User talk:142.161.81.20/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Talk back

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)

Full date of births

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)

Hi, Gaia Octavia Agrippa. The dates were not removed for privacy reasons. Rather, they were removed as the precise dates do not aid in "identify[ing] the topic, establish[ing] context, explain[ing] why the topic is notable, and summariz[ing] the most important points". Could you please clarify why it is that you are suggesting that the month and day of births/deaths should never be "removed ... from articles (including the introduction) unless there is a privacy issue for BLPs" when MOS:BIO is explicit in providing that "if [these specific dates] are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context"? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the talk back. The standard is to use full dates if they are known. You've missed out the most important part of MOS:BIO#Birth date and place: "The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and (when applicable) death. These specific dates are important information about the person being described". The standard is full dates (unless for privacy reasons), while year-only is used in special cases and should be explained (using edit summaries is a good way of doing this or with a hidden comment using <!-- -->). Special cases include it having been decided through talk page consensus that that is appropriate for that particular article (such as at Malcolm X), or because the dates are uncertain (historical figures, confusion over baptism vs birth dates, etc). If full dates aren't known, then only month-year can be used. I hope this helps, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 02:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

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)

No unsourced content was added. Accordingly, I have restored the content. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, nevermind that warning. I saw what I thought was you adding a death date, but the diff window came up funky and I didn't see that you were simply formatting it. I apologize. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
No worries! Thanks for correcting the mistake. Cheers, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Files for upload

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. Regards, GMGtalk 17:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As an added note, I have declined two other requests at FFU. As I indicated there, date of death is not itself sufficient to establish the date of death of the individual who took the photograph (the important of the two death dates, usually needs to be 70 years ago or more), nor to establish the date the image was first published (ideally prior to 1923). If you can provide more information, as you did with the link you provided for Percy Dearmer, please do so at WP:FFU and feel free to ping me when you do. GMGtalk 17:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Graham & POSTNOM

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)

Copyright tagging

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 CarteletTalk 01:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Sakura Cartelet. I am already aware. As an unregistered user, I was unable to create a new page as was required to log the copyright violation. I already made a request for someone else to do so at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems § Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus. Regarding editor notification, I felt (and feel) that to be overkill when I left a COI notice for the same editor but minutes before. I trust that the COI notice should get the necessary message across. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh? I must of not noticed that on the page. Anyway I've created a new log for today with the links you made. Not sure I did it entirely right though. Sakura CarteletTalk 01:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Please refrain from making test edits to Wikipedia pages, such as the one you made with this edit to Weinstein effect, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Donner60: On what basis do you believe that to have been a test? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Strike message. Appeared to be a double entry on Huggle. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Move request

Nicky Gumbel

 – 142.161.81.20 (talk) 02:06, 10 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)

Hi, Keith Johnston. Sure thing. What changes in particular were you looking to have addressed? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thanks lets discuss on the talk page on the Nicky Gumbel page, then any other editors can chip in if they like.Keith Johnston (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Tom Wright

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)

It is a tough one to reference. Since we don't have one, I'll change the "otherwise" to "also". 142.161.81.20 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Postnoms

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)
Its like with any initialism, eg National Health Service (NHS), one would understand that those initials and the longer form are linked. As some people don't know that BA means a Bachelor of Arts degree, there are people who think that OBE is the the honour without knowing what it stands for. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Zahid Mahmood

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)

Creation and evolution in public education in the United States

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Creation and evolution in public education in the United States, you may be blocked from editing. Donner60 (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Donner60: On what basis is this "disruptive editing"? {{Main}} is not permitted to be used at the top of articles. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Correct error in revert and message; also this template should not have been used in any event. Sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Donner60: I think you forgot to reverse the reversion. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. Donner60 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Good faith template removal

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)

(edit conflict) You said the template was not bi-directional. However, it is. It belongs in that section since the asexuality link leads there through a redirect. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir and Anchorvale: I see that now – good point. In future, however, please use an edit summary when performing such a reversion. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok! Noted.  Anchorvale T@lk  06:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sure thing, sorry. I mistook you as the vandal who kept removing asexuality from the LGBT symbols (example edit). My bad. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR at Asexuality article

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)

