User talk:142.160.89.97

Welcome!

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!

Your host, wnpgmb1154w-ds01-89-97.dynamic.bellmts.net (142.160.89.97), is registered to Bell MTS - Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada and is believed to be a static address used by only one connection. However, this IP address may represent more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.

Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock.

If vandalism is noted from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Archives

Archive 1

New IP?

Is this your new IP, 142? You really should let me know so I can watchlist it. Anyway, I’m about to reference you in a thread on my talk about overzealous vandal fighters, and would ping you to weigh in but can’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it is! Sorry, I should have let you know. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if you could post a link here too, that would be appreciated. (IPs don't receive pings, of course.) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:TonyBallioni#Question, re: my bitching about Huggle the video game at the current RfA. TonyBallioni (talk)

@TonyBallioni: what's going on here. Why is this user editing under two addresses. This excluded by Sock policy isn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh, having's one IP address change violates the sockpuppetry policy? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, IP addresses change regularly. This user tends to have one that is more stable than most, but they don’t have control over when their ISP decides to change their address. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, In ictu oculi, if you had any questions concerning my editing activity, I'm not sure why you wouldn't address your concerns to me directly. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your IP address is changing then as a courtesy to other users, and to enable assessment of edits it would be better to register an account. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 142.160.89.97. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
Message added 21:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the{{ERIC}} template so that it uses the |url-access= parameter in the same way that the CS1 templates do instead of using |lock=yes. To display the green lock, you now have to use |url-access=free. This provides the ability to use free, registration, limited, or subscription. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: That's even better. Thank you very much! 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: I'm wondering if I could ask another favour. Would something similar be able to be implemented for {{hdl}}? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! 142.160.89.97 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really hate to bother you again, Ahecht, but would I be able to get a hand with another similar template? It's {{URN}} (which I haven't run into before now). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the revert

Sorry, the program I was using to revert vandalism, Stiki, made it look like your edit was blanking. Please forgive any inconvience that may of caused you. Goodbye. Kothlover (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why reverted?

Hi,

you have reverted my change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MailOnline&diff=851364949&oldid=851305554

1. Please explain why.

2. Please explain how else would you put the information I have added. Would you use other wording? Would you put it to another section?

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedor.gromov.5 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As my edit summary indicated, it was an entirely unsourced allegation. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly need to be sourced?

- Should the lack of HTTPS be sourced? Everyone who tries to open the HTTPS version (https://www.dailymail.co.uk) sees, that this page redirects to the HTTP version (http://www.dailymail.co.uk). It is not opinion based. This is a fact. Before reverting you could have tried to open this web site and you would get confirmation. Nevertheless, I can add a link to prove that. Is a report of Google a reliable source to you? https://transparencyreport.google.com/https/top-sites

- Or you mean a source is needed confirming that HTTP is a security problem? Will following link be suficient? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPS#Difference_from_HTTP: "HTTP is not encrypted and is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle and eavesdropping attacks, which can let attackers gain access to website accounts and sensitive information, and modify webpages to inject malware or advertisements." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedor.gromov.5 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's of particular importance to the subject (i.e., MailOnline), there should be an independent source discussing it in the context of that subject. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi 142.160.89.97! You created a thread called "Sexual gatekeepers" at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Latifah

Hello, I'm Daiyusha. I noticed that you recently removed content from Queen Latifah 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. Removal of references. Daiyusha (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Daiyusha: Uhh, to which content are you referring? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelicalism and Jason Wade

Evangelicalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Evangelicalism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The phrase is a complete sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Please see the discussion at Talk:Evangelicalism § Unexplained reversion. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evangelicalism&oldid=prev&diff=855207646 There is a reason to archive out of order: the discussion is done and now you're simply trying to embarrass me. Reverted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion isn't over because one party declares it to be over after a few hours. Please note the most recent comment in the discussion which seeks clarification. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will respond there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Jason Wade

