User talk:2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to Seal of the Confessional in the Catholic Church. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

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

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

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

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

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26) is used to identify you instead.

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

Happy editing! HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Billy Graham. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have removed content three times from that article in four hours: 2018-11-10T19:16:25‎ 2018-11-10T21:48:43‎ 2018-11-10T23:52:17‎. According to WP:3RR each change is considered a revert. That means you're at three reverts. You risk a block if you continue. The fact that it's over something you're misreading, is a separate issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misreading quite a bit more than I am. Perhaps I removed too much as opposed to rewriting it correctly, but your preferred version violates WP:V and is not acceptable - it takes >1 editor to war, and you're involved here too. Falsely labeling constructive contribution as "vandalism" is not helpful and might be a WP:PA. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filaret (Denysenko)

You removed a whole section from this page...I don't understand why. The Independent is clearly a WP:RS and says Filaret fails to mention Mr Putin by name but alludes to him in strong words. I think that removing the whole section is inappropriate; at most we should mention he wasn't explicitly named in the blog post. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

I just attempted to make the section more neutral. Let me know if you still have a problem with it. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018, continued

Hello, please do not violate copyright by restoring those disruptive edits. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, I have repaired the attribution that you failed to provide when you restored the disruptive edits of DeanBWFofficial (talk · contribs) so you will not need to worry about being investigated for copyright violations. Thank you! 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out WP:AN#Editors copying and pasting barnstars intended for others onto their userpages because you appear to be restoring a sockpuppet's disruptive edits. Just sayin'. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Theistic evolution. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Uh, my friend, it was not vandalism. You should be more careful to evaluate edit summaries and rationales. You restored a wholly unsourced section in violation of WP:BLP. Please retract your warnings. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

Sorry, the Wrong button was pushed. I tried to stop it from reverting but I was too late. Kb03 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries. I appreciate the note. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit Mars

There is no link or explanation for your edit and the term appears to be dubious, even if it is not. There seems to be no way to check it. I suggest you add something (a parenthetical, footnote or citation) to show it is a valid edit. Anyone unfamiliar with the location might question it. Assuming it is a valid edit, I am sorry I did not recognize it as such. Donner60 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, reliable and not

Hello. With this edit to Cascade Mall shooting, you removed a reference to a story on the Daily Mail site, noting that it's not a reliable source. While it's true that the Daily Mail is of questionable reliability, the reference you removed was to a wire story from Agence France-Presse, which is a reliable source. The Mail published the story, as did this Kenyan news site, and, I expect, many other sites at the time, just as many sites might publish a story from the Associated Press.

As there's another reference for the same statement, it's not necessary to re-add the link to the AFP story, though it may be of use for other sections of the article. In the future, please look more carefully at references before you remove them. Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are Open Source Projects WP:COI?

You reverted some of my edits on a few old Sun workstations due to a supposed conflict of interest arising from my having worked on the open source hardware mentioned. All of the design files for this hardware are freely available online, licensed under the GNU GPL. Is this actually a WP:COI? I worked on this hardware to help other vintage Sun hardware hackers keep their equipment running, not to make a profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitchworks (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a conflict of interest because of WP:PROMOTION. You inserted links to promote your website in at least four articles. It matters little whether you seek to gain a profit from this; the fact is that you have a connection to the topic and therefore you lack the objective ability to write about it neutrally. Look, how many thousand people worked on an "Open Source" project related to some computer? What if they all added their website to those articles? It would be an unholy mess. The best solution is that nobody gets to do it. If your project is adequately covered by reliable secondary sources and truly worthy of inclusion, then some disinterested editor may add information about it, per WP:DUE, or even create a standalone article on it, per WP:GNG. Until that time, it is not appropriate for you to promote the project in this way. Thanks. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]