User talk:142.160.131.220

@

Masumrezarock100: I think you misread. The page wasn't blanked. 142.160.131.220 (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, that was an automatic warning from SWViewer. Sorry for reverting you though.

^📞 02:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, firstly, thanks for the work you're putting in. I'll start creating the categories and assigning pages shortly. However secondly, please just leave requests in a == Top level == sub-category so that the automated tools I and other patrollers of that page still work. Additionally, I'm unsure if the auto-archiving bot may accidentally throw the whole section into archive once one is complete. It may not be the nicest presentation, but it is just a maintenance page after all. Thanks again — IVORK _Talk 07:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derp, upon checking I realized you did leave them at that level and just raised the Biblical Scholars level. It does work that way. Disregard my last — IVORK _Talk 07:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing all of that, IVORK! 142.160.131.220 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and

• 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

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (142.160.131.220) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a

Happy editing! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 01:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page warning deleted by emplacing editor)

@Jusdafax: How are these edits "disruptive"? 142.160.131.220 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of your edits convinces me they are constructive, and I will undo my revert, or you may, if you wish. May I strongly suggest that you use edit summaries for every edit, especially ones that could appear to be vandalism? A majority of vandalism comes from IP editors, so the combination of, say, an unexplained deletion and an IP source can give a strong appearance of intentional disruption. Therefore I also suggest that you create a username, though this is obviously not a requirement. I will delete the warning on your Talk page. My apologies, and best wishes. Jusdafax (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusdafax: Do you plan on reverting your edit accordingly, then...? 142.160.131.220 (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I just accepted some of your redirects that you submitted at Articles for Creation, as well as many of the categories that you put together. I just wanted to say thank you for everything that you are doing! However, I do want to offer a suggestion to you.

(Now, this is not required at all, but I would heavily recommend that you create a Wikipedia account. For one, it gets rid of the nagging IP Address attached to all of your edits, and you aren't required to put your categories and redirects through

• Please register and get yourself a Wikipedia username. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I will highly recommend creating a account; which has many benefits such as creating a page, moving page etc. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 00:04, 18 November 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.

My apologies, I warned the wrong editor. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See Template talk:New York City TV#Requested move 28 November 2019 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 28 November 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.

To which provision of the MOS are you referring, Paisarepa? 142.160.131.220 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox academic -- only include as 'notable student' those who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Thanks, Paisarepa (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

ill}}): on the Catalan-, French-, and Spanish-language editions of Wikipedia. 142.160.131.220 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

If he is notable enough for his own article then I recommend creating it before adding him to the list of notable students. Thanks, Paisarepa (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paisarepa: Where is it stated in the MOS (or elsewhere, for that matter) that that is required, especially in such a black-and-white case of notability? And bear in mind that "his own article" already exists – on three language editions, in fact. 142.160.131.220 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to re-add him if you'd like, but it's probable that it will be reverted due to the red link. Look at the page history and note that the edit immediately prior to yours was another editor removing a name from the list of notable students since they didn't have their own article. Paisarepa (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my addition of "The", citing MOS. To which provision of the MOS are you referring? Contributor321 (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH directs to be bolded. 142.160.131.220 (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop your repeated and disruptive edit-warring over dates in opening sentences. The standard MOS style is to include full dates in this sentence. You seem to think, mistakenly, that if the dates are also included elsewhere in the article that they shouldn't also be included in the opening sentence. The MOS only says that they "may" not be included, not that they *should* not be included. Another editor has already clarified this matter for you. You are out of order on this matter. Anglicanus (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the edit war here, Anglicanus? A reversion does not constitute an edit war. ... not that they *should* not be included. What leads you to believe that they should be in this case? 142.160.131.220 (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the MOS says on this: "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." Anglicanus (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question, I'm afraid, Anglicanus. If we're working from the assumption that there are situations in which the vital year range is "sufficient to provide context", what leads you to believe that it is insufficient in this context? And in what contexts, in your view, would it be sufficient? 142.160.131.220 (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The dates should usually be included in the opening sentence. This is the standard MOS style and is followed in virtually all biographical articles. Nowhere does the MOS say, contrary to your erroneous insistence, that they should or must be removed if the dates are also included elsewhere. No one gets to arbitrarily decide whether or not the full dates are included in the opening sentence or not. Your personal preference is just that. Anglicanus (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not say that the MOS provides for the uniform removal of the full dates where they're included in the body in all articles.

But you haven't answered the question, Anglicanus. Given that the MOS provides that we must work from the assumption that there are situations in which the vital year range is "sufficient to provide context", what leads you to believe that it is insufficient in this context? And in what contexts, in your view, would it be sufficient? 142.160.131.220 (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Cc

WP:OWN attitude problem which you need to change. Anglicanus (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent editing history at Kenneth Leech 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. Paisarepa (talk) 05:06, 4 December 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.

Hello. I'm fine with the references that you added on the article, whatever references styles, templates, that you used. But breaking existing sfn references to replace them to with "ref name", I'm not fine with that at all. I don't want to revert your 3000 bytes block edit. But you should repair sfn link at least ---Telikalive (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit archives. Once archives are edited, no one knows what's going on. Perhaps you did a great job accurately, and perhaps what you did was not needed or had a mistake. It would take ages to investigate and work out the story. Please stop. If there is a need, make a proposal on the talk page and explain the purpose. Adjusting what-goes-where does not compensate for the disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 142! Just a reminder again to keep the original formatting when adding post-nom templates to articles, as per

]

A barnstar?

		The Original Barnstar
		I don't know how you did it, but the very second that I, for some reason, re-discovered "Category:Women historians by nationality", you begin to fill it. Just a little stroke of luck. You're still filling it at this moment I believe. Utopes (talk) 04:37, 27 December 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, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Darren-M. I noticed that in this edit to Lawrence Rosen (attorney), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. Darren-M talk 10:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Golf in Scotland. 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) 11:40, 5 January 2020 (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 to be vandalism, i.e., "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose [emphasis in original]"? 142.160.131.220 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, we do not have enough licensing information to upload your file. Please check the comment made at your submission here. Your request will remain open for seven days while pending a response. Regards, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, we do not have enough licensing information to upload your file. Please check the comment made at your submission here. Your request will remain open for seven days while pending a response. Regards, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist. 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:22, 8 January 2020 (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.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Non-free use of an image from a paywalled journal.. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2020 (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,~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tdts5. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Richard Foster (theologian)—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. Tdts5 (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have reverted anything. What's this about, Tdts5? 142.160.131.220 (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]