Categories a hierarchical. Category:American performers of Christian music should have been a descendant of American Christians. It was not. I reverted that change. Thanks for pointing it out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Why should it have been a descendent of American Christians? I don't think similar categories are so structured as performing music from a particular religion doesn't mean one is part of that religion. (Think of atheist organists, for example.) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It makes imminent sense that a performer of Christian music would be a Christian. Your argument is not a logical one as there is no such thing as "atheist music", but there is Jewish rock and hip hop, and there may be similar genres for Muslims. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: I think you misunderstand me. I was referring to atheist organists who perform primarily Christian sacred music. Of course there's no such thing as "atheist music". (Well, I'm sure there's an edgy New Atheist teen with a garage band somewhere out there, singing about God not existing or whatever, but "atheist music" is definitely not a thing.) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. I'm not discussing this any longer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: That was rather passive aggressive... 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot. I was simply aiming for aggressive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: How do you reconcile that with WP:CIVIL? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to. I've admitted two mistakes and I want you to leave me alone. Your change has been restored and the article has been otherwise improved. I'm done here. And further pings or requests here will be ignored. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: I've admitted two mistakes That's the first I'm hearing of this, especially considering the accusation of "vandalism" for having pointed out what you now apparently acknowledge to be mistakes remains unaddressed and the corresponding template unstruck. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Labour Defence League

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did with this edit to Canadian Labour Defence League, you may be blocked from editing. Donner60 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking message, arguable, proceed as you wish but I suggest you add a source for the change. Donner60 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As further information, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a forum, blog, soapbox, fan site or advice site. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish rumors, personal opinions, commentary, advocacy, original research or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: On what basis are you asserting that I am "deliberately introducing incorrect information"? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A legal defense league provides legal defenses: from prosecution, not persecution. Your belief is no basis for changing this obvious fact. If you can cite a source which says that this was part of their original purpose, then cite it if you wish to change the word; though I would still suggestion you add it and not delete the other word. The following quote from a Wikipedia guideline page is relevant here: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability." Donner60 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the same to you, given that the unsourced term prosecution was introduced to the article within the past hour. According, I'll restore the status quo version and you can address the matter on the talk page, in line with WP:BRD.

But you didn't answer the question, Donner60: "On what basis are you asserting that I am 'deliberately introducing incorrect information'?" That's quite the accusation to level. And I'll ask that you bear WP:AGF in mind in your response. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you don't like my answer. This is certainly not worth debating. If you wish to proceed as you did before, go ahead. I will not further edit the article. I will even strike the template message to completely reset the matter. Donner60 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Thank you for striking the message, but that doesn't address the basis on which you accused me of "deliberately introducing incorrect information [emphasis added]". Surely you would have something to back up an accusation like that. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was the error template; I am sorry it was the third warning and I was not aware of that it was that message and it would be that strong. I simply wanted to say that it was an error: prosecution, not persecution. I will again say I am sorry and that I have attempted to reset the matter as best I could. I see no point in carrying this on. Donner60 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Donner60. I trust you'll be more careful in templating in the future. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Fox

Hello, I'm Nzd. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Samantha Fox, 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. Nzd (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Nzd: The information was already sourced in the article. I merely added the corresponding category. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something but I searched for 'protestant' within the article before reverting. Could you point me to the source that mentions this please? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Nzd. It's under the heading Personal life:

In 1994, it was reported that Fox had become a born again Christian;^[1] that year she played at the Christian arts festival Greenbelt.^[2]

The concept of being "born again" is specifically Protestant and principally evangelical. (It's even typical for American religious demographers, such at those at the Pew Research Center, which is well known for their religious demographic research, for example, to presume those who identify as "born-again Christians" to be evangelical. While it wouldn't surprise me if a minority might take issue with that, no one has any doubt that a "born-again Christian" is necessarily Protestant.) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I've had a read of the article and you are probably right, although one might argue WP:SYNTH unless there is a specific source to support Protestantism. I won't revert if you make the change again, but I would suggest a note, at least in the edit summary. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Samantha Fox charged with DUI". BBC News. 28 October 1998. Retrieved 26 November 2009.
^ Porter, Stanley E. (1996). The Nature of Religious Language: A Colloquium. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 118. ISBN 978-1-85075-580-7.

