User talk:207.161.86.162

@

WP:STUBSPACING? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies. -

Harsh 23:06, 30 June 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.

@Thanoscar21: If you look more closely at the edit, you will see that I was improving the sourcing. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Why don't you create an account and start editing? The software flags your edits as suspicious. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 20:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What flagged that edit as "suspicious", Thanoscar21? As far as I can tell, the edit didn't even trigger a filter. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, at Special:RecentChanges there's a software that flags edits as "May be vandalism/bad faith", "Likely ..." or "Highly likely...". It doesn't trip filters. You see, I didn't even know that it was flagging my edits as suspicious when I was starting out; I'm pretty sure the software usually flags based on the edit summaries. You can see this on your own if you go to Special:RecentChanges, and click on " Active filters". Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 20:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tulliallan Castle, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:58, 26 July 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.

@Thanoscar21: The removed section was blank... 207.161.86.162 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... I'm confused. Can you give me the diff? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the edit about which you sent me this message, Thanoscar21. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to me or Prahlad balaji? If you're referring to me, well, I sent a

WP:RS warning. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict) My apologies, Thanoscar21. I didn't notice that someone else used the same section you did for an unrelated message on this talk page. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The section that you removed wasn't empty. I appreciate that you're trying to do good here, but don't remove reference sections. They contain reference grouping tags, and are there for a reason. Cheers and best regards, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again, Prahlad balaji. There are no references in the section. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's meant to be like that. You see, it is a section that is meant to group references in a particular place, not have any actual content. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prahlad balaji: Such a section is only used, however, on pages where <ref> tags are used. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I'm sorry, I didn't notice that :P ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you strike the above warning then, Prahlad balaji, and that you try to be more discerning in your patrolling. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

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,- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article on the book for deletion - it provides no evidence of notability, and I don't see much to be gained by cluttering the hatnote on a more central article. Acroterion (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Seeing as the PROD has been declined by Ninetyone, I will reinstate the hatnote. Hatnotes are for navigation, not an indication of notability. (Obviously, if the article is deleted at AfD, the hatnote will be removed.) 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it just scraped by, and given that hatnotes aren't meant to be exhaustive disambiguations, I would disagree, but it's not worth the argument. It just seems spammish to include a marginally noticed title like that. Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) IP, I don't think this merits a hatnote at the top of the page. If the article is ended up being retained, maybe add it to the See also. But you cannot put it at the top of the article. It is not that significant to merit that, which makes that addition promotional. El_C 22:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Please take the discussion to the article talk page. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will refactor. El_C 22:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm C1K98V. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to In the Wings 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 Teahouse. Thanks. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:07, 16 July 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.

@C1K98V: What leads you to believe that edit to have been vandalistic? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit by you made has been reverted because you changed the content and the new link doesn't appear, so a red link appear which is an error. And that has been fixed. If this was test edit, you should use sandbox. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CIRCULAR; the red link was intentional. So why would we assume the edit to be vandalistic rather than assuming good faith? 207.161.86.162 (talk

) 03:15, 16 JuI ly 2020 (UTC)

I agree we should assume good faith, and rather than creating a red link, we should fixed it to the option available. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reconcile that position with

WP:CIRCULAR, C1K98V? Have you clicked on the link in question? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes I have the check link which you are referring to. It's a redirect to that page only. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you reconcile that position with

WP:CIRCULAR.) 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes I have check both the Mos and wp. Imo, we don't refer any book as In the Wings (Froman book) . Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the question,

MOS:CIRCULAR reads:

Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities

that links to an appropriate section of the current article).

Additionally, why did you just change my IP address in my signature? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing. Then we should remove the wikilink. What do you mean by this "why did you just change my IP address in my signature?" I don't get you. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

"deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose"

).

