User talk:194.207.146.167

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (194.207.146.167) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Mary Arden, Lady Arden— because it 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. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 10 November 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.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol

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 (194.207.146.167) 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! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 16:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Repeal

Only Acts can be repealed. Bills have no more status in law than does this talk page. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

Hello, I'm Junior5a. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Gov.uk— because it 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. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 04:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I notice that you removed a large number of references from Exaro because you said that the URLs were dead. In fact for most of them the URLs are still live, and in any case WP:DEADREF says don't delete for that reason. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

AfD

I created the AfD page, however the best place to ask for an Afd nomination to be completed is WT:AFD and there is no reason to ask so many people for help in such a short succession - there is no harm if it takes a few minutes/hours for the AfD page to be created. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Exaro, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:DEADREF, and the refs in question were mostly not dead anyway. David Biddulph (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2019 (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.

March 2019

Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Banff, Aberdeenshire seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ball v Johnson; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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:

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 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.
As you've been trying to remove this article ever since speedy-delete tagging it back as a draft, it is increasingly difficult to AGF for either the claims you're making, or your drastic deletions of sourced content within it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

Tommy Robinson

BTW, perhaps the key point you're missing with your frankly offensive putdowns is that at least one of us i.e. me actually agrees with you. From the time of my first reply, I was sure you were right and that ideally we should not be using those terms since they mean specific things in UK law which do technically do not apply there. That's why I gave you a simple out. Find high quality secondary sources which use the term in relation to Tommy Robinson's legal problems and we can discuss. If you had done so, I would be arguing in favour of your change even if theoretically we probably should be going by the preponderance of sources since IMO for this sort of thing editorial judgement suggests it's better to go by the term which is more accurate and has less room to be misunderstood.

But we still need those quality secondary sources in the first place and you haven't provided them. Of course even if we were to find such sources, I'm not certain consensus would be in our favour, since as others have indicated ultimately if quality reliable secondary sources don't normally think it matters then often it doesn't for us either. (Personally as said I'm more in favour of that which seems more correct based on OR, if there's no evidence that the other sources are using the other thing because they consider it more correct but it's more because of sloppy writing and editing.) The English language is a complicated beast and what something means in some specific context may not apply in other contexts.

One specific example that comes to mind since you seem very interested in legal matters is the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Many sources may talk about tax evasion even if there has been no legal finding of wrongdoing or even if it's been tested and found to be legal. Funnily enough I seem to recall one case in NZ where some court judgement found illegal tax avoidance (two be clear the last 2 words where from the judgement).

Still at least we would have a chance. But instead of finding and presenting such sources you've wasted our time with poor quality sources like government press releases, court judgments, tweets and just pure OR. You've been editing long enough that you should already know none of that would ever fly. I mean you were just reminded a few days ago about the unsuitability of court judgement and even when you first started editing with this IP you were citing policies and guidelines in edit summaries in a manner suggesting sufficient experience that none of this should be new to you. And you tried to tell us it wasn't OR when your first post was mostly relying on the legislation and some invitation to comment for rule changes?

If you care so much as you seem to, I have no idea why you haven't instead spent your time finding a good source. If you tried and couldn't then I think you have your answer. Evidently for better or worse they don't think it matters. So nor do we. Unfortunate but you must know by now that's how we work. Your efforts would be better spent writing to each source who've used the wrong terms and politely explained to them why they were wrong etc. Remember we always follow the sources, not lead them.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

George Goodman

I accept your change to British Subject, but not the terminology "understood to be". So I reversed it. There is documentary proof in the National Archives that George Goodman was a British Subject with a full British birth certification and passport. Not a British Palestine Mandate passport. He was considered a British Subject born overseas to an expatriate British parent, just like Roger Bushell and many others born overseas. MarkRS53 (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

May 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Foreign relations of Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Foreign relations of the Holy See shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ToeFungii (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Even if you are right, which your cite would indicate, you are violating many wikipedia guidelines in how you are trying to do it. Please read WP guidance, and put your citation in with your edit (which maybe you did but there are far too many edits for me to look at) and if reverted you need to take it to the talk page. your cite seems solid so if you follow the guidance it will be changed unless someone has something that contradicts which is why there is the talk page. just trying to help. ToeFungii (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

---