User talk:142.160.131.202: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:10, 11 September 2017

READ THIS BEFORE TEMPLATING

Make sure you've examined this IP's edits and edit summaries carefully before templating. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!

Your IP address, 142.160.131.202, is registered to MTS Allstream, Winnipeg, 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.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.

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 so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

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

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (142.160.131.202) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new 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! -🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Fact–value distinction

Hello, I'm Thisisnotcam. An edit you recently made to Fact–value distinction 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. Thanks. ɯɐɔ 💬 03:07, 16 June 2017 (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.

Hi, Thisisnotcam. That was not an "editing test". It was intentional copyediting, largely to conform to the MOS. Accordingly, I have reverted your reversion. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know! Thanks for the response + good editing. ɯɐɔ 💬 03:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Diplomacy, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim1138, my apologies for neglecting to include an edit summary, but it seems pretty clear why the link was removed given the obviously excessive number of see also links (as well as the fact that the topic was covered in another listed article). Also, why did you feel the need to issue a level-two warning? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. My assumption was that you were perhaps anti-Catholic. It's easy to misunderstand an edit and trying to ascertain why can be a research thesis in of itself. Please add wp:edit summaries! Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even based on your assumption, Jim1138, would a level-two warning really be appropriate? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's automatic with wp:Huggle. Definitely not the best system. What you get when it's designed ad hoc. Discussions abound with little result.

May I suggest using wp:notifications? I only notice your edit here as it popped up on Huggle. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of Switzerland

Moved to Talk:Foreign relations of Switzerland § Hatnote

– 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2017 (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:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Foreign relations of Switzerland 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. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! ZH8000 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2017 (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.

Your recent editing history at Foreign relations of Switzerland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ZH8000 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2017 (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.

Carl Cooper

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Carl Cooper, you may be blocked from editing. DJAustin (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DJAustin. On what basis are you assuming that edit to be "disruptive"? It was pretty clearly done so as to conform with MOS:HONORIFIC. Additionally, why the level-three warning? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and brought back your version. I thought you were removing 2 templates. Sorry! DJAustin (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the error, DJAustin. I must, however, ask that you slow down your patrolling, as based on your talk page, I am the fourth person to have advised you that you are making reversions without appropriate reason. And that still doesn't address why you chose to use a level-three warning. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit China missions

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Jesuit China missions. DJAustin (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, DJAustin, why are you not assuming good faith here? The only change made by that edit was the removal of {{main}} from the lead. It is common knowledge that that template is only used for the purpose of summary style. Its documentation is explicit in saying, "This template should also not be used in lead sections." On what basis do you object to that edit?

I have already asked that you slow down your patrolling. Within but the past two days, you have had several people inform you that your reverts were made in error. Why have you not chosen to change your behaviour accordingly and begin assuming good faith prior to reverting an edit?

Additionally, why did you choose to use a level-four warning? You can see that there has not been a previous multi-level warning at any level that was not issued in error – and one of the previous errors was yours! And the warning level being chosen automatically by Huggle is no excuse – by using the service, you agreed that "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Huggle. [emphasis in original]"

(For the purpose of clarity, I should note that I don't ask any of these three questions rhetorically.) 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral

Hello, I'm Redhat101. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Redhat101 Talk 01:38, 26 June 2017 (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.

Why do you believe this edit to be vandalistic, Redhat101? Nearly all the changes made (e.g., capitalization, block quotation formatting) were clearly made to bring the article into conformity with the MOS. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

142, I undid their revert and left them a message on their talk page explaining that your edit wasn't vandalism. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, TonyBallioni. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@142.160.131.202: Because you failed to provide summery of such major changes, removed images and excessively used Quote template.Redhat101 Talk 02:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of vandalism, Redhat101. Wikipedia:Vandalism states, "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose ... Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Under the heading "What is not vandalism", the page goes on to list examples including: "boldly editing", "edit summary omission", and "incorrect wiki markup and style". So taking into account the project's understanding of the term vandalism, on what basis do you believe the edit to be vandalistic?