What do you mean by this "why did you just change my IP address in my signature?" I'm referring to this edit. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I faced a network lag may be that time. Due to saving of my edit, this has happened. I apologise, Sorry. I don't intent such things. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @C1K98V: I will invite you to strike the above warning by placing an <s> tag in front of it and </s> after it. In any case, I will reinstate the edit. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you. You, me and everyone are most welcome to contribute. It's good that we discuss that on our talk page. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By placing {{

uw-vand1}} – a vandalism warning – you were most certainly making such an accusation. Please be more careful in your patrolling for vandalism and more judicious in your use of warning templates. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I have strike of my edits. Thanks for your advice. Good luck and stay safe. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 04:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Science of Education (book). I saw your edit. Thanks for coming up with an alternate and also for your contributions :). -- Dane ^talk 05:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dane! 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It is the accepted consensus to maintain the original sizing of post-nominal letters in articles. If they are originally full sized, please ensure that add "|size=100%" to the post-nom template. The same applies with commas: please keep them if they are already there with "|sep=,". Feel free to read

Hello again 207! This isn't optional. Please maintain the size and commas of post-noms if they are already there. 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. Continuing to ignore Arbitration rulings will result in editing restrictions or even a ban. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Pat Caplan? If so, this was not a case where a particular style was already chosen as the article had not previously used {{post-nominals}} (which is customary). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to use the template, and so the style is not set by the first instance of its use. Guidance for commas: 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. So there are times were the commas might need cleaning up, but the size should be clear if its needs to be small or maintained at 100%. (142, is this you?) Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 12:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Sarah Coakley does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a

 → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!

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.

Thank you for redoing the edit with an explanation, now it will make sense to people looking at the history :) Leijurv (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still not consistently supplying edit summaries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Talk:Anglo-Catholicism, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 03:51, 3 August 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.

What leads you to believe this editing to be disruptive, Elizium23? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No edit summary, no good rationale for changing things to weird numbers? What's 92 days for? Elizium23 (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were as follows:

• Merging the WikiProject Catholicism banner into the WikiProject Christianity banner.
• Reassessing the importance of the article to WikiProject Anglicanism, bringing it from high to top (as there is no way to comprehensively understand Anglicanism without understanding the Anglo-Catholic tradition).
• Removing the
  Global South
  .)
• Moving the archive box beneath the talk page banners.
• Adding an automatic archiving notice, which was missing despite the page being archived automatically.
• Changing the automatic archiving settings to leave at least four threads on the page rather than two, which is most atypical.
• Changing the automatic archiving settings to only archive threads more than 3 months old (or 92 days – one quarter of a year, rounded up) rather than the existing setting of 40 days, given that this talk page is so infrequently used.

So if the only substantive issue you had with the edit was the number of days in the automatic archiving settings,

WP:DISRUPT (which you cited) tells us must mean this pertains to a pattern of behaviour? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

(talk page stalker) I see no disruption in this edit - the lack of edit summary and changing of archiving numbers seems a bit of a stretch to jump straight to disruption. I've restored the edit. -- Dane ^talk 04:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of edits come from this IP, most without summaries. Taking a moment to leave one can save everyone time and help avoid misunderstandings. And, of course, editing from an account rather than anonymously makes collaboration easier for everyone. Eric ^talk 15:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this IP's summaryless edits are problematic. The IP has also removed some notability tags without addressing issues of notability in the text.

talk) 17:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The only such tags that I removed were added by you recently. For example, at

named chair

 ... at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." This information is easily googleable and was added to the article when the tag was removed.

DiamondRemley39, may I ask what is going into your assumptions about the notability of these articles? Is there any research being done, or is this based merely on a hunch? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tags may be added if when articles do not express notability of the subject. Apparently some research is being done--by you. One can't assume subjects are notable unless there is information about that notability in the article--and sources to back them up.

If you care to work on the article further, to perhaps make these statements about the subject's notability in the article, and add sources, that would be helpful and the tag could then be removed.

Regarding your other changes, the following concerned me:

• Woman's Seaman's Friend Society of Connecticut -- you removed the "advert" tag.
• Protestant Women in Germany -- you removed the "notability" tag but made no other changes.
• Warham Guild -- you removed the "notability" tag but did not add anything to the article.

