Jump to content

User talk:203.109.161.2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.109.161.2 (talk) at 00:57, 8 August 2015 (→‎Palazzo Brera: Thank you for being the voice of reason {{U|Drmies}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


July 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ceramics has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • For help, take a look at the introduction.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ceramics was changed by 203.109.161.2 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.975778 on 2015-07-12T04:42:23+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Gmcbjames. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. 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. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, 203.109.161.2, has made unhelpful edits, which have been reverted. If you did this, in the future please try to contribute in a more constructive manner. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! Gmcbjames (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 203.109.161.2. You have new messages at Gmcbjames's talk page.
Message added 18:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Gmcbjames (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Red pill and blue pill. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 01:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Information icon Hello, I'm Gareth Griffith-Jones. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mithun Chakraborty filmography because it did not appear constructive. 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. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at 2013 Liberty Flames football team, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV Azteca telenovelas

This template well as this, is not as big as Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons, so please let it be like this.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Yoy have to look at it from how someone reading the page sees it. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is not valid. That part says that it should be as you say?, case send here?.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
English is my native language but I do not understand what you are saying. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By what I like to be generating editions wars, you know what?, you want, I am not going to end up blocked because look at you funny.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you now that you don't understand?, clear because you want truth?.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ill

Re Lutherkirche: {{ill}} is a highly useful template, perhaps read WP:QAIPOST#Interlanguage link. Of course the interlanguage link is there for the church, but it doesn't help to easily show that an individual person is notable enough to have an article in German (do you seriously expect a reader who may have trouble reading German to search a longish German article for that?), to make that article accessible with on click, and to enable the creation of an English article with another click. I like to pick my topics on Sunday and felt pushed to create those three. Please don't do that again. - Why you also removed {{lang}}, which only helps people using a screenreader and is not even noticed by others, remains your secret. - Enjoy the day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tags

Please stop removing stub tags on articles that clearly stubs. If an article has no real layout and the text is limited to a dew dozen words, it should be categorized as a stub. When you remove the stub tag, it becomes more difficult for other editors to find articles to expand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop edit warring to remove stub tags. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why? 203.109.161.2 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained to you why. According to WP:STUB, these articles are stubs. You're being disruptive now, and you could end up blocked if you continue. Removing {{official website}} is petty disruption. If this continues, you'll just end up at WP:ANI or WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I am doing makes no difference to WP. Neither of us know what is right or wrong here. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes no difference, then stop doing it. I've warned you twice now, and you're closing in on a third warning. If you continue edit warring and blanking, I'll take this an administrative noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to call it a stub then you have to do it properly. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Gmcbjames (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
What I am doing makes no difference to WP. Neither of us know what is right or wrong here. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what you are doing does make a difference to WP. We are here to build and make an encyclopedia better. Wrong edits - which may end up having this IP address blocked - are:
If you do not know what is "right" or "wrong," then you shouldn't be making edits on WP. Make an effort to work with other editors - many have reached out to you already. It may be time to take a time out and to reflect on why you are editing WP. Gmcbjames (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, IP user and I have had extensive discussion in the recent past here regarding my concerns of IP User's edits.
  • In regard to my recent reverts of IP user, I could have been clearer in the edit summary. For those recent reverts, I am in agreement with the prior editors revert. From WP:AVOIDEDITWAR "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action."' In the future, I will use WP:AVOIDEDITWAR in my edit summary. IP User - after two editors have disagreed with your edit - you can take the discussion to the talk page of the article. We are human, so taking the discussion to the article's talk page may convince an editor to change their mind - and the consensus. I would suggest IP User read the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. There is no need to edit war and edit wars are disruptive.
  • As for using templates - I take it as a compliment if my response to IP User's statement "What I am doing makes no difference to WP. Neither of us know what is right or wrong here." - was seen as a template. My response was a genuine attempt to communicate to IP User that while being WP:BOLD in editing there are lines which one can cross.
  • IP User -- IP users are no more scrutinized than registered users. There are many productive and constructive IP users who contribute to WP. Your edits speak, not your status. I encourage you to work with other editors and to become more familiar with policies, guidelines, and essays. It isn't necessary to know everything about WP - no one does, however it is very important to be civil, and to respect other editors. If you disagree with an editor on an article, seek consensus on the article's talk page - don't edit war over every little trivial detail such as stub tags, adding columns to references (30em), and categories. And do not make edits with misleading edit summaries. Gmcbjames (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palazzo Brera

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Palazzo Brera. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
It beggars belief that you could find it necessary to edit-war over the way some references display; please don't. If you really think it is important enough, start a discussion on the talk page, citing the policy or guideline that supports your preferred display parameter (hint: there isn't one). You can however set your own preferences so that you see references the way you want, but you'd probably need an an account to do that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice article, Justlettersandnumbers--great work. Listen, that 30em thing, that is indeed very common. Good old Malleus taught it to me (it sets columns dependent on the browser and screen, I believe)--the version with 30em displays two columns very nicely, so that text doesn't run all the way from left to right, which with the small font makes it much more legible. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hi, Dr M! That may be what it does for you; what it does for me is bunch the references in paragraphs on the left-hand side of the page, leaving a large and pointless white space on the right, instead of allowing them to run across the screen. It makes them just that much harder to read. But whether it's a good thing or a bad, it doesn't justify 203.109.161.2 edit-warring over it, right? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Drmies. I knew you were the one to see reason. Yas Justlettersandnumbers, it is silly to edit war of such a minor thing but the 30em is the "proper" way yo do it: makes the refs easier to read, it looks nicer!!!, and it lets browser than handle the colums arragement,. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the sucky part about edit warring is that it always takes two to tango. I should know--I have Astor Piazzola perform, twice, and am a notorious edit warrior myself (but in my case, I'm always right, of course).

    As for the rules, you know, I don't know. There's Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Quick lists, where 30em is suggested (or more than suggested, maybe). It's not covered under WP:CITEVAR. But like I said, I follow the example of my superiors--Eric Corbett, do we have anything specific as a guideline? and does 30em work well everywhere? (And no, it's not really worth fighting over, but it's nice to get it right--and it's important to try and get along. Both of you are trying to make the encyclopedia not suck.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not aware of anywhere 30em doesn't work, and I've certainly never seen it bunch up the references in paragraphs on the left-hand side of the screen. Which article have you seen that on Justlettersandnumbers? Eric Corbett 22:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palazzo Brera, Eric (a nice piece of work that some of your FA friends would appreciate)--and thanks for weighing in. The attendant observer will have noticed that I have made many edit summaries that read "per MF"; those are "30em" additions. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my experience, I believe 30em bunches up the references in one paragraph on the left-hand side of the screen when a viewer uses a window smaller than full-screen and there are not many references (Mozilla/Internet Explorer). I will note this the next time it happens, however it does occur.
  • From what I have gathered - regarding the use of columns for footnotes, the essay WP:FOOTNOTES recommends: "There is no hard rule on the column width to use, but some major practices include: One column (default): Where there are only a few footnotes, - 30em: Where there are a number of footnotes." Unless someone can find a policy or guideline, I believe the use of columns for references is optional and is decided on an article by article basis. Gmcbjames (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an article has only two or three references, then doing it in columns frequently divides/chops them up elegantly. But when you have four, five, or more references, two columns usually look better, if only because you don't have the difference between real short and real long citations (in this case, note 3 is real long), and you certainly have those differences if you have short book citations (name and page) and longer journal citations in the same reflist. The lack of choppiness is appealing, and the lack of long, long lines makes for easier reading, since the eye can go back more easily from the end of the (shorter) line to the beginning of the next. That used to be lesson #1 of internet writing: don't take up the whole screen. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, Drmies, and IP User, a policy or guideline for the use of 30em is a pereinial issue at the Village Pump, resulting in no consensus - the latest discussion eight months ago here. 30em is dependent on the size of computer screens as to how it is displayed which may explain why the references are bunched to the left for some articles on some screens for some viewers. With all discussion on the use of 30em, it seems to fall back to the use is decided on an article by article basis - and the use is for more than 10 references. Like many editing issues, it seems any final policy or guideline (rule) on the use of 30em is one that may never happen due to the community not being able to reach any consensus on its use.

This said, personally I like the use of columns for references and use it often. However we cannot force the use of 30 em or columns - as there is no community wide consensus. My suggestion would be to first edit an article with 30em if the article has more than 10 references, and if an editor objects, then take it to the talk page.

Maybe in the future, consensus will be obtained for the use of columns (30em) for references as a policy (rule), and a bot can easily change {{Relist}} to {{Reflist|30em}}.

As for Stub tags at the end of articles, the stub tags are placed by bots. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting with many members who go and sort the stub tags into the appropriate stub categories. By IP User undoing this work of the dedicated stub sorters - it seems unproductive. My suggestion, if IP User has an interest in stub tags, is to join the Wikiproject.

Well that is it for me - if needed just ping me. Happy editing Gmcbjames (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Gmcbjames. I have no opinion on the stub tags, by the way, not having looked closely at them. IP, you know you could be a bit more...helpful? communicative? and that would help defuse these situations. In the end that would save you time as well. You know, of course, that edit warring is edit warring even if you're right--and you know that I'm not accusing anyone of crossing any lines. But Gmcbjames, I looked at that talk page discussion, and I looked at Kaolinite, and there they made four edits, three with summary, and all of them are good (at least all of them are good-faith efforts to improve the article)--your single edit, a reversal, was unexplained and thereby gives the impression that you were reversing vandal edits (I found the answer on your talk page unconvincing). So, to both of you, please give a bit more. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Long ago in Coorg

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Long ago in Coorg 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:203.109.161.2&oldid=675065488"