User talk:202.78.236.72
Welcome!
[edit]Hello! I noticed your contributions to Missionaries of Charity and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! HopsonRoad (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
January 2022
[edit]
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Supply chain management, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY - Wikipedia is not a repository for sources with no content added. Don't add lists, but add content supported by a source. Zefr (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Zefr: Why did you reverted my edits all I have provided books and academic journals in the Further reading list. And by the way I read WP:NOTGUIDE guidelines. Nowhere it states one cannot mention books and journals especially if its academic journals written scholars. Apart from journals I also mentioned few notable books. I haven't provided any rubbish information which you think should be removed. I think you should quickly restore my edits. Thanks--202.78.236.72 (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- You are just loading sources, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. An encyclopedia is about content. Turn your attention to providing new information, then choose 1-2 strong sources to support the statement, WP:SCIRS. Think of your user as a high school student learning about supply chains - that is the goal of the encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Zefr: Most of the sources mentioned in the "Further reading" section are absolutely rubbish. Most of the ISBN & URLs are missing. Now I agree most users have zero knowledge in SCM field. And we have to keep that in mind. But the currently sources, most of them are not peer reviewed or written by research scholars. Moreover I can notice that huge citation tag added (which means source is completely missing). Every article should have some peer reviewed journals it would simply enhance the article quality. And in future I'll added more information with sources. Right now you can consider adding few academic journals which I provided; if you think I added way too many then you remove some of them. I can assure you if you add some of those sources which mentioned it would significantly increase the article value.--202.78.236.72 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I acknowledge your points, but this list is excessive. Choose 3-4 that provide full inline general reading for the common, non-expert user, WP:INCITE. Zefr (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. I've added 5 journals in the further reading section. And those are non-expert journals. Thanks--202.78.236.72 (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The Further reading list is too long and basically a directory, which we try not to have in the encyclopedia. It would be better for you as an editor, and for readers/students of this article, if those sources you added were actually used to support content in the main article. Perhaps you could try your editing skills to make this improvement. Keep in mind that review articles and high-quality "state-of-the-science" articles make the sources more useful to general users, WP:SCIRS. Zefr (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll add more content in future to support with sources. The Further reading list right now has roughly 20 sources which is not that long. Since I've added some peer reviewed sources I hope it would increase the quality of the article.--202.78.236.72 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The Further reading list is too long and basically a directory, which we try not to have in the encyclopedia. It would be better for you as an editor, and for readers/students of this article, if those sources you added were actually used to support content in the main article. Perhaps you could try your editing skills to make this improvement. Keep in mind that review articles and high-quality "state-of-the-science" articles make the sources more useful to general users, WP:SCIRS. Zefr (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. I've added 5 journals in the further reading section. And those are non-expert journals. Thanks--202.78.236.72 (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I acknowledge your points, but this list is excessive. Choose 3-4 that provide full inline general reading for the common, non-expert user, WP:INCITE. Zefr (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Zefr: Most of the sources mentioned in the "Further reading" section are absolutely rubbish. Most of the ISBN & URLs are missing. Now I agree most users have zero knowledge in SCM field. And we have to keep that in mind. But the currently sources, most of them are not peer reviewed or written by research scholars. Moreover I can notice that huge citation tag added (which means source is completely missing). Every article should have some peer reviewed journals it would simply enhance the article quality. And in future I'll added more information with sources. Right now you can consider adding few academic journals which I provided; if you think I added way too many then you remove some of them. I can assure you if you add some of those sources which mentioned it would significantly increase the article value.--202.78.236.72 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- You are just loading sources, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. An encyclopedia is about content. Turn your attention to providing new information, then choose 1-2 strong sources to support the statement, WP:SCIRS. Think of your user as a high school student learning about supply chains - that is the goal of the encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Zefr: Why did you reverted my edits all I have provided books and academic journals in the Further reading list. And by the way I read WP:NOTGUIDE guidelines. Nowhere it states one cannot mention books and journals especially if its academic journals written scholars. Apart from journals I also mentioned few notable books. I haven't provided any rubbish information which you think should be removed. I think you should quickly restore my edits. Thanks--202.78.236.72 (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Mar Gregorios Orthodox Christian Student Movement has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Instead of "copy edit," please describe what changes you made to the page (for example, "added categories"). amlz (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Prostitution in Kolkata has been reverted.
Your edit here to Prostitution in Kolkata 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://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.304.5670.506) 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) 06:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Images of sex workers
[edit]I asked about a recent edit at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Images of sex workers. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
AWB
[edit]Your edit summaries mention AWB. This tool is reserved for logged-in editors on the approved list at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON. If you are listed there, please log in before continuing. If not, please stop using AWB until you have read the important information at WP:AWB. Thanks, Certes (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 | 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. |