By all means, please add information and sources!

talk) 23:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:A9. The tag should not be added unless one has some reason to believe that the article may not meet the notability guidelines. To establish that would require at least a cursory Google search. Am I correct in understanding that not to have been done? Ane moreover, why re-add the tag after it was removed – presumably removed because I was "certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues" (to use the language of the template documentation

on the subject of removing the tag)?

One can't assume subjects are notable unless there is information about that notability in the article--and sources to back them up. Is that to say that there ought to be a {{notability}} tag on each of the 212,000 articles that have {{unreferenced}}? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to work on the article further, to perhaps make these statements about the subject's notability in the article, and add sources, that would be helpful and the tag could then be removed. Is that to say that, based on the article Edward C. Ratcliff as it currently exists, you don't believe the article indicates the subject's notability? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confused as to what tags mean. Tags indicate concerns with the present state of the article, not about what any one user may believe about the subject. Can you quote where it says someone must Google before tagging an article for problems? You may read otherwise about tagging

talk) 01:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@DiamondRemley39: Tags indicate concerns with the present state of the article, not about what any one user may believe about the subject. That depends on the tag in question. In the case of {{notability}}, the tag says, "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline." Note the phrase "topic of this article". So you would be correct if the tag said "The article does not indicate that its topic meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline." It does not, however. This is further emphasized in the template documentation which begins, "Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable [emphasis in original]". Once again, it is clear that it is the article's subject that is in question, not just the article's current state. Given the language of the template and its documentation, what leads you to believe it to be exclusively about the current state of the article?

Can you quote where it says someone must Google before tagging an article for problems? Seeing as the template and its documentation make clear that it is the notability of the article's subject that is in question, it is self-evident that if it is a subject with which one is wholly unfamiliar, one cannot come to anything resembling a conclusion about the subject's notability without at the very least a cursory Google search. If it is the article's subject that we are talking about, not solely its current state, I don't see an alternative to that.

It's silly to ask me to speak for 212,000 unreferenced articles. I'm trying to suss out what, exactly, you believe to be the standard. Based on my interpretation of what you are saying ("[o]ne can't assume subjects are notable unless there is information about that notability in the article--and sources to back them up"), the {{notability}} tag would be suitable (albeit perhaps not necessary) on each of those articles. Is that accurate? And if not, why?

It's nice that you added a box at the bottom, but such vital information should be in the body, too. That doesn't answer the question; i.e., based on the article

Regius professorship

 – do you not believe the article indicated the subject's notability?

... this is just constructive criticism and not admonishment. ... I hope this helps you. I'm afraid that I'm left with more questions than answers. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:07, 5 August 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.

Woah, what's with the level-four warning and the threat, Night Snitch? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A level-four warning came out.Night Snitch (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Night Snitch: Came out of what exactly? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my hands.Night Snitch (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that, Night Snitch? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to

cite sources whenever editing.Night Snitch (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I assure you,

WP:UWLEVELS, level-four warnings assume bad faith. Is that your intention here? And what makes you think that this would be a blockable offence in this context? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

In fact, a level-four warning is not necessary in your case, and I only gave it because I had not checked your talk page. Night Snitch (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @207.161.86.162 , I apologise for "correcting" your spelling on Mysterium fidei (encyclical). I should do more research before I do such things. Hockeycatcat (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries, Hockeycatcat! It happens to the best of us. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit as unexplained reversion, yet your original edit had no explanation. Why? Denisarona (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that letter be capitalized, seeing as the word is not a proper noun? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my question. (It was probably capitalised because it was a title, the same as the capital I in Intellectual history) Regards Denisarona (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "title"? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title can mean the name of a book, a poem, a painting, an article, etc. Denisarona (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that sense, a title would be a proper noun. The name of a field of study is not, however, a proper noun, as I'm sure can be evidenced by any major English-language dictionary. Our manual of style is also explicitly clear on this point at

MOS:DOCTCAPS

: "Doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or 'schools' of thought and practice, and fields of academic or professional study are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name [emphasis in original]."