You describe the changes made by the edit as being "major". Help:Minor edit gives the following as examples of minor edits:

Spelling and grammatical corrections
Simple formatting (e.g., capitalization, punctuation, or properly adding italics to non-English words, like folie des grandeurs, or titles of certain works, like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer)
Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page (e.g., moving a picture, splitting one paragraph into two—where this is not contentious)
Obvious factual errors (e.g., changing "Nixon resigned in 1874" to "Nixon resigned in 1974")
Fixing layout errors
Adding or correcting wikilinks, or fixing broken external links and references already present in the article
Removing obvious vandalism

Given that the edit only fixed capitalization (in accordance with the MOS), moved and resized images, moved a comma (in accordance with the MOS), added wikilinks, formatted block quotations (in accordance with the MOS), and fixed a typo, that pretty clearly falls under the definition of a minor edit. So why do you believe the edit made "major changes"?

Your assertion that images were removed is false – I would have another look.

With respect to what you describe as "excessive" use of {{quote}}, MOS:BLOCKQUOTE is clear that the <blockquote> tag or {{quote}} is the standard for formatting block quotations, not a regular indentation. But even were you not aware of that, what would make you think that my use of it is "excessive"?

To clarify, I intend none of these questions rhetorically, Redhat101. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@142.160.131.202: Yeah i should have used AGF revert, my apologies for that, but you'd be sure to provide edit summaries on your changes esp when editing via shared IP.Redhat101 Talk 02:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer the questions, Redhat101. After being informed of your error, you:

Insisted that the edit was vandalistic;
Described the edit as making "major" changes, despite the fact that it couldn't have fallen more firmly within the definition of a minor edit;
Falsely asserted that I removed images from the article; and
Suggested that my use of {{quote}} was "excessive", in direct contravention of the MOS.

With respect to each of those claims, I am wondering what your rationale is.

In reply to TonyBallioni on your talk page, you said that I "didn't followed [sic] MOS guideline". To which MOS guideline are you referring?

Finally, you wrote, "i [sic] should have used AGF revert". Why should you have reverted at all? A lack of edit summary is not in itself a reason for a reversion. In fact, even had I written "copyediting" in the edit summary, you wouldn't have any more knowledge than you already had as the edit was clearly copyediting. And why should my editing unregistered have anything to do with it? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC) cc: TonyBallioni[reply]

List of National Council of Churches members

Please refrain from making test edits to Wikipedia pages, such as the one you made with this edit to List of National Council of Churches members, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Donner60. That was not a test edit. I was adding a sort key to the category pursuant to point 2 of WP:SORTKEY. But why the level-two warning? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was the next warning up according to Huggle. The earlier controversy above must have counted as a first warning. I have occasionally deleted a warning only to later find out or be told that Huggle did not recognize that deletion and issued a higher warning. That may be what happened here. I know of no way to prevent such discrepancies, as they are not apparent in using Huggle and are too rare to spend time trying to find them. They usually only can be fixed manually when brought to the attention of the person leaving the later warning. I still do not see the discrepancy though I note that someone states they removed a warning elsewhere, not too obvious in a long discussion unless strike through is used. With the passage of time to another month, and this belated reply, it should make no difference now.

By the way, each edit for which a warning is given counts, even if they are for different articles. A level one warning is not appropriate for each problem created in every individual article. If it were, a vandal could vandalized an almost unlimited number of articles without moving up toward a block. I doubt that is what you mean here but I thought I should mention it so there would be no misunderstanding. Donner60 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the following entry is an example of such a removal by strike through. Donner60 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that I should have done the same under the circumstances although the usefulness of the change does not seem obvious without an explanation. Donner60 (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I don't mean to suggest that warning levels should only be used sequentially with respect to one article. But a level-two warning is not appropriate without reason and the previous issue of inappropriate level-one warnings is not a reason.

WP:HUGGLE provides that, "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Huggle", so an ongoing issue with the software is not sufficient rationale. I would implore you to slow down your patrolling such that you can assess whether a given edit is constructive rather than a 'test edit' and that you at least glance at a user's talk page before leaving an accusation of vandalism and a warning.

And as it seems you have still not reversed you reversion, I suppose I will take care of that now. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT Pentecostals

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Category:LGBT Pentecostals, you may be blocked from editing. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC) - Striking, mistake. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Why would you revert that? The CfD, as indicated in the edit summary, was withdrawn by the nominator. And why the level-three warning? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake - I apologize. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2003 United Kingdom ultimatum to Iraq

As there are external links which appear to be a valid source, I would recommend a {{No footnotes}} instead of the Unreferenced template. When there is more than one such cleanup tag, a {{multiple}} will combine them into a more concise block. cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had used {{unreferenced}} as the external links weren't marked as being referenced, but you're right, they certainly do serve as sources for some of the article's material. Thanks for catching that. As for {{multiple issues}}, I don't tend to use it when there are fewer than three tags, but I certainly don't object to it's use with just two. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the multiple. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an account