Hi, Flyer22 Reborn. I changed the spellings as there was neither a consistent spelling variant nor an ENGVAR template in use. If you're saying that American English had previously been in consistent use, I'll take your word for it and, accordingly, don't object to your reversal of those changes.
With respect to the date format, however, there does appear to be an established format, as indicated by the use of {{use dmy dates}}. There being no consistent format currently in use and there being an established format, I must defer to MOS:DATERETAIN.
Finally, thank you for undoing your reversing of other changes to which you had no objection. Cheers, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. As for spelling, I have been using American spelling at the article for years. British spelling wasn't the dominant spelling, which is why most of your spelling changes changed American spelling to British spelling. As for date style, I didn't notice that the article had that template, but my reverse of your edits showed only one edit that was to a date style used for text (the "On June 29, 2014, AVEN organized" part), and that date style used American format. 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. Anyway, thanks for your improvements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:43, 25 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)
Reverted per MOS:DATERETAIN. MOS:DATERETAIN specifically states, "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." After I took over editing the article, becoming its main contributor, the article evolved to use Template:Mdy style. That is the style I have been using at that article for years. And, again, I am American. The same thing happened when I became the main contributor of the Clitoris article. If I had noticed British style for either article and had been aware of WP:ENGVAR back then, I likely would have followed it. But then again, I began editing the Asexuality article back in 2007, and, while WP:ENGVAR existed back then (without the shortcut), there was no MOS:DATERETAIN back in 2007 at the time I started editing that article. Furthermore, WP:ENGVAR was not popular back then. There have been no objections to me using mdy style at that article after all of these years. So for you to come along after all of these years and insist I use a style I am not most comfortable using, after I have significantly contributed to the article, is odd and is something that you should take to the article talk page if you feel that passionately about it. But I can state now that I will not be using that style for the article. I see no valid reason for you insist that I use British style or to edit war over this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Whoever added {{use dmy dates}} in 2013 is nowhere close to being a main contributor of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

RM on Hebrew

I've replied to your message. Sakura CarteletTalk 04:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 142.161.81.20. You have new messages at Talk:Amy Adams.
Message added 07:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Chester Bennington

Stop icon

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)

I strongly advise you to contribute to the discussion here Thanks, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

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.

Catherine Pickstock

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)

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.
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.
  1. 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.
  2. They are helpful for those who do not know that BA/MA etc actually stand for something and therefore provides detail.
  3. The use in brackets, as with other post-nominals, shows that an "honour" (in this case a degree) grants post-nominal letters.
  4. There are no space restrictions/word counts/etc for articles so there is no need to remove such a small bit of information.
  5. Writing, for example, Bachelor of Arts (BA) then allows BA to be used elsewhere in the article.
  6. They aren't used because of what they portray as per 3.
Does this make sense? They are only small, don't take up space, serve a purpose, and its a waste of your time to keep removing them. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk
And as for the formatting of post-nominal letters (as per MOS:POSTNOM): "Post-nominal letters should either be separated from the name by a comma and each set divided by a comma, or no commas should be used at all." 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. That is why the default is small; and because it is small, commas aren't used or else you would have a combination of a normal sized comma after the name and small commas between post-noms. So I'd appreciate if you didn't "correct" post-noms using commas. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
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=. 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)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa:

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).

As per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence should summarise the topic of the article and explain notability. In this case giving a summary of who/what/why for John Blair (historian). Thanks for pointing out your Canadian: I get tripped up every so often my American English (eg a school is for under-18s, a university would never be referred to as a school in British English), and I wasn't sure if that's what was happening here. Redundancy in the opening sentence does not refer to what comes after it but what comes before (i.e. the article title). In the case of biographies this rarely applies: eg a disambiguation by year of birth would still see the YOB stated in the opening sentence, as would an occupation, but a common nickname (Joe for Joseph) would not be repeated. Then the rest of the lead paragraph, we should follow MOS:BLPLEAD. "academic" ian't fluff but information. As a side note, there have been a great number of independent archaeologists; up until the middle of the 20th century, archaeology was practised often by people operating independently and self funded. Even now there are notable archaeologists operating outside of academic institutions (eg Phil Harding and Francis Pryor of Time Team).

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:

  1. 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.
There is no rule against having them, so there's no real reason to remove them if they are already there.
  1. 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 detail part of this comment references your edit summary when reverting my re-addition of initialisms. I'm also referring to a great number of people (including someone I know who works in recruitment) who don't know that BA mean Bachelor of Arts and visa versa. This is further complicated by the likes of the Oxford MA which is called a Master of Arts degree but is distinguished from other MAs through its initialism "MA Oxon".
  1. 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).
It is the standard used here on Wikipedia. Eg, Angelina Jolie was appointed an honorary Dame of the Order of St Michael and St George (DCMG). DCMG is not used in the opening sentence as it has been determined that she doean't have close enough ties to the UK to warrant that. The only place it appears is in brackets after the full title of her honour by which it is shown as the associated post-nominal letters. It is indeed true that other honour systems operate differently but degrees do offer post-nomnal letters.
  1. 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.
I offered up the space restriction as that would be reason to remove them. As there is isn't a limit, a small but of extra info is not worthless clutter.
  1. 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).
This is simply another use for this example in addition to providing information.
  1. They aren't used because of what they portray as per 3. I am not clear as to what you mean here.
This took a few re-reads myself! It should have said "The are not not used". What I meant by this was that even if the initialism in question is not used as an abbreviation later on, it still has a purpose as showing the associated post-noms. Eg, "Smith received a Master of Science (MSc) degree from University X in 2001 and an MSc degree from University Y in 2003" vs "Smith received a Master of Science (MSc) degree from University X in 2001": the addition of "(MSc)" has one use in the first (as a post-nom indicator) and two in the second (as a post-nom indicate and the full form of the abbreviation).