re: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Religion

Concerning the edit made to a capitalization of a wikilink on the Glossolalia article:

I wasn't aware. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edaham: No problem! 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

Your edits are not compliant with the MOS. All Wikipedia articles have full dates of birth in the first sentence: while the format you have adopted is used by certain other notable publications, it is not and has never been used by Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: If that's your concern with the edit, would you be able to address this on the article's talk page at Talk:George Beeby § Reversion in line with WP:BRD? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turning the Tables: From Housewife to Inmate and Back Again

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Turning the Tables: From Housewife to Inmate and Back Again. --Policy Reformer (c) 00:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PolicyReformer: Uhh, what's wrong with italicizing the title of a book title in accordance with MOS:ITALICTITLE? And what's with the threat? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely correct. Please accept my sincere apologies. I've already reverted to your version. Thank you for letting me know! --Policy Reformer (c) 00:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting it, PolicyReformer, but I do hope you will be more restrained in deciding to jump to a level-four warning, complete with a threat of banning. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The level 4 warning was auto-populated by Huggle based on prior warnings against this IP address. (I'm not sure if those edits were by you.) You might consider creating an account to avoid this. If you would prefer not to, you might consider archiving old warnings. I think it would also be permissible to remove the warnings as you've already reviewed them. Again, please accept my apologies. --Policy Reformer (c) 00:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This is why I always remove the commented bit when striking warnings (in the case above, Template:Huggle/warn-4 and Template:uw-vandalism4. I believe that's what Huggle uses to decide which template level to use, and one of you may want to remove those ones, otherwise Huggle will probably auto-report the next 'incident'. Nzd (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Flags

I replied to the Black Flags move. Just though you'd like to know. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 02:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to support the move of the page despite initially opposing it. I also gave a support for the Quiet Power page move as well. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed requested moves

If I may, might I suggest creating an account, so that you can boldly move the articles you need without having to deal with requests for them and the resultant disputes? -- Alex^TW 03:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is, registering as a Wikipedia user and choosing a username for yourself. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 142.160.89.97 I'd like to add my voice here and express what I think many editors are feeling, hopefully in a way that will be constructive. Unfortunately, your behaviour regarding the move requests has been borderline disruptive. I don't doubt you may have had good intentions, and I recognise you are a fairly new editor, but rushing ahead with the sheer volume of move requests, mostly incorrectly classified as "uncontroversial technical requests", has not been helpful. Your rationale for moving the book articles has been flawed as well. WP:SUBTITLE is a guideline and not a policy. A guideline is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". It does not override policies such as WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE or WP:NATURALDIS. If you believed the titles were unsuitable, a better approach would have been to seek community consensus before mass-changing long-standing titles and not act like a bull at a gate. AusLondonder (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Hhkohh (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: To what disruptive editing are you referring? And why the level-three template? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It probably has to do with this. Morphdog^talk 21:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your summary about Reverting unexplained reversion? Hhkohh (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Virginia Theological Seminary. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jtrrs0 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Jtrrs0: Uhhh, what was vandalistic about the edit? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the Title Reverend as the edit summary mentions.Jtrrs0 (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtrrs0:

The edit summary also describes my edit as a "good faith edit". If that is so, why are you accusing me of vandalism? Bear in mind that WP:VANDALISM provides, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism [emphasis in original]."
If that was your only issue with the edit, why didn't you just revert that?
How do you reconcile your inclusion of those styles with WP:HONORIFIC? WP:HONORIFIC provides that
In general, honorific prefixes – styles and honorifics in front of a name – in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to ... styles and honorifics related to royalty, clergy, and sainthoods, such as His Holiness, The Reverend, Her Majesty, and The Venerable.

142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I described it as good faith because that is what I assumed. I never has "accused you of vandalism." A level 2 warning asumes nothing. I would have issued a level 1 but I saw that you had a level 3 for this month and so stopped assuming good faith and assumed neither good or bad faith.