Have you considered creating an account? After 10 edits and 4 days, you'd be autoconfirmed and able to edit semi-protected pages and move pages on your own. It's very rare that I see an IP with so many positive contributions. —Guan aco 05:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: this very point ^, although admittedly it took me a while to get into the groove of editing with an account.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 03:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving 5 bishop pages

See Talk:James Martin Hayes#Requested move 21 June 2017. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brian Joseph Dunn RM

I contested it and started the RM. Please don't post more of these at WP:RM/TR, any mass move of pages is going to be controversial especially when there is a valid view point that is different than yours. Going through RMs is the correct way to do it here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you seem to have gotten a lot of unjust templating recently. Apologies for that: registered users shouldn't be so trigger happy against IPs, and it is abundently clear that you are familiar with the conventions here on en.wiki so they shouldn't be templating you. I just want to make it clear that I'm not complaining about this because you are an IP: I respect your MOS/policy viewpoint here, even if I disagree with it, and feel the correct way to go forward with it is through an RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your saying that. Thank you. I'm sure you can imagine that it can be frustrating at times.

I would, however, object to six move proposals, the merits of each case being relatively dissimilar from one another, being termed as a "mass move". If you have concerns, I appreciate your raising them, but these otherwise qualify under WP:RMUM. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to agree on this, which is fine. I can certainly be wrong and I don't mind if consensus doesn't go my way. As an aside, thank you for fixing the talk page shell on Papal conclave, March 1605. It was appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and Projects

Hi. I've partially reverted your edits to talk:Christianity. The easy point first: "collapsed=yes" reduces the clutter at the top of a talk list. Most readers of a talk page are not interested in the projects, so it's best to leave them hidden until someone needs to see them. I think you need to get clearer in your mind the difference between categories and projects. Categories are applied to mainspace pages and give some indication about a particular subject. For instance Rochester Cathedral is in the category Category:Grade I listed cathedrals which tells the reader something about the cathedral. In contrast project banners are only shown on talk pages and are not therefore encyclopaedic. A project covers a particular field of interest and directs editors working in that field to pages which may be of relevance to them. Rochester Cathedral is of interest to WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms since it was one of the major centres of the period; it is not itself an Anglo-Saxon kingdom! To give a further example: A major religious figure such as the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury might be of interest to an atheism project, but clearly neither is an atheist. Turning finally to Mythology and Christianity. One would not normally describe Chritianity as Mythology and so therefore it is not in that category but in studying Mythology Christianity is a major source of "narratives about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally, and linked to the spiritual or religious life of a community", so is of interest to the project. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit requests

Hi, I've just looked at your semi-protected edit request at the admin noticeboard. The requests don't work correctly if placed there; put them on the article talk page instead. You might consider creating an account; after 10 edits and 4 days on your account, you'll be able to edit semi-protected pages yourself. —Guan aco 07:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, I'm unable to place my request on the applicable talk page as the talk page is semi-protected. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I read that wrong. The right place would actually be WP:RFPP. —Guan aco 10:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

Firstly, that would be in violation of WP:SUBCAT. Secondly, even if it weren't, why wouldn't you do that yourself rather than reverting me?

Because I'm a pending-changes reviewer, I have no responsibility to edit or modify your changes (unless I chose to, which of course, I may do if I'm familiar with the subject); I simply accept or revert. The onus was on you to leave an WP:FIES. I'm not going to revert you (again) since you finally left an ES explaining your reasoning. DA1 (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of edit summary is not a reason for reversion, DA1. Even without an edit summary, one with only the most cursory understanding of categorization on Wikipedia would know that subcategories replace parent categories in the vast majority of cases (albeit with the rare exception of non-diffusing categories). If you are unaware of that, you should not be reverting changes relating to categories. And had I left an edit summary – e.g., "categorizing" – you would have no more knowledge than you already did. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheri DiNovo

Because I was away for four days and had 42 notifications in my bell queue to deal with when I got back, so stuff probably got missed. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomas Nonnullas

Please let me apologise for reverting you, I confused myself looking through the histories. :_( L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, L3X1! It happens. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work!

I just wanted you and everyone else who happens upon this page to know that I really appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, 142.160.131.202. It seems others are a little trigger-happy with the warning templates on IP addresses, but I see nothing but excellent improvements. Keep up the good work! Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sondra! I want you to know that I really appreciate it. And I, too, hope that others happen upon this comment before blindly templating. (As an aside, semi-automated patrolling tools really ought to be restricted to those who have proven themselves capable of using them appropriately…) 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on the above, despite our disagreements on some things. Also, 142, you might get less templating if you consistently used an edit summary. I'm not saying that those who over-template are right, just that it might help you avoid some of the unpleasantness. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Identitarian movement

Okay, I will admit I was steamed when you first came in out of nowhere and edited the Talk page. Fine. You know best, have at it. I thought I was doing a good thing, but apparently not. It's all yours. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 05:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, Myk_Streja. Everyone can get a little less than cool while editing every now and again. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's funny. I was going to place template on your talk page, and then I stepped back. You didn't. Thanks for that. BTW, why haven't you created an account? — Myk Streja ^(what?) 05:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's funny. I was going to place template on your talk page, and then I stepped back.

That was a good call on your part, as my edits were in made in accordance with the appropriate guidelines.

BTW, why haven't you created an account?

I don't know that I need one for the moment, and I figure that being transparent about my IP address is, to paraphrase you, more 'gutsy'. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island

Why does there need to be a citation for the fact that Rhode Island's de facto language is English? The de facto language of the entire U.S. is English, as per street signs, court decisions, government documents, government websites, etc. Why do you feel it necessary to add a 'citation needed' tag? If you think a citation is necessary, find a source instead of adding a tag into an info box. Adding a 'citation needed' tag for easily verifiable and non-controversial facts is not helpful. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 03:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Rhode Island

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Rhode Island. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 03:59, 4 July 2017 (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.

Mystical marriage of Saint Catherine

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1. The edit you reverted made the following changes:

Un-capitalizing the phrase mystical marriage in accordance with MOS:CAPS, bringing the usage in line with the article title. Note that the phrase in that context did not refer to the title of a particular painting but rather to the subject of many artworks;
Italicizing the title of an encyclopedia per MOS:ITALICS; and
Removing unnecessary uses of the title Saint prefixed to names, in line with the relevant articles which are in accordance with MOS:SAINTS.

With which of these changes do you take issue? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None. I made a mistake and should have paid more attention to the editor before hitting the revert button. I apologise again. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology, L3X1, but as this is at least the third time we've run into this problem (see "Normas nonnullas" on 30 June, "Communio" on 6 July, and "Mystical marriage of Saint Catherine" on 7 July), you're going to have to slow down on your patrolling. I can only assume that I am not alone in being affected by this. Please bear in mind that the continued use of semi-automated editing software is a privilege afforded to those who can be trusted by the community to use the tools responsibly. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Wouters (legal scholar)

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jan Wouters (legal scholar) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 7 July 2017 (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.

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Wikipedia:Vandalism tells us:

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

On what basis are you accusing me of vandalism? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cantuar

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edits because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Tushi Talk To Me 08:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kagundu: Why is that? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Education in the United States

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edits because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Tushi Talk To Me 07:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kagundu: Why is that? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL

Moved to Talk:Christian views on slavery § Non-bidirectional navbox

– Applicable parts of the message were moved. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I initially didn't understand your edit summary, as it did not point to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (it just said that it wasn't bidirectional, which did not seem to make sense at first in the context). While I understand that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL can be a sane reccomendation (that is a guideline, not policy, and it says should normally, not must). I see no reason why this footer would be controversial despite the lack of a slavery link in the main Christianity footer (this could be more controversial). But thanks for the explanation.
By the way, while I see that your IP address does not change often (the talk page header also says that it could be static, but the reverse DNS indicates otherwise), creating an account would facilitate communication (patrollers are more likely to remember names than addresses, it enables notifications and the "thank" log/feature and any personal communication would remain on a main talk page, vs if the address was dynamic). It would also provide you with a watchlist, the capability to edit semi-protected and extended-confirmed-protected pages and to move pages eventually, with personal sandboxes, preferences (including to be reminded if we forget to provide an edit summary), etc. Account creation does not require to provide personal information (although one can optionally also provide an email address).
I'm saying this as someone who was only editing as a static IP address since 2005 before recently creating an account a few months ago. Of course, in case you already have one, you probably already know that editing logged-out should be avoided once an account is created. Seeing your contributions and your knowledge of Wikipedia, it seems to me that you would easily gain a certain status with a user name. In case you previously had an account and have decided to drop it, there also is no problem to cleanstart with a new account while never editing again from the old one. Thanks and happy editing, —Paleo Neonate - 07:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Sorry about Communio, I should have inspected the results better. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User page and first level warning templates

