User talk:142.160.131.202/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. 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

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 Questions, or you can  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 (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! - 🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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. ɯ ɐ ɔ 💬 03:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Good to know! Thanks for the response + good editing. ɯ ɐ ɔ  💬 03:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Foreign relations of Switzerland
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Foreign relations of Switzerland does not have an edit summary.&#32;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:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

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. Thanks! ZH8000 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ZH8000 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Hello, . 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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you for correcting the error, . 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)

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)
 * Again,, 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)

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)
 * 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, ? 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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you very much, . 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * You accused me of vandalism, . 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 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, . 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * You did not answer the questions, . 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 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:

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)
 * Hi, . 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * It was a mistake - I apologize. SQL Query me!  01:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

2003 United Kingdom ultimatum to Iraq
As there are external links which appear to be a valid source, I would recommend a instead of the Unreferenced template. When there is more than one such cleanup tag, a will combine them into a more concise block. cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Good point on the multiple. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

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. —Guanaco 05:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

Moving 5 bishop pages

 * See Talk:James Martin Hayes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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 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)

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. —Guanaco 07:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sorry, I read that wrong. The right place would actually be WP:RFPP. —Guanaco 10:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes
''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allyson_Robinson&oldid=787585889 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)
 * A lack of edit summary is not a reason for reversion, . 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)

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)

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)
 * No worries, ! It happens. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * Thanks, ! 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)
 * +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)

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

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)

Rhode Island
Thank you for your suggestion&#32;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)
 * 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)
 * . 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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you for the apology,, but as this is at least the third time we've run into this problem (see , , and ), 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)

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)
 * 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.
 * 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)

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)
 * Why is that? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * Why is that? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
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)

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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * Hi, . 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)
 * It seems to have worked. Welcome, — Paleo  Neonate  - 21:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also see User:142.160.131.202/sandbox Face-smile.svg . Enjoy, — Paleo  Neonate  - 21:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

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 &#123;&#123;cite magazine&#125;&#125;? sikander (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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

DYK for Paul Abels
Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

Samuel Seabury

 * See Talk:Samuel Seabury (bishop). 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. And see at the top of this page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Now at Talk:Samuel Seabury. I made the moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sophia Parnok
I'm all about collaboration, but I am going to have to roll back your edits on Sophia Parnok, which is pending GA review. You have reformatted references leaving broken links between references and citations to the article and removed links to web access. The additions do not appear constructive or beneficial to a reviewer as they will be unable to verify sourcing in the file. Further, according to the MOS changes should not be made from one style to another without "substantial reason". As you have posted nothing on the talk page as to why you thought this change was necessary, nor given any reason at all, it seems to be a change that is unnecessary and will be cumbersome to the review process. SusunW (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Post-nominals
Hi 142.160.131.202! In the UK it is standard to separate post-nominals with commas. In addition, unless there are are large number of post-noms (maybe 4+), then there is no reason to have them at 85% (which is the default). You can see my sandbox for why this is. Its most certainly no "non-standard". Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Some advice
ArbCom has stated on a number of occasions that edit-warring over MOS is not acceptable, and is not a valid reason to edit war. Now, if you really want to get into this, keep it up, but I wouldn't suggest it. Better to go about your business than to hassle or a small matter such as this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi 142. BMK left me a message on my talk page because of what I'm assuming are your edits on Schutzstaffel. As you know: I've stuck up for you when you've been templated before, but here is a case where a template likely would have even been applied to a longstanding registered user (either edit warring or the discretionary sanctions template for MOS). I have no intent of getting involved in a MOS dispute on an article about the SS, but one of the fundamental principles of MOS is that it is to be used with common sense. If you have issues with that article's formatting, the best place to discuss it is the article talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, ! 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute at Marcial Maciel
G'day, the to-ing and fro-ing at Marcial Maciel is unedifying. Please stop using edit summaries to discuss the issues you have with the article, and use the talk page. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Patrick Nair-WP Catholicism template
Hi-Patrick Nair was a Roman Catholic bishop. I had always put a WP Catholicism template on articles about Roman Catholic bishops. The WP Christianity template that you put on the Patrick Nair was not necessary since the WP Catholicism was adequate. I will show good faith to you by not reverting your change in templates. The WP Christianity was not needed and the WP Catholicism template was adequate. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a comment to the Patrick Nair article talkpage questioning why the WP Catholicism template was changed to the WP Christianity template. Please respond at the article's talk page. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a comment to the WikiProject Christianity talk page about the WikiProject Catholicism template. Thank you-RFD (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
I can see you're now WP:STALKING my edits. Please go a find something more productive to do instead of trolling. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You would best read guidelines before linking to them: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. I am merely bringing articles in conformity with accepted guidelines. You have yet to tell me what issue, if any, you take with my edits. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With all the things to do on here, you're clearly stalking my edits. Carry on withy your pathetic trolling.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No "trolling", only bringing articles into conformity with guidelines in line with the community's consensus. What issue do you take, if any, with the edits? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're hounding my edits. You can't see this, because you're a troll. Now go busy yourself elswhere.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to be clever. You're obviously trying some sneaky shit, and I suggest you stop.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to collaborate on these articles, but you have yet to address the content. So, again, what concerns do you have with the line breaks, if any? And I would ask you to assume good faith. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I can see you're now WP:STALKING my edits. Please go a find something more productive to do instead of trolling. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're going to link to WP:STALKING, at least read it: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. So, again, WP:STALKING does not apply here. And, again, what concerns do you have with the line breaks, if any? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm PlyrStar93. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Birtukan Fente— 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. -★- PlyrStar93. → Message me. ← 18:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . On what basis do you believe the edit to be "vandalism", which WP:VANDALISM defines as editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose [emphasis in original]? And more generally, what issue do you have with the line breaks? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this actually, you are free to remove that template. I already undid my edit in the article but thought this template was removed (when using Huggle). -★- PlyrStar93 . → Message me. ← 18:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting the error. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm going to cross this out for you as others previously did, but you are still welcome to actually remove it, so your warning level doesn't show up on Huggle (but still, it's up to you). -★- PlyrStar93 . → Message me. ← 18:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