I will admit to not knowing WP:HONORIFIC by heart and on review it seems you are probably right. If you so wish to restore your edit please go ahead, I am no longer opposed to it. However, there is no need to be confrontational or patronising, no matter how much more experience you have. Jtrrs0 (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtrrs0: I never has "accused you of vandalism." You wrote "Your edits appear to constitute vandalism". You did so using a template literally called {{uw-vandalism2}}. WP:VANDALISM says:

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. ...
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. ... When editors are editing in good faith, mislabeling their edits as vandalism makes them less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement, for that reason you should avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user in question means to harm Wikipedia; this is even true when warning a user with a standard warning template.

The reason this conversation might seem "confrontational" is because it is confrontational. It began with my being confronted with a baseless allegation that I was deliberately trying to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, an allegation somehow justified by a misunderstanding of the project's style guide which for some reason also led you to revert entirely unrelated changes. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jtrrs0, this IP has significantly more experience on Wikipedia than you do. I promise you whatever the edit was, it wasn’t vandalism. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files for upload

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. Regards, GMG ^talk 16:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I'm Bluexander. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Charlie Cook have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Bluexander (^Talk/_{Contributions}) 07:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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.

@Bluexander: Uhh, what's your issue with the edit? Your edit summary just said "There's your edit." I have no idea what that means. And how does it qualify as "vandalism", seeing as you used {{uw-vandalism1}}? Bear in mind that WP:VANDALISM provides:
On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. ...
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.

142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I really don't care. Your edits is possible vandalism so I have revert. Bluexander (^Talk/_{Contributions}) 07:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Bluexander is a sock, do not mind it Hhkohh (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal bars

Hi. These contain just generic links that aren't of any real benefit, hence why it was removed. Unless you can cite a guidance that states otherwise? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: MOS:LAYOUT specifies that portal links are normally in the see also section, presuming the normalcy of their inclusion. If the issue with them is their "generic[ism]", that wouldn't be unique to this article but would instead be universally applicable to all instances of their use, making that argument better suited to WP:TFD. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The wording at MOS:SEEALSO is a little ambigious - "Portal and Wikipedia books links are usually placed in this section" - It suggests that they are placed there (rather than any other section), but doesn't imply that they should be on an article at all! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: It does, however, imply their normalcy. But, more importantly, if the issue with them is their "generic[ism]", that wouldn't be unique to this article but would instead be universally applicable to all instances of their use. Is that indeed the only issue with its use here? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're used very rarely on articles (that I can see) and I'm not sure how generic links to "Biographies" and "American cinema" are helpful on a one-line stub like this one. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: They're used very rarely on articles (that I can see) The two main portal templates have over 7.6 million transclusions.

and I'm not sure how generic links to "Biographies" and "American cinema" are helpful on a one-line stub like this one. Is that to say that the answer to my question is "yes"? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven basic tools of quality

Hello 142.160.89.97, sorry for my revert. Best regards --Serols (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serols: No worries – it happens! 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vancouver School of Theology. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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) 04:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Newspaper of record

Hi, I've reverted your changes to Newspaper of record as there's no reason to remove defunct newspapers or those which are no longer newspapers of record. Wikipedia documents historical fact—it is not rolling news—and so a newspaper which used to be a newspaper of record is just as important to document as one which currently is. If you disagree, leave me a message at my talk page or start a discussion at Talk:Newspaper of record. Thanks! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on which you !voted, has been amended

In response to objections, I struck the two year mortatorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Chris troutman: Uhh, are you accusing me of sockpuppetry? Seriously, you might want to have a look at my contribution history. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You moved this comment by JaconaFrere and I mistakenly assumed you were Jacona and didn't realize you were logged out. I made no accusation of puppetry; sorry. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Complex equality 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 Complex equality 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://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/34274967.pdf) 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) 08:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thankyou for helping people see how clicking a template button can cause more problems than it solves. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ritchie333! The arrival of these templates feels never-ending sometimes... 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Cathedral

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Lincoln Cathedral. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Darsana.vinod (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darsana.vinod: On what basis are you asserting that edit to be vandalistic (recognizing that, as provided by WP:VANDAL, "on Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose [emphasis in original]")? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darsana.vinod: If you do not reply to this message within 24 hours I will remove your rollback privileges to prevent abuse. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Arendt

Hello, I'm Michael Goodyear. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hannah Arendt have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Michael Goodyear: On what basis are you asserting that edit to be vandalistic (recognizing that, as provided by WP:VANDAL, "on Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose [emphasis in original]")?

As to the removal of the alt text, it was removed as it was not compliant with MOS:ALT, providing no information further to the caption. And how is the insertion of {{ill}} the "deletion of [a] link"? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have no idea who you are but you are using an anonymous IP which is already flagged for vandalism. Obviously we have no idea what your motives are but if you assert good faith that is fine.

2. Nobody mentioned the word vandalism. This page was tagged to inform you or whoever uses this page that two editors have reverted your edits as being unconstructive. It is a proforma tag.

3. With regards to the specific point you raise about the alt= caption, you appear not to understand its purpose, which "serves the same purpose and conveys the same essential information as the image". By deleting it, you deprive the visually impaired of any information. Secondly, it is a requirement for an article to be promoted to GA status, which is currently being assessed. Therefore this edit was unhelpful on two counts.

4. With regards to the use of {{ill}}, this is a valid method for interlanguage links, but you replaced the original link with this which redlinks. If you look closely, this page, because of its subject mater, has dozens of interlanguage links. Changing one is unhelpful. Anyway it is difficult to see that the substitution of {{ill}}, in anyway improves the article.

I hope you find this useful. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 13:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Army

Hi, can you explain why you removed the ranks and post-noms from the infobox on this page? Thanks - wolf 18:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-noms

Hello again! There is really no need to change the formatting of post-noms as you did at Michael Savage (sociologist). As I've said before, the default is only formatted that way because the template was originally only used when some has lots post-noms and so there was a need to shrink them. 100% and with commas is a perfectly valid "alternative". Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 11:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at MOS:POSTNOM. Specifically the paragraph stating: 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. If a baronetcy or peerage is held, then commas should always be used for consistency's sake, as the former are separated from the name by a comma.

You've clearly tickled User:Nford24 the wrong way with your (incorrect) insistence at Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seán O'Casey

Please don't remove captions, even if they're the same as the article title, as you did at Seán O'Casey; they help screen reader users. You also added overlinking and enforced eccentric preferences about the location of birth/death dates on the article; that's not helpful either. Please also use edit summaries. Graham87 16:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Gaudete Sunday have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@CLCStudent: What leads you to believe the edit to have been vandalistic? Bear in mind that WP:VANDALISM provides:

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. ...
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.

142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a discussion at the article

You're usually right, but captions are not usually considered part of the article, but feel free to discuss on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you recently removed content from Atlanta 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. BilCat (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please see MOS:DOCTOR. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries from now on, as users on this IP have been asked to do before. I still argue that this is an acceptable use, especially culturally, and will revert as such. You're welcome to discuss their removal on the article's talk page - BilCat (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've been asked to do this before, but you really ought make all your edits under a registered account. How can you expect others to care about your contributions when you don't care enough to claim them? (I'm of course not talking about using.your real name. I don't post my real name for privacy reasons, as I'm not a publically known person, and don't wish to become one. Too many trolls.) It also simplifies trying to contact you, as others have also pointed out. - BilCat (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

See Talk:Perfectae Caritatis#Requested move 31 December 2018.
- And see Special:Contributions/142.160.89.97 :: it may be useful if you registered as a Wikipedia user and got yourself a username: see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YOB/YOD or DOD/DOB

Hi 142! First things first: I'm not sure how much time I have for Wiki in the near future, so apologies in advance for intermit replies. Now onto dates in bio intros. (Pinging User:Yahboo too.)

