Hello! I noticed your contributions to Halley's Comet and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
Yes, I did. One was along the along the lines of: DYK … JWR got a letter of admonition from the CinC , but later was made deputy Adjutant General? ALT1 was: discovered Propylene, but later made deputy…etc. I didn't take them forward because I didn't think they were "hooky" enough.--AntientNestor (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about something along the lines of "a conflict with superior led a British cavalry officer to take a break in his military career and discover propylene"? The combination of notability of the scandal and notability of the discovery is what makes his biography very unusual, and I personally was very surprized to find out that the discoverer was actually a cavalry officer (almost all chemists at that time, as opposed to 18th c., didn't have any other occupations but science and education) 5.178.188.143 (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will give this a shot, now that I have better hooks (i.e., yours). At the moment I'm struggling with my required quid pro quo reviews of other people's DYK, but I'll get ours (yours) in within the time limit.--AntientNestor (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third thoughts: I think (but I'm not sure) the restriction on hook length counts the characters so [[James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan|Lord Cardigan]] would take us over the limit. Why not try an ALT2 and see if it works?--AntientNestor (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Williams Reynolds, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a well-publicized conflict with a superior officer led British cavalry officer John Williams Reynolds to take a break from his military career, study chemistry and discover propylene? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/ John Williams Reynolds. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Williams Reynolds), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page William Nicholson Jennings has been reverted. Your edit here to William Nicholson Jennings was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2019/11/x_rays_1890.html) 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) 11:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Its a Wikipedia thing. We avoid citing theses. I guess because they are not rigorously reviewed. Anyway, if you want to support a claim, cite a review or a textbook. WP:SECONDARY--Smokefoot (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I didn't know it. I can assure you that I manually checked every Wikidata page that it contains correct data and working URLs before adding them (in fact, I fixed two of the entries). Why is it controversial? 5.178.188.143 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a weak argument, because those edits will show up in the Wikidata history logs. Once someone notices that the citations was vandalized, it's very easy to go to Wikidata and revert it there.
Also, it's a very bad idea to go to articles I write and revert my constructive edits for the only reason that you don't like the style of the citations I added or that I link some of them to Wikidata.
Moreover, I would also note that while reverting my edits in the statistics articles you also put back the typos I fixed, removed the links I added (both external and wikilinks) and rolled back some minor clarifications in the wording. Sure you may consider the latter not necessary, but could you at least check the former two and carry them over. 5.178.188.143 (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie, thanks for flagging this issue, but I think it would have been preferable to have waited for discussion prior to reverting these edits. I agree Wikidata citations are harder to manage, and it's time-consuming to back-convert them, but 5.178.188.143 is a promising new editor who has been making helpful chemistry and statistics contributions. Reverting first then discussing later led to avoidable conflict, and their non-citevar content edits (typo fixes, adding citation information) were non-controversial improvements that should have been retained. Preimage (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
December 2024
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I have read the rules on edit warring before making my last edit today, I did not break the 3RR rule and I attempted to communicate with MrOllie who kept vandalizing the page I have been expanding, both here and on his talk page. He preferred to ignore any reasonable arguments and just keep reverting. Why are you blocking me and not him, and for two whole weeks despite the lack of any prior "edit wars" not few days how the rules advise? 5.178.188.143 (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You are blocked for edit warring, not specifically for violating 3RR. One can edit war without violating 3RR You edit warred and threatened to continue doing so, so the block is necessary to stop your disruption. As for others, see WP:NOTTHEM. Only you can control your actions. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have never threatened to "continue edit warring". The "I will continue updating the page" in the edit summary referred to the edit process of the article I was expanding despite his disruptive actions (check my latest edit, I replaced one of the sources with two other ones). I was planning to add more sources and more information, that's what I wrote (thought that was obvious from the context). 5.178.188.143 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
Support unblock@MrOllie:, this is unimpressive editing, BITEing of someone who's clearly a GF editor working to expand what's a gap in the article and a two week first block for something so trivial is way out of line.
They were not even changing the cite format of any existing citations. Of which there was only one to start with, not the seven that the IP was adding. If the new format for any new citations offends you so much, then it would have been much better editing on your part (and as a long-term editor, you're expected to be better than this) to have just changed that one offending citation, or whatever. Simple bulk reversion is not a good response, especially not to an article that was so weak beforehand and improved so much by the addition.
Then the IP was foolish enough to use the phrase I will keep updating the article. Which immediately turns it into a matter of lèse-majesté instead. To be followed by long blocks, no doubt to be followed by IP-space blocking and an overall lack of improvement to the article. Editors involved in this should think what their part in the project is really supposed to be here for. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. BTW, if MrOllie was blocked for the same term as me, I wouldn't have protested: that at least would be more or less fair. Do you think you could raise this topic on admin's noticeboard? 5.178.188.143 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very unfortunate if accurate. Do you think there's any reason for attempting another unblock request? I'm considering just leaving this project for good 5.178.188.143 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bit surprising, but you didn't answer or otherwise comment my question about the second unblock request. Perhaps more importantly, what could you (or we after my block runs out if I stay with English Wikipedia) do with the article? Could you ask for a 3rd opinion or something to revert the article back to its better state? Maybe at the Chemicals Wikiproject? I'm pretty sure any sane editor would prefer my version of the article over his. 5.178.188.143 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say about this is wow. @5.178.188.143:, I have undone your block after looking this over. To cover the bases: In the future, even if you know your edits are 'right', discuss instead of automatically reverting a reversion. There, now go forth and continue improving the encyclopedia. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
