Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Here are some other hints and tips:
If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my Talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. CWC 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I severely disagree with the idea of listing university rankings for ~20 years across discontinued rankings. Users want concurrent, fast info. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
138.251.244.161 (
talk) 02:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I notice that you've recently been a range of rankings to articles on British universities. Would it be possible for you to add citations for all of the currently unreferenced figures? I mean, you must have a source yourself, to have included them.
Per WP:V, these numbers need sourcing so that these can be verified. I'm sure you've been striving to keep the numbers accurate, but even some of the cited figures are occasionally wrong. Thanks. — mholland (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Please correct any typo's you spot, and let me know, as they're probably down to cut'n'paste errors at this end (while pasting in references). As to sources:
The full "Guardian", "Sunday Times", "Independent" and "Compelete University Guide" history can be obtained by following the references. OCR or cut-n paste into a spreadsheet and check away.
Note: The pre 2003 Guardian rankings are based on teaching standards e.g. http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/unitable/0,11985,723214,00.html
I've noticed a few differences between "Independent" and "Compelete University Guide" rankings (In 2009 it's the sort order were the scores tie e.g http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=6524 vs http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/the-main-league-table-2009-813839.html), Currently double checking 2008. Also I've spotted two editions of the same Guardian table, one has a few of the newer institutions missing, so the Ranks differ, but the scores are the same e.g. the 2004 book, printed 2003, is missing Oxford Brookes and Westminster, but they can be seen in the on-line table for the year, and the Telegraph unibigpic.jpg image below.
For "The Times Good University", were you can't source an on-line copy, pick one up in paper format (Details on this page). Generally a non current copy can be obtained for £2.00, from a charity shop, or £0.01 + p&p from Amazon. From "1998" each guide details the previous years / publication's rank.
If you have the time the original paper's can be found on-line e.g.
Note:
First, when you post any comment on a talk page, like this, please sign your posting with four tildes: ~~~~. Also, please do not put your comments in the middle of a posting by someone else, since that makes it look like they made the comment rather than you. It is best to start a new section when you are starting a new discussion. Second, why are you complaining in mid-April about an edit from January 4 ???? I did not originally add the "citation needed" templates. In fact I removed them, then re-added them, since a lot of unreferenced claims were being made. A wikilink to another Wikipedia article is not a "reference" since Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source, and thre is nothing to make sure that each claim in a summary like this is supported by references in the other article linked to. Both articles are likely to be in a continual state of flux, independent of the other. Each article should have reliable sources to support controversial claims, especially about disputed priority of invention.Thirs, please provide a link to the posting you are talking about, like I did above, so the other person does not have to waste a lot of time paging back through all the edits to get to the one under discussion. Thanks for helping to improve the article. Edison ( talk) 02:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Jschnur. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Scoto-Norman, 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,
Jschnur (
talk) 02:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Undone: "Scoto-Saxon" appears in the same OED 'scoto-' etymology referenced earlier -- 83.104.51.74 ( talk) 02:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
We do realize that the person now using this IP, who receives this message, may not be the person who posted the content. We apologize for any confusion this may cause; we are required to give this notice and have no other means of attempting to reach the contributor.
Sincerely,
Maggie Dennis (WMF) (
talk) 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
< < Removed > >
Just spotted your message, that material was originally posted by a different IP e.g.
Difference between revisions -Revision as of 11:27, 11 June 2009 - 87.194.84.46
I did revert some vandalism to the content in 2010, but haven't touched the page since, so not the source of the 2013 content your DMCA takedown request refers to:
Difference between revisions - Revision as of 16:00, 27 March 2010
83.104.51.74 ( talk) 13:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate
your contributions, including your edits to
Vikings (TV series), but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
Saddhiyama (
talk) 16:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Name | Location | Type | Completed [note 1] | Date designated |
Grid ref.
[note 2] Geo-coordinates |
Entry number [note 3] | Image |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Church of St John the Baptist | Boughton, Daventry | Church | Mid 14th century | 2 November 1954 |
SP7532865886 52°17′10″N 0°53′50″W / 52.2860°N 0.8971°W |
360027 | ![]() Upload Photo |
Holly Lodge | Moulton, Daventry | House | Mid 19th century | 19 July 1985 |
SP7687665776 52°17′05″N 0°52′28″W / 52.2848°N 0.8744°W |
360367 | ![]() Upload Photo |
Hey Buddy,
This entire mutual edit deleting and restoring is starting to get on my nerves and I am sure it is also getting on your nerves as well. Drop me an e-mail @ charly.goaler@outlook.com and we can discuss because otherwise we either get mad or banned for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.136.150 ( talk) 17:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I added a section to your talk page earlier, listing the issues I have with your edits ( User_talk:83.77.136.150#GCSE_.2B_O-level ) but to duplicate them here:
Please stop removing quoted and cited text from the OECD and Department of Education, and replacing it with factually incorrect opinion. Please read the reliability and sources pages linked above before continuing. 83.104.51.74 ( talk) 12:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI:
83.104.51.74 ( talk) 18:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 83.104.51.74 ( talk) 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Kautilya3. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article,
Reginald Edward Harry Dyer, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Kautilya3 (
talk) 17:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
William de Brus, 3rd Lord of Annandale, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
PatGallacher (
talk) 00:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Slavery in India. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Slavery in India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
What is your source for this edit [ [7]]? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I will add (on further thought) that you should not alter cited text without providing an alternative cite (As you seem to have done, reliability of sources aside this was wrong). Slatersteven ( talk) 16:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Here are some other hints and tips:
If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my Talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. CWC 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I severely disagree with the idea of listing university rankings for ~20 years across discontinued rankings. Users want concurrent, fast info. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
138.251.244.161 (
talk) 02:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I notice that you've recently been a range of rankings to articles on British universities. Would it be possible for you to add citations for all of the currently unreferenced figures? I mean, you must have a source yourself, to have included them.
