Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your host, wnpgmb1154w-ds01-86-162.dynamic.bellmts.net (207.161.86.162), 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.
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.
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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:
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 (207.161.86.162) 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.
This shared IP address has received multiple warnings for inappropriate edits. Since different users may be using this IP address, many of these warnings may be stale. Click [show] at far right to see all previous warnings and/or blocks.
The following is a record of previous warnings and/or blocks left for this IP. Please do not modify it.
You currently appear to be 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. 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.
There was nothing to discuss (the "D") as no rationale was provided for the singular reversion. How would that meet the definition of edit war provided in WP:EW? In any case, I already started a discussion on the article talk page to better understand what source you are seeking. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit to American imperialism 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.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! --David Tornheim (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome
I'm not sure if you got welcomed yet. Lots of important links worth checking out.
Hello 207.161.86.162! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 12 June 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, Thanoscar21talk, contribs20:51, 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. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:58, 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, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:03, 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. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:08, 26 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_C22:53, 14 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]
@C1K98V: The removed link violates 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]
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]
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]
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]
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 MOS:POSTNOM. Thanks, Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk13:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 AgrippaTalk00:03, 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 AgrippaTalk12:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 WikiProject England banner as Anglo-Catholicism is no more about England than, say, analytic philosophy. (It is worth noting that the Anglo- in Anglo-Catholicism comes from Anglicanism, which, while originating in the English church in the 16th century, is not exclusively English. The vast majority of Anglicans are not English – in fact, about half live in 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, Elizium23, why did you revert the edit as a whole? And what led you not merely to question and possibly disagree with the edit, but to believe that the editing must be "disruptive", which 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. -- Danetalk04:18, 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. Erictalk15:14, 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. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only such tags that I removed were added by you recently. For example, at Edward C. Ratcliff (where you recently restored the {{notability}} tag): Ratcliff held multiple named chairs at the University of Cambridge, both of which are so prestigious that they have long had their own articles (including the Regius Professorship of Divinity, which is possibly the most prestigious chair at the university). Thus, Ratcliff easily meets the standards of WP:NACADEMIC, which provides that the biography of an academic is notable if they hold any "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.
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:
@DiamondRemley39:Tags may be added if when articles do not express notability of the subject. Perhaps you're confusing this with the standard for WP:A7/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 here. It's silly to ask me to speak for 212,000 unreferenced articles. The Edward C. Ratcliff article at the time of my tagging and retagging read, "was an English liturgical scholar." There is no indication of notability in that statement. It's nice that you added a box at the bottom, but such vital information should be in the body, too. But it seems you are new here and not experienced with these kinds of things, so this is just constructive criticism and not admonishment. Remember that if you're going to use unsourced information to combat notability concerns, please consider at least writing an edit summary or making a note on the talk page. That way, more experienced editors can help you improve the article. I hope this helps you. The article has been improved a bit more by another editor in the meantime. Have a nice day. DiamondRemley39 (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 Edward C. Ratcliff as it existed when you re-added the tag – an article whose succession boxes indicated the subject to have held multiple named chairs at Cambridge, including a 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]
I assure you, Night Snitch, that I am well familiar with the verifiability policy and the citing sources guideline. (In fact, prior to this interruption, I was specifically working on sourcing in Henry Steele Commager.) A fact being unsourced, however, is not in itself reason to remove easily verifiable information. But more to the point, why a level-four warning specifically? As noted at 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]
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]
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]
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]
November 2020
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Carlo Maria Viganò, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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;
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]
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) 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 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]
Transnistria domains
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]
Stub
Hi, I've reverted your edit as you categorised Hamadryad once again as a stub. I recommend you to read this. Here you can get all the information related to stub articles. Without going into edit conflict you can message me at my talk page.
AskBot (talk) 09:39, 17 January 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]
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]
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]
Apologies
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 - talk23:44, 23 March 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 MOS:ICONDECORATION, does the icon honestly not serve as an infobox visual cue for a commercial astronaut, to aid the reader, similar to mission badges? EP111 (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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]
July 2021
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|talk06:04, 22 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]
I really do think you need to slow down on your vandalism patrolling, Rdp060707. As I said, that RfC was mentioned in the very "comments" being removed. And the purpose of the edit at Trades Union Congress is plainly evident to anyone looking at it for more than four seconds. I would strongly encourage you to strike all of your warnings here accordingly and to revert your most recent reversion at Talk:Hans Singer, which I am surprised you have not already done (especially when this was a misuse of rollback). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:34, 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|talk05:49, 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]
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|talk07:17, 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|talk07:25, 24 July 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 Joseph Shaw (academic) has been reverted. Your edit here to Joseph Shaw (academic) 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 (http://casuistrycentral.blogspot.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). 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) 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.
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 any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
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.
Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Guild of Italian American Actors 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 Guild of Italian American Actors 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 (http://giaa.us (redirects to sites.google.com/view/giaa/), http://giaa.us (redirects to sites.google.com/view/giaa/)) 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) 06:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
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.
Of course, the warning text is boilerplate standard stuff added by template. The essence is: Please don't restore old talk page threads that have been archived. It doesn't help the article become better. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: So why did you choose that particular "boilerplate standard stuff"? Why did you think it appropriate to apply a level-three disruptive editing warning when there was no edit war and nothing that fell under WP:DISRUPT?
Now to provide some context to my edit, on 9 September a user changed the automatic archiving settings on the talk page to allow archiving after just 30 days (rather than 6 months, as had previously been the case) and require that a minimum of only one thread be left on the talk page. At the time, the most recent discussion concerned how to label Tilda Swinton's nationality. Just 16 minutes later, the user started a new thread about the subject's nationality. I feel that this was inappropriate as the previous discussion remains relevant.
Additionally, the change in the archive settings is not suitable for the talk page. It is standard practice on all but the busiest talk pages to keep at least the three to five most recent discussions. And this talk page is certainly not busy enough to both lower the minimum number of discussions and to archive discussions after just 30 days. (The page appears to typically play host to just one or two threads per year. And even at its largest, it hasn't exceeded 18 KB in size.)
On the issue of archiving, our talk page guidelines say that If a thread has been archived prematurely, such as when it is still relevant to current work or was not concluded, unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive. I restored the most recent thread because it could not have been much more relevant to the ongoing discussion. If there is doubt as to whether the thread was archived prematurely, the talk page guidelines provide this guidance: Refactoring and archiving are still appropriate, but should be done with courtesy and reversed on protest. I must "protest" the unilateral decision to archive the thread. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
Added note
Noticed you recently took issue with an unexplained revert at United States ship naming conventions, yet the edit that was reverted was also an unexplained edit that you had made yourself. You can expect an edit that is tagged as "references removed", along with significant changes and the questionable removal of a subject-related template, all without an edit summary or accompanying talk page post, to be reverted. Hope this clears things up - wolf02:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello, I'm Equine-man. I noticed that you recently removed content from John Williams (motorcyclist) 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. Equine-man (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Matthew hk. I noticed that you recently removed content from Talk:Bailiwick of Guernsey 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. Normally talk page thread are archived and then deleted. But you did not do the archiving partMatthew hk (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you pls read over WP:GBOOKS and WP:WHENINROME. Pls don't make it harder for our readers to verify information or to utilize links for research...... please do not put multiple steps in between verification.Moxy-01:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006" .Moxy-02:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying the patients of 'at least' 3 established editors. Stop whatever it is you're attempting to do, before you end up getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oppressors–oppressed distinction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