MOS:OPENPARABIO: "MoS guidelines for lead paragraphs should generally be followed; the opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually state [...] Dates of birth and death"

The following paragraph: "The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and (when applicable) death. These dates (specific day–month–year) are important information about the subject, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context."

You argument is that the wording "may be sufficient" trumps the "should usually", and therefore you have used your discretion to remove full dates from the introduction of some biographies. To me, the wording is clear, and year only (if full dates are available) is the exception to the rule rather than a option for the editor. As quoted above, "MoS guidelines for lead paragraphs should generally be followed" and the "should" is for full dates. Of course, if there are only years known, dates otherwise disputed, or only years being used for BLP reasons, then that is different. Local consensus can be found to apply year-only (the only example I can think of is Malcolm X) but otherwise the working standard is full dates. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 142.160.89.97. You have new messages at Talk:Leo Tolstoy.
Message added 11:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Newslinger talk 11:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Versus

Hi 142. I had a few questions about this edit I was hoping you might have time to answer. Was that done by hand or with a script, and if the latter, which one? Why change some but not all of the refs to sfn? (I thought it was supposed to be one or the other?) Why change to sfn at all, for so few sources? (Just curious on your thoughts about that. Obviously sfn is the better format generally, but it seems to me unnecessarily complicated for short articles with few sources, which I thought this was.) Thanks for taking the time to do some housekeeping there (I learned a bit about cite templates from your edit) and also for answering these questions. ^Leviv_ich 21:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Levivich. No, I wasn't using any scripts at all. (I'm afraid I don't really have much of a background in programming or anything.) It's all done by hand.

In terms of which sources I included in the bibliography, I typically only include more major works (in contradistinction to newspaper articles, miscellaneous web pages, and the like); e.g., books (or book chapters), individually published government reports, peer-reviewed journal articles. As for why I introduced the {{sfn}} system, the bibliography helps people identify other significant works relating to the subject at a glance and I figure that it's often easier to introduce earlier in an article's development. As the article grows and we see multiple footnotes referring to the same work, it will become all the more useful.

And I'm happy to help! Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! ^Leviv_ich 03:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dilma Rousseff

Hello, Can you please explain this category change of yours at Dilma Rousseff? Your edit summary says, No indication that she is a Christian socialists (as opposed to a Christian who is a socialist), but capitalization and pluralization are important in English, and I'm not sure the summary says what you intended. To me, your explanation sounds like a self-contradiction, so I really don't know what you meant. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the pluralization of "socialists" is a typo on my part. But what I was indicating was that while she may be both Christian and socialist, she is not necessarily part of the theo-philosophical movement that is Christian socialism, as is indicated on the category page for Category:Christian socialists. There are many socialists who are Christians who don't derive their socialism in any significant way from their Christianity (and vice versa). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruether and Harrison

This addition of yours to the Rosemary Radford Ruether biography is a true fact, according the book you cited. But I removed it anyway, first because only people with Wikipedia articles should be listed in the infobox as influences/influenced, and second because there's no context provided.

If you would like to restore the fact, first write a biography about Beverly Wildung Harrison. (It would be good for that to exist.) Or if you don't want to do register a username so you can create a biography, write some prose about the Ruether–Harrison connection in the body of the Ruether biography. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Binksternet. No, there's no requirement that only individuals with existing Wikipedia articles can be listed in the influenced field, provided that it meets WP:REDYES, and it appears we're in agreement that Harrison most certainly meets our notability standards (as a former holder of a named chair at one of the most highly respected seminaries in the United States, amongst other reasons). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the instruction page for the infobox Template:Infobox_academic#influences, it says that influences must be referenced, so you're right about redlinks being allowed. But it also says that the connection should be mentioned in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why that would warrant removal (given that Wikipedia articles are always works in progress), but regardless, it's mentioned in the body of the article now. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage template

