
05:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems your edits are not entirely straightforward and you have drawn some negative attention in the past.As you can see, editing from an IP inherently generates "negative attention". In this particular case, it seems you didn't bother properly look at the edit before immediately reverting, making unfounded accusations, and issuing threats. And even after this was pointed out to you, rather than apologize, you attempt to shift the blame. 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 22:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly
harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, as you did at
User talk:Walter Görlitz, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Stay off my talk page. I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article. I have already stated that I did assume good faith and the next communication I have with you will either be on the article's talk page or an admin forum. Your choice.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
05:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
One of the most unvandalism-like IP Adress i have ever seen! Also sorry for a undo at one of your edits... i will not do that again. anyways, Want a burger? Thewinrat ( talk) 21:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
One of the most unvandalism-like IP Adress i have ever seen! Also sorry for a undo at one of your edits... i will not do that again. anyways, Want a burger? Thewinrat ( talk) 21:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, you seem to have some concerns with my edits. Straight forward, newadvent.org and earlyjewishwriting/earlychristianwritings are considered blogs because they are personal sites of its creators. Please read WP:NOTBLOG. Over the years, the Wikicommunity has decided to remove or replace these links with academic sources. Any content that is typed up as a claim or controversy without a reliable source can be removed. Claims written only in the lead section of the article must also be supported in the body of the article with reliable sources per WP:LEAD. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 05:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:142.161.81.20 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
05:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Another IP address contested 4 of your requests — IVORK Discuss 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed you have making so called "dummy edits" on
Birinus. Dummy edits are called "test edits" and are not allowed on this wiki. thank you.
Thewinrat (
talk)
15:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Thewinrat. An edit that you recently made to
Birinus seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the
sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Thewinrat (
talk)
15:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
How did you verify that the quote is not in the book? [1]– Lionel( talk) 09:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)