Per WP:V, these numbers need sourcing so that these can be verified. I'm sure you've been striving to keep the numbers accurate, but even some of the cited figures are occasionally wrong. Thanks. — mholland (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Please correct any typo's you spot, and let me know, as they're probably down to cut'n'paste errors at this end (while pasting in references). As to sources:
The full "Guardian", "Sunday Times", "Independent" and "Compelete University Guide" history can be obtained by following the references. OCR or cut-n paste into a spreadsheet and check away.
Note: The pre 2003 Guardian rankings are based on teaching standards e.g. http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/unitable/0,11985,723214,00.html
I've noticed a few differences between "Independent" and "Compelete University Guide" rankings (In 2009 it's the sort order were the scores tie e.g http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=6524 vs http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/the-main-league-table-2009-813839.html), Currently double checking 2008. Also I've spotted two editions of the same Guardian table, one has a few of the newer institutions missing, so the Ranks differ, but the scores are the same e.g. the 2004 book, printed 2003, is missing Oxford Brookes and Westminster, but they can be seen in the on-line table for the year, and the Telegraph unibigpic.jpg image below.
For "The Times Good University", were you can't source an on-line copy, pick one up in paper format (Details on this page). Generally a non current copy can be obtained for £2.00, from a charity shop, or £0.01 + p&p from Amazon. From "1998" each guide details the previous years / publication's rank.
If you have the time the original paper's can be found on-line e.g.
Note:
First, when you post any comment on a talk page, like this, please sign your posting with four tildes: ~~~~. Also, please do not put your comments in the middle of a posting by someone else, since that makes it look like they made the comment rather than you. It is best to start a new section when you are starting a new discussion. Second, why are you complaining in mid-April about an edit from January 4 ???? I did not originally add the "citation needed" templates. In fact I removed them, then re-added them, since a lot of unreferenced claims were being made. A wikilink to another Wikipedia article is not a "reference" since Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source, and thre is nothing to make sure that each claim in a summary like this is supported by references in the other article linked to. Both articles are likely to be in a continual state of flux, independent of the other. Each article should have reliable sources to support controversial claims, especially about disputed priority of invention.Thirs, please provide a link to the posting you are talking about, like I did above, so the other person does not have to waste a lot of time paging back through all the edits to get to the one under discussion. Thanks for helping to improve the article. Edison ( talk) 02:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Jschnur. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Scoto-Norman, 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,
Jschnur (
talk) 02:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Undone: "Scoto-Saxon" appears in the same OED 'scoto-' etymology referenced earlier -- 83.104.51.74 ( talk) 02:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
We do realize that the person now using this IP, who receives this message, may not be the person who posted the content. We apologize for any confusion this may cause; we are required to give this notice and have no other means of attempting to reach the contributor.
Sincerely,
Maggie Dennis (WMF) (
talk) 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
< < Removed > >
Just spotted your message, that material was originally posted by a different IP e.g.
Difference between revisions -Revision as of 11:27, 11 June 2009 - 87.194.84.46
I did revert some vandalism to the content in 2010, but haven't touched the page since, so not the source of the 2013 content your DMCA takedown request refers to:
Difference between revisions - Revision as of 16:00, 27 March 2010
83.104.51.74 ( talk) 13:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate
your contributions, including your edits to
Vikings (TV series), but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
Saddhiyama (
talk) 16:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Name | Location | Type | Completed [note 1] | Date designated |
Grid ref.
[note 2] Geo-coordinates |
Entry number [note 3] | Image |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Church of St John the Baptist | Boughton, Daventry | Church | Mid 14th century | 2 November 1954 |
SP7532865886 52°17′10″N 0°53′50″W / 52.2860°N 0.8971°W |
360027 | ![]() Upload Photo |
Holly Lodge | Moulton, Daventry | House | Mid 19th century | 19 July 1985 |
SP7687665776 52°17′05″N 0°52′28″W / 52.2848°N 0.8744°W |
360367 | ![]() Upload Photo |
Hey Buddy,
This entire mutual edit deleting and restoring is starting to get on my nerves and I am sure it is also getting on your nerves as well. Drop me an e-mail @ charly.goaler@outlook.com and we can discuss because otherwise we either get mad or banned for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.136.150 ( talk) 17:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I added a section to your talk page earlier, listing the issues I have with your edits ( User_talk:83.77.136.150#GCSE_.2B_O-level ) but to duplicate them here:
Please stop removing quoted and cited text from the OECD and Department of Education, and replacing it with factually incorrect opinion. Please read the reliability and sources pages linked above before continuing. 83.104.51.74 ( talk) 12:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI:
83.104.51.74 ( talk) 18:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 83.104.51.74 ( talk) 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Kautilya3. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article,
Reginald Edward Harry Dyer, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Kautilya3 (
talk) 17:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
William de Brus, 3rd Lord of Annandale, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
PatGallacher (
talk) 00:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Slavery in India. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Slavery in India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
What is your source for this edit [ [7]]? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I will add (on further thought) that you should not alter cited text without providing an alternative cite (As you seem to have done, reliability of sources aside this was wrong). Slatersteven ( talk) 16:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |