User talk:202.142.86.230

January 2019
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Islamic influences on Western art, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''Please leave that article alone, and please, as repeatedly requested, go to the article's talk page and DISCUSS your concerns. Edit-warring, with or without copying passages out of books and pasting them inappropriately into articles where they frankly don't fit is not acceptable. '' Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2019 (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.

My edit is supported by reliable source. It doesn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines. Please don't do vandalism 202.142.86.230 (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

No, that's totally wrong, untrue, and inappropriate. I have REPEATEDLY explained why your edit-warring is being reverted, please don't pretend otherwise, and I have repeatedly invited you to go to the article's talk page, which is the standard and right procedure, to talk about it (so you violated guideline WP:BRD). Your behaviour has been nothing but disruptive (guideline WP:DISRUPT) since you started here, and that is something which can get you blocked from editing. But since you are willing to talk here, let me say thank you, and ask you please to stop trying to push your views into the article when you know that this is contrary to consensus.

1) The sentence is lifted almost word-for-word from the cited source. That is prima facie a violation of copyright (policy WP:CV) since the words are certainly in copyright, the sentence is not framed as a quotation (nor would one be appropriate, we should use our own words), and the source is not attributed.

2) The sentence does not fit at all well into the context. The paragraph made sense before the addition, and makes worse sense after the addition. This says, in a word, that the addition is redundant and undesirable, itself a sufficient reason to remove it.

3) The sentence contradicts the cited facts, namely that the motifs discussed in the paragraph certainly derived from the pre-Islamic sources which are described, cited, and indeed illustrated in that section of the article. In this context, the sentence not only makes no sense, it is actually and visibly wrong. I have no idea what the author of the book intended by the sentence, but in its plain sense it just doesn't work.

I'd be really grateful if you'd therefore STOP trying to force the material into the article, where it does not belong, violating multiple guidelines. Thank you for your understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello, I'm Dibbydib. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Pension have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.    dibbydib  boop or snoop 06:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.