Hello, at Seán O'Casey again, I've just tweaked your edit to the marriage info, per the documentation at the {{marriage}} template. Graham87 05:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: Which part of the documentation are you referring to? All I see is it saying that that parameter is to be used only "if the marriage ended on the death of the spouse", not the death of the subject. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right; I've self-reverted. Graham87 06:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Yes California

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Susmuffin: Better in what regard? And how do you reconcile that position with MOS:DASH? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, your edit made no change to the article; – and – appear to be the same symbol. The style guide seems to use both interchangeably. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Susmuffin: I think you are misreading the edit. Nowhere did it use the code –. It merely added a non-breaking space in accordance with the MOS. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand it now. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 142.160.89.97. You have new messages at Template talk:Ontario MPP biography.
Message added 12:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Newslinger talk 12:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Immelt‎

My bad, I was trying to rush and didn't realize what'd happened. Markvs88 (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see link

See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests by 142.160.89.97.
- After the amount of editing that you have done (see Special:Contributions/142.160.89.97), it would help if you register as a Wikipedia user and get yourself a username. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Appleyard: bundling these together is probably wise as they are all by the same nominator with similar rationales, but I've refactored it as a multi-move RM request at here, as technical requests isn't usually a place for extended discussion. SITH (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alaa Salah

Thanks for the heads up. I was on "autopilot" given recent edits... Just wondering, though, there are 12 articles directly linked in this category, why specifically this one was removed? Cheers. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It just happened to be the one I came across. The others are due for removal as well, though. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to C. Wright Mills 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 C. Wright Mills 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://core.ac.uk/display/38148618) 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) 08:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Queried move request

See Talk:Robert Balgarnie Young Scott#Requested move 8 May 2019. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RM/TR use

I do not think it is appropriate to re-request a move of Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda to Counter-Revolutionary Violence, when a September 2018 RM decided the article should be at the long title. Can you explain why you filed this request again at RM/TR as uncontroversial? Sam Sailor 06:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

New message from Newslinger

Hello, 142.160.89.97. You have new messages at Talk:Bernie Sanders.
Message added 05:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Newslinger talk 05:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see link

May 2019

Hello, I'm Orville1974. An edit that you recently made to George Lindbeck seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to 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! Orville1974 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Orville1974 Your edit summary indicates I "introduced a typo". Where is that? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry about that. I've already replaced your edit. My English-centric brain saw philosophe and wanted to incorrectly add an "r" to it. Orville1974 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Files for upload. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@CLCStudent: What leads you to believe the edit was vandalistic? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's young. Give him a break and shoot me an email. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles William Gray Taylor

You have removed the "Very Reverend" style from the CWG Taylor page without explanation. Would you care to explain your approach?George Burgess (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page gnome) My answer is not intended to replace that of 142.160.89.97, but since I noticed the message: it may have to do with MOS:HONORIFIC... —Paleo Neonate – 10:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@George Burgess: Yep, PaleoNeonate is exactly right. MOS:HONORIFIC provides: In general, honorific prefixes – styles and honorifics in front of a name – in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to ... styles and honorifics related to royalty, clergy, and sainthood, such as Her Majesty, His Holiness, The Reverend, and The Venerable. However, it appears an infobox has been added to the article where the style's use is appropriate. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. An edit that you recently made to Template:GPC seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to 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! Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Me-123567-Me: What leads you to believe that to have been a test edit? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Mary, mother of Jesus

Re this edit:
Because if we force a talkpage to keep 4 sections just to retain a Table of Contents and one of those sections is 6 months old with no responses then what purpose does keeping that outdated stale post/thread serve? Also not sure why it was necessary to remove the TOC which would have ketp a Table of Contents on the talkpage if/when the page goes down to two posts/threads. Reverting the talkpage-header style of archive-notice back to the small archive notice-box is a personal/stylistic preference - I prefer the header-style but again...personal preference. Shearonink (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because if we force a talkpage to keep 4 sections just to retain a Table of Contents and one of those sections is 6 months old with no responses then what purpose does keeping that outdated stale post/thread serve? If the talk page discussion is that slow, it may require a few months for someone to reply.