And even if we were to capitalize the "H" in "history of ideas", why wouldn't we also capitalize the "I" in "ideas"? For that matter, why wouldn't we also capitalize "intellectual history" (the article title)? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question - You reverted my edit as unexplained reversion, yet your original edit had no explanation. Why? Once again, Regards Denisarona (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the purpose of the original edit was self-evident whereas the purpose of the reversion was anything but. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having explained my edit, I'll ask the same of you: what was the rationale behind your reversion? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denisarona, the dude doesn't use edit summaries and we can't make him, so we're just going to have to get over ourselves, okay? Elizium23 (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your question on User talk:Greyfell as best I can. I added a ping to you, only to be reminded, as I suspected, that it would show up as a red link. I assume you are keeping an eye on it but I thought I should let you know about the reply here. Donner60 (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Elizium23 (talk) 01:52, 14 November 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.

@Elizium23: I don't know that this notice is necessary, but regardless, this being the case, should we be replacing it with a link to the original source? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. Elizium23 (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That probably would have been more productive than reverting that other user for source unreliability and then me for copyright violation, but okay then. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I am supposed to magically know that scribd is a copy of some Italian paper? The responsibility was yours, since you found it out, but instead you restored the copyright violation. Elizium23 (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Slykos. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Epistle to the Romans 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 Teahouse. Thanks. Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 18:06, 2 December 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.

What leads you to believe that to have been vandalism,

MOS:POSTNOM. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh! So sorry about that. I meant to post that on a different talk page. Please disregard this message. Happy editing! Again, so sorry for the false warning. Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 01:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Paternalistic conservatism. 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. Merry Christmas! Asartea ^{Talk Contribs!} 09:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In what way are you accusing me of

"deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" here, Asartea 207.161.86.162 (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• See
  Talk:Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World#Requested move 13 December 2020. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted your edit as you have not provided explanation for removing the domains section from the infobox. If you have a source that says something different please share it with us. Alternatively you can place a {{cn}} tag near the passage in question requesting other editors to provide sources backing it up. Alaexis_¿question? 06:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted your edit as you categorised

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. An edit you recently made to Amazing Grace (2018 film) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist: What makes you think this was a test edit? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your position. I am now confused, so I have opened a discussion at Template talk:Pseudoscience#Precognition, parapsychology and dowsing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woke up to a shitload of edits on Keith Gill (investor), pleasantly surprised to see most of them were good. Thanks for making my article's heart smile! jp×g 14:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you for warning

@

TravelAroundOz: What leads you to believe that edit to have been vandalistic? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Unsourced for a bio.

talk) 10:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm Waynejayes. I noticed that you recently removed content from Alan Gibson (bishop) 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. Wayne Jayes (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2021 (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.

Hi. In the edit summary you posted when you made a fix at List of Los Angeles Times publishers, you used "CE," which means "Corrected an Error." Actually, it is not an error to refer to him as a "Dr." (I believe he has an MD.) It was wrong according to our style, so perhaps the Edit summary might have read "Not WP style," or something of the sort. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is news to me, I always knew it as copy edit, or content edit. ~ See Wikipedia:Basic_copyediting Shushugah (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See Talk:Common Ground (memoir)#Requested move 25 February 2021 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm

@

CommanderWaterford: How was this edit "unexplained"? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It was not adequately explained, because removing someone else's contribution to a discussion can only be removed in very exceptional circumstances, like vandalism. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I somehow read the edit I reverted as removing the hyphen, and didn't notice that my revert actually removed it. My mistake! --Equivamp - talk 23:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per your revision here. Of course the icon isn't on the majority of astronauts' articles, as very few astronauts are yet commercial ones. With regard to contesting