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.

Could you please point me towards where these discussions took place? Looking at the history of Template:Post-nominals it shows a number of users have given their reasoning and made 100% the default, before having it reverted with no explanation. It seems that because the default is small (because the template was originally designed only to be used for those with lots of post-noms that needed stringing to save space) editors have wrongly assumed small is the standard formatting for all post-noms. Looking at the history of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies shows this confusion concerning size and commas: eg "Not sure why non-standard formatting is being used" and "consistency fix (comma after name before first post-nom. seems to be conventional, but no commas between them, or at least that's what Template:post-nominals does". The wording "they are conventionally in small caps" was only added to the MOS in September 2017 without any discussion.

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.

Thanks. I wasn't sure if you'd been using a copy of old version of this template: the formatting was only recently updated to make |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)

I know its a bit of extra work, and its better to have the information with a citation in the infobox than nowhere at all: just make it a full sentence and stick it in the main body of text with the citation. Thanks again for doing the research which can be pretty daunting.
Thank you also for reading and replying to my rant. I hope this has been useful; it has been for me trying to explain and back up why I do things the way I do. I'd had a really bad day and was looking to use the wiki-hole as a distraction. It did help, but apologies that you were on the receiving end of it. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 02:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Gaia, thanks for the reply. I’m about to head out of town for several days, so I’ll be sure to look at this in closer detail upon my return. Cheers, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Stop icon

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)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
  • As I said on Dennis' talk page, I find this a particularly silly edit war. I think he shouldn't have reverted you once you challenged his placement of banners, but I also don't see a point to keep reverting him over WikiProject banners. I know that this type of categorization is your thing, and you are generally very good at it, but you shouldn't edit war over it.
    You know I call registered editors who think they are better than IP editors out whenever there is a conflict, but at the same time, IP editors are bound by the rules of Wikipedia as well, and you've been around long enough that you should know better than to keep reverting (even if it is within 3RR and you think the other party is wrong. 3RR is not a right). Anyway, enough of my lecturing, but as I just left a note on Dennis' page, I felt I'd be remiss not to leave one here as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Information icon 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)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
@Me-123567-Me: What is "disruptive" about removing a postal code from the country field of the infobox and removing honourifics that were not compliant with MOS:DOCTOR? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Postal code is standard in most articles such as this. As for honourifics - yes, that is in the MOS. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Me-123567-Me: If it's standard, why would it be in the country field? And to clarify, you would agree that "Dr." was contrary to the MOS in that context? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Look at Queensway-Carleton Hospital and Toronto General Hospital. Both have postal codes in their info boxes in the country field. You may remove the dr from the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Gays for Trump

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)

(edit conflict) @Mx. Granger: I only readded the tag when it was removed with a rationale in direct contravention of our speedy deletion policy. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Information icon 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.

Our Lady of Medjugorje

There is a message for you on this talk page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Stop icon

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. WCMemail 18:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

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 JacobiteThe '45 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: No, it is not. May I ask why you made that accusation? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I have asked you to stay off my talk page. This is the last time I will ask. You have no reason to post there. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome

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 recommend that you get a username. You do not have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

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)

March 2018

Information icon 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)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
@Thewinrat: The only thing removed was blank lines at the top of the article. What content are you asserting was removed and why were those lines re-added? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, i have written the wrong edit summary. Thewinrat (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Thewinrat: I am not asking about your edit summary. I am asking about two things:
  1. Why have you reinstated blank lines at the top of the article?
  2. With respect to the message you left on my talk page, what "content" are you asserting was removed?
142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Lets not start a fight, ok? Thewinrat (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Thewinrat: Why would these two questions start a fight? I am trying to avoid an edit war by discussing your reversion rather than just reverting it, as you have not yet reverted your reversion. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Like i dont want to talk about it right now... Thewinrat (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I will revert the edits for the time being. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Thats fine. see ya. Thewinrat (talk) 01:28, 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)

Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches

Stop icon 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)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
@Walter Görlitz: How is Wikipedia being disrupted? And what is your concern with the edit? And you are aware that I didn't add {{COI}}, right? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, what sources are you claiming I added? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the edit I'm referencing. It appeared as though you added About CCMBC MB History, but you pulled those from notes and formatted the bibliography section. My apologies. I'll revert, but unless you can support the COI claim with proof that someone from the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches—I'd even accept proof that someone from any provincial conference—was involved in adding unsourced content, the COI tag should be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
CCMBC appears to be the primary contributor to the largely unsourced article. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, Walter Görlitz, even if I had added primary sources to an unsourced article and added {{COI}} despite you believing it not to be appropriate, in what would that justify your saying, "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia [emphasis in original]" with a level-four template? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, the "you may be blocked" part is because it was a level-four warning. You've had multiple other warning, all of which were placed recently—December 2017, January 2018 (although I see now that it was struck as well), two in February 2018, three in March 2018—and so it's customary to go to the next level. That's why I changed the heading name earlier. It seems your edits are not entirely straightforward and you have drawn some negative attention in the past. Feel free to explain you edit when you make them and I would suggest smaller edits as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: You will notice that most of the above warning templates were placed in error. In most all cases, the warnings were struck, discussed on this talk page, and/or discussed on an article talk page. (See, e.g., the most recent one – which was amongst those you cited – from an over-zealous vandalism patroller who appears to have some special needs and later apologized on this very page.) And it is not, in fact, "customary" to go to necessarily the next level. WP:UWLEVELS makes clear that usage of that template assumes bad faith. Is that your intention?
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)
Thanks. Not all were placed in error though. You can drop this complaint though since I struck the warning. I will not be responding to this any further. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Did you "assume bad faith" (WP:UWLEVELS)? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Never. Do not ping me again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
@Walter Görlitz: With whom am I in an "edit war"? If you mean Septrillion, I've spoken with them on their talk page and they reverted their own edit. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop icon 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)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
@Walter Görlitz: Don't worry, I didn't. But please see my above question. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

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)

A cheeseburger for you!

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)

Ignatius of Antioch

 – 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:52, 12 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)

JudeccaXIII To what specifically are you referring in WP:NOTBLOG? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Please read the lead section of NOTBLOG. Personal pages are not permitted. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@JudeccaXIII: Are you serious? That policy has nothing to do with sourcing. It says that personal pages are not permitted on Wikipedia itself. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
That sounds worse than what I was saying. I have always applied NOTBLOG for removing blogs as sources in articles, and been thanked for it by other editors . Since this needs clarification, read WP:SPS. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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)

Talkback

Hello, 142.161.81.20. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests.
Message added 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another IP address contested 4 of your requests — IVORK Discuss 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

5 moves about Papal messages

Notice

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)

Information icon 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)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
@Thewinrat: How do you reconcile your position that "[d]ummy edits are called "test edits" and are not allowed on this wiki" with WP:DUMMY? Additionally, how can a "test" be something that is done intentionally to the article for purposes other than experimentation? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Thewinrat: would you mind answering this question when you have a chance? The IP was fixing an English variations issue on a page of a British Christian saint that used the North American/Oxford spelling. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@142.161.81.20: So... they are not seen messages where an editor made a mistake, but the fact is that they are very rare and not that much seen. Thewinrat (OS of this day: Windows 1.0) (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question, Thewinrat, which was: "How do you reconcile your position that '[d]ummy edits are called "test edits" and are not allowed on this wiki' with WP:DUMMY? Additionally, how can a 'test' be something that is done intentionally to the article for purposes other than experimentation?" 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC) cc: TonyBallioni
@TonyBallioni: Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... so they are allowed..... undoing. Thewinrat (OS of this day: Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warhog) (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thewinrat please don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t know what you are trying to convey, and get the sense that English might not be your first language (which is totally fine.) I only mention this, as if it is the case, we likely have a language edition of Wikipedia in a language you can better communicate in, which would likely help prevent misunderstandings such as this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: well, i wonder how long this fight will take. like 1 year. can we stop? --Thewinrat (OS of this day: Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warhog) (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thewinrat, I’m not fighting with you. I was simply asking you to be more careful warning and reverting people (the point of my original question) and pointing out that if English is not a language you are comfortable communicating in, there are other language editions of Wikipedia that might be easier for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: well, if i give you an nintendo gift card wikilove, would we stop talking? Thewinrat (OS of this day: Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warhog) (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell

How did you verify that the quote is not in the book? [1]– Lionel(talk) 09:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The book wasn't cited; a website selling the book was. Are you assuming that the quotation is on the back of the book? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:142.161.81.20/Archive_1&oldid=1161516351"