For the last time, STOP following my edits around! I'm sure there's a lot more productive work on the 5 million articles on here that you could be doing.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For (hopefully?) the last time, what issue do you take with my edits? I would like to collaborate here, but communication needs to go both ways. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire
Please do not change the reference style from the consensus one used in the article without first getting a consensus to do so from the editors on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which style is that? It is currently terribly inconsistent. And what are your concerns with the edit? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Take it to the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk)

DO NOT PING ME FROM THE TRIANGLE SHIRTWAIST TALK PAGE
I asked you 3 times, and you pinged me again. This is now the fifth time. Your next ping gets you reported. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Unexplained reversion
I had reverted your edit on Edmund F. Robertson because I thought you were repurposing the article. After looking at it again, I realized the good faith attempt you made, although I discourage removing common abbreviations, like Ph.D or B.Sc., as most readers already understand what these mean, and the wikilinks are provided for those that don't understand. Thanks for your patience in the matter. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 17:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PhD and BSc do not qualify as exceptions under MOS:ACRO, but regardless, that doesn't explain why you would revert the edit in its entirety, especially without explanation. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Will & Grace
I deleted the article from the navbox when I initially redirected the article, not when I nominated it for deletiom. Please do your research properly when stalking editor contributions. Cheers. --  Alex TW 06:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what is it that you mean by "stalking"? I merely noticed that a link to the article was missing from the navbox when I was copyediting the article. Could you please clarify? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, of course, my bad. I'm sure that you just happened across the navbox and (incorrectly) said that I removed it because of the AFD. --  Alex TW 08:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I genuinely can't tell if you're being sarcastic here. Are you suggesting I'm doing this for some other reason? Because I don't recall having come across you in the past, if that's what you're suggesting. If I'm "stalking" anyone, it's . I came across this article and this AFD as a result of combing through their contribs following a discussion on another unrelated talk page. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Washington DC
Sorry about the revert. Edit summaries would really help. Please use them. JohnInDC (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Allen Henry Vigneron, 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. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 04:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The only content removed was academic degree post-nominal letters (which WP:POSTNOM provides are impermissible) and line breaks which were showing up before the lead. With what do you take issue? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I take issue with the lack of edit summary - please explain when you delete from an article; otherwise it's hard to distinguish it from vandalism. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 04:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what could be perceived to be vandalistic in that edit, nor on what basis you feel a level-two warning to have been appropriate. Additionally, why have you not corrected the error? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for level 2 - it was automatically chosen by Huggle, but that's an explanation, not an excuse. Removing any content from an infobox without explanation is automatically suspicious, in my opinion. Please feel free to re-do the edit, leaving an appropriate edit summary. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 05:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it not be most appropriate for you to revert your reversion having realized that it was made in error? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because I'm not as familiar with the subject as you clearly are. To make that edit, I would want to summarize the logic behind it in an edit summary, and I don't feel qualified to make or explain the judgment call that WP:POSTNOM requires. I'm going to disengage here; I don't think anything productive is coming out of this discussion. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 05:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Judgment call"? It clearly says that academic degree post-nominal letters are impermissible, full stop. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference changes
Hi 142.160.131.202! Please don't change type references to sfn type references as you did at Walter Matthews (priest) and Oliver Chase Quick (and others). As per WP:CITEVAR, you shouldn't be changing established reference types on pages unelss discussed on the articles talk page or if they are a complete mess. Both these pages had acceptable reference styles, so I'm assuming your changes were based on your personal preference. Please don't do this in the future. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . You're absolutely right that an article's "established citation style" shouldn't be changed without reason – I agree entirely. In this case, however, the four references did not share a consistent format and the article did not have an "established citation style" (nor did the article observe MOS:LAYOUT). Additionally, those four references are certainly in the minority given the others that were inexplicably removed. Accordingly, I have reverted the edit. Cheers, 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just focusing in Oliver Chase Quick, which is where I reverted your changes, there were only two inline citation, so I'm a bit confused about you stating "four references". There is a third reference added inline but using brackets rather than but I can't see a fourth. Am I missing something? Could you please explain to what you are referring. There is/was an established referencing format on that page, that of full inline citations; even if the formatting of the third reference needed correcting. Would you also be able to enlighten me as to why sfn referencing has suddenly become popular? It isn't exactly user friendly, and isn't included in either source or visual editing. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have said five – I forgot the parenthetical one. The other two are Cross 1957 and Mozley 1945. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

industrialisation
Is wp:British English. See wp:ENGVAR Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I assume you are referring to my recent edit to J. R. R. Tolkien's influences. I should have noted it in my edit summary, but the article is subject to MOS:TIES as Tolkien typically wrote with Oxford spelling. In fact, Tolkien is the very example given in MOS:TIES. Accordingly, I have restored the edit. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Then Remove Everyone Else's "Comments"
If you're gonna remove what I had typed up in the World Wildlife Fund's talk page, then you need to remove other users' "comments". Because it seems like to me everytime I try to express myself and/or try to contribute to this website, it gets edited, deleted, or erased completely, and I don't like it. Because in my eyes, I think that you and others users who either edit, delete, or erase my work or expressions completely have it out for me and don't like when I improve some of these articles. The King Gemini (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When you say "work", are you referring to work on the encyclopedia? Because that wasn't work on the encyclopedia. That was just a rant about the article's subject on the article's talk page. The talk page is there for discussing how to improve the article. If you're wanting to discuss the subject itself, there are many online forums available for that outside of Wikipedia. Additionally, that kind of language is not appropriate on a talk page even if it were on topic. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that was work. I said when I try to express myself and/or try to contribute to this website, it gets edited, deleted, or erased completely, and I don't like it. Because in my eyes, I think that you and others users who either edit, delete, or erase my work and/or expressions completely have it out for me and don't like when I improve some of these articles. What I also said at the beginning was if you're gonna remove what I had typed up in the World Wildlife Fund's talk page, then you need to remove other users' "comments". That's what I said. Don't put words in my mouth homie. The King Gemini (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

National varieties of English
In a recent edit to the page Talk:Christian pacifism, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand or Ireland, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 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, . My apologies, I hadn't noticed that the word "favour" was part of a quotation, hence why I thought there to have been a discrepancy. But I'm wondering why the plethora of other changes related to copyediting were removed, assuming that they weren't reverted on account of the spelling of a singular word ("labor"). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I too am wondering why they were applied as they were all done in . If there are other edits that are of concern, feel free to address them on the talk page of that article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which are at issue? I wouldn't know what to address... 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As no other concerns have been raised, I will restore the edit apart from the spelling of the word "labor". 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Tool for sfn
Hi there. I have noticed that you have made a lot of changes to Wikipedia pages from standard  to. I don't use  too much simply because it is such a hard notation to do consistently. I notice that your commits leave a tag of "references removed," which suggests you are using some tool to do it. Can you share how you are making these changes, or is it something you are doing manually? Thanks! Caorongjin (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep doing this? Its not a user friendly reference system. Just looking at Thomas Nettleship Staley, it had an established reference system and yet you've changed it to sfn. I am genuinely interested in why you think sfn is worth all this fuss. Could you please explain? (and explain you edit to Thomas Nettleship Staley, or I'll be reverting it). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The tag "references removed" doesn't indicate that I'm using a tool. Rather, it's triggered by abuse filter 61, I believe. And no, I don't use any kind of tools (except rarely the find-and-replace function of TextEdit [the Mac equivalent of Notepad ], not that that's typically useful for working with references).

The article Thomas Nettleship Staley is a great example of the utility of sfn. allows references to more major works (e.g., books, journal articles) to be seen concisely without the clutter of repeated references or references to works like newspaper articles, serving the same purpose as a further reading section. It prevents referenced works from almost being hidden in the clutter while prevented from being repeated in the further reading section per MOS:FURTHER. And while it's not particularly useful in all articles, in this example we have 23 notes throughout the article linking to 18 unique footnotes. Four of them link to more minor works. The other 14 contain 16 references (given that two use sfnm) to only 5 sources, so dramatically reduces redundancy. I should also note that I don't see how it's not user-friendly. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)