@EP111: I don't think the average reader is familiar enough with astronaut wings to be able to tell them apart from one another, so their inclusion there doesn't seem to aid comprehension. It seems no different to medal ribbons, which we no longer include in infoboxes. If you still feel that they should be included, however, I would be open to having a discussion at Template talk:Infobox astronaut about adding an appropriate parameter, as they certainly don't belong in the "type" field. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Rdp060707. I noticed that in this edit to Trades Union Congress, 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. ----Rdp060707|talk 06:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Hans Singer. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ----Rdp060707|talk 05:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Hans Singer, you may be blocked from editing. ----Rdp060707|talk 05:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Rdp060707: How were these "talk page comments"? These were notices explicitly authorized for removal by this RfC, as is indicated in the "comment" itself. And why would you post two warnings in succession? I had made no further reversions after your message at 05:18. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I did not heard of this. Apologies for my misunderstanding. Thanks for letting me know.----Rdp060707|talk 05:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really do think you need to slow down on your vandalism patrolling,

misuse of rollback). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. Anyways, once again, sorry.----Rdp060707|talk 05:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed one of the warnings. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The level II and III warnings were removed by me, but you have restored them with striking. A level I warning will still stand because on your edit to TUC (that I have mentioned above), you removed it without an explaination. Anyways, I have now self-reverted my edit to Talk:Hans Singer.----Rdp060707|talk 05:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I restored the warnings (struck out to indicate your retraction) as this whole comment thread wouldn't make much sense without them there. But is this to say that your reversion at Trades Union Congress was justified? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justified because this is unexplained removal of content by your edit on this article, I think.----Rdp060707|talk 06:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should any edit that removes content without an edit summary be reverted on those grounds alone? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it depends on the nature of an edit or the edits.----Rdp060707|talk 06:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rdp060707: If "it depends on the nature of an edit or the edits", in what circumstance ought such an edit not be reverted? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edits that are in good faith.----Rdp060707|talk 07:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rdp060707: Is that to say that you inferred that my edits were not in good faith? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can say or infer that all of your contributions that they are divided into two, I think; the good faith and bad faith.----Rdp060707|talk 07:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rdp060707: I am referring to those two contributions specifically (at Trades Union Congress and Talk:Hans Singer). Did you infer (in one or both cases) that the edits were not made in good faith? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Anyways, in your first edit to TUC, I think might be in bad faith; the second edit, I assumed that it is a good faith one. And to Talk:Hans Singer, I assumed that you assumed good faith on it.----Rdp060707|talk 07:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rdp060707: To clarify, do you still think the first edit (at Trades Union Congress) might have been made in bad faith? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so.----Rdp060707|talk 07:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rdp060707: So, two things:

1. How can you even begin to reconcile that view with
   WP:AGF
   ?
2. I have told you what my rationale for the edit was. What can I possibly say that would lead to you believe the edit was made in good faith?

207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from RandomCanadian

Hello, 207.161.86.162. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efforts to impeach Joe Biden (2nd nomination).
Message added 04:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queried move request

• See
  Talk:Regional Health Authorities of Manitoba#Requested move 3 October 2021. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• See
  Talk:John Clarke (Dean of Salisbury)#Requested move 10 October 2021. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• See Talk:Mirror Go#Requested move 11 October 2021. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello, I'm

Aeneas Chisholm (Vicar Apostolic of the Highland District), 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. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page

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) 01:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address

, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to John Williams (VC), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Limited Idea4me (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Limited Idea4me: What was unconstructive about it, in your view? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at New Democratic Party. 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 noticeboards.
• 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. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 noticeboards.
• 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, as you did at New Democratic Party, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi , 207.161.86.162

I'm Sorry for about that your edit has reverted by me on

Joseph Hoare (college principal) I'm using SWViewers to Remove Vandalism and Discruptive editing. Best Regards. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 03:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

No worries – it happens! 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Files for Upload request

Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files for other types of files. Regards, --Coolperson177 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Your Files for Upload request

Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files for other types of files. Regards, --Coolperson177 (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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) 06:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address

, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

John R. Williams hatnote

Hi, I posted a discussion on the topic at Talk:John R. Williams#Lengthy hatnote; your input would be appreciated. Powers ^T 12:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this link

• See
  Talk:Robert Williams (actor)#Requested move 26 October 2021]. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]