Hello again. User pages are rare for IP address users because they cannot create their own page, and their IP address often changes, but if you think it'd be useful and this is really a static address (despite the reverse DNS reporting that it's dynamic), I could create your user page on request. This would allow you to keep some links to useful Wikipedia-related resources you use a lot, to store awards as well as to distinguish yourself from most addressess; patrollers may perhaps also notice it, although I still think that creating an account would be ideal. About another topic, warning templates: I noticed that you asked various patrollers why they don't use the first level warnings. I myself was using them systematically at first but am now usually starting with level-2 except in some cases. This link has more details. Happy editing, —Paleo Neonate - 15:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) PaleoNeonate, I once tried to create an IP userpage for an editor upon request and it did not work: it read as User:111.111.111 in main space. I think there is something in the software that prevents user pages associated with IP addresses from being created (though I could be wrong.) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Oh, that is possible, I never did it yet, but assumed that it would work because I've encountered a few rare IP address user pages before and am offered to create it when I try to edit on an unexisting one. There may be some edit filter involved... Thanks for letting me know. —Paleo Neonate - 18:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PaleoNeonate. If that is possible, that would be great. Thanks! And regarding the warning levels, that is a fair point with respect to level-two warnings (albeit not level-three and level-four warnings). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have worked. Welcome, —Paleo Neonate - 21:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see User:142.160.131.202/sandbox

. Enjoy, —Paleo Neonate - 21:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Flynn

This looks horrible and spammy:

Hurdis, Blake (2012). "Flying high with test pilot Billie Flynn"Paid subscription required. Esprit de Corps. Vol. 19 no. 3. Ottawa. p. 18. ISSN 1194-2266. Retrieved July 13, 2017 – via EBSCOhost.
Hurdis, Blake (2012). "Flying high with test pilot Billie Flynn"Paid subscription required. Esprit de Corps. Vol. 19 no. 3. Ottawa. p. 19. ISSN 1194-2266. Retrieved July 13, 2017 – via EBSCOhost.
Hurdis, Blake (2012). "Flying high with test pilot Billie Flynn"Paid subscription required. Esprit de Corps. Vol. 19 no. 3. Ottawa. pp. 18, 20. ISSN 1194-2266. Retrieved July 13, 2017 – via EBSCOhost.

Why do you think pages exists as a parameter for {{cite magazine}}? sikander (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For the same reason as any other CS1 template: to provide the "pages in the cited source containing the information that supports the article text." 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're referencing pages 18, 19, and 20. If the citations were from pages 1, 42, 87, then it makes sense to have them separate for greater clarity. For this article, pages=18-20 covers all the references perfectly and avoids the long repetitive text in the References section. sikander (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It only seems repetitive because they are right beside one another, as is the nature of a stub. But one would hope that this article is not a permanent stub. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, get a username already. It's free. You can even call it OneFortyTwo160131202. sikander (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Paul Abels

On 19 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paul Abels, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Paul Abels, the first openly gay minister to serve in a major Christian denomination in the United States, was nearly removed from his pastorate after he came out in the 1970s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Abels. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Paul Abels), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Alex Shih ^Talk 12:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Stanley Green is a featured article. If you object to something, please leave a note on the talk page rather than continuing to revert. If it continues, it may be reported to WP:EW. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 22:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is reverting once "continuing to revert"? Apart from that, I have replied on the article talk page. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Seabury

See Talk:Samuel Seabury (bishop)#Requested move 11 September 2017. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Many IPA users are first-time users. As you have made many edits (Special:Contributions/142.160.131.202), it would be useful if you chose a WP:username and registered as a named user. And see at the top of this page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 302: / Line 302: @@
 == Samuel Seabury ==
 *See [[Talk:Samuel Seabury (bishop)#Requested move 11 September 2017]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 05:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
-*Sorry. Many IPA users are first-time users. As you have made many edits ([[Special:Contributions/142.160.131.202]]), it would be useful if you chose a [[WP:username]] and registered as a named user. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 05:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
+*Sorry. Many IPA users are first-time users. As you have made many edits ([[Special:Contributions/142.160.131.202]]), it would be useful if you chose a [[WP:username]] and registered as a named user. And see at the top of this page. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 05:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)