Also not sure why it was necessary to remove the TOC which would have ketp a Table of Contents on the talkpage if/when the page goes down to two posts/threads. Given that the edit also required the bot to leave four sections on the page, the TOC magic words were not needed. Also, a TOC is of minimal utility at best when there are only two or three sections on the page.

Reverting the talkpage-header style of archive-notice back to the small archive notice-box is a personal/stylistic preference - I prefer the header-style but again...personal preference. I mainly did that because of the large number of headers already there, so I figured it would minimize clutter. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mortara case edits

Was wondering why you converted 5 Harvard cites into cite web/cite magazine/cite news with this edit. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have explained. The sources were strangely broken up into "Newspaper and journal articles", "External references" (which I think all references are), and the rest of the "Bibliography", so I put the major works and journal articles together, and left references to the few newspaper articles and the like in the footnotes. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Why do you consider it obligatory or desirable to use what you call "Oxford spelling"? If I'm not mistaken, everyone wrote "baptized" before about 1900, and it is still standard among many English-speaking people. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see link

Please see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#M. J. Coldwell and A. A. Heaps. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#M. J. Coldwell and A. A. Heaps. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-noms

Just stop. Please. If an article has been using 100% and commas, please don't try and "correct" this: your not. Its one of two options for formatting post-noms as per WP:POSTNOMS. I'm not changing the formatting unless its to restore to that which has been used in that article, please only do the same. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 03:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about first use of a template, its about the historical formatting on a particular article. You may or may not have noticed I am trying to discuss this with you, as I have a number of times above. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 03:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for that? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for what bit? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 03:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about first use of a template, its about the historical formatting on a particular article. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow the definition of consistency (that's the word I was looking for) as established with MOS:NUM:

Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Which I think we should, and was probably discussed elsewhere but I don't keep notes, because post-nominal formatting is established in the MOS at WP:MOS. I hope that's the type of reference you were looking for, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 03:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand the applicability of MOS:NUM, which applies to dates and numbers. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not just to MOS:NUM. As per this request for arbitration:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

Hence the The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style of the quote above and on the MOS:NUM page: there are multiple MOS-defined styles covering numbers, dates, language, and (on a much smaller scale) post-nom formatting. The this manual of the first quote refers to the whole MOS not just the numbers section. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 03:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, Its the same for references, as at WP:CITEVAR. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 04:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Files for Upload request

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main Files for upload page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, Masum Reza^📞 20:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. You can find it at File:Reverend-mark-matthews-foreground-seattle-1927.jpg. See Wikipedia:Images#Using images to learn image syntax, or Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files for other types of files. Regards, Masum Reza^📞 20:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. You can find it at File:Dan Heap.jpg. See Wikipedia:Images#Using images to learn image syntax, or Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files for other types of files. Regards, Masum Reza^📞 20:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. You can find it at File:N. P. Willams.jpg. See Wikipedia:Images#Using images to learn image syntax, or Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files for other types of files. Regards, Masum Reza^📞 21:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. You can find it at File:Placher2a.jpg. See Wikipedia:Images#Using images to learn image syntax, or Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files for other types of files. Regards, Masum Reza^📞 23:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. You can find it at File:Thomas C. Oden.jpg. See Wikipedia:Images#Using images to learn image syntax, or Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files for other types of files. Regards, Masum Reza^📞 00:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main Files for upload page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, Masum Reza^📞 08:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. You can find it at File:William Ivens.jpg. See Wikipedia:Images#Using images to learn image syntax, or Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files for other types of files. Regards, Masum Reza^📞 09:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. You can find it at File:George Lindbeck.jpg. See Wikipedia:Images#Using images to learn image syntax, or Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files for other types of files. Regards, Masum Reza^📞 09:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[1] "Samantha Fox charged with DUI". BBC News. 28 October 1998. Retrieved 26 November 2009.

[2] Porter, Stanley E. (1996). The Nature of Religious Language: A Colloquium. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 118. ISBN 978-1-85075-580-7.

[1]

[2]