User talk:79.159.239.135

December 2018
Hello, I'm Farooqahmadbhat. I noticed that you made two back to back changes to an article, Grey, but you didn't provide a source. I've removed it for now, but if you'd like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please feel free to do so! Your constructive and well-sourced contribution is encouraged. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

First you changed "monks" to "friars" and then "members"?.. You previous changes were accepted by User:FeRDNYC without understanding WP:RVAN

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. Thanks (Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC))

The recent edit you made to The Mountebanks constitutes WP:EDIT WARring and has been reverted. If you continue to Edit War, you may be blocked from editing Wikiepedia. Instead, use the WP:BRD process by opening a discussion on the article's talk page. You need to cite a published source that discusses The Mountebanks and states that the characters in the opera are friars, rather than monks. A general reference that does not mention The Mountebanks is not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (79.159.239.135) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a 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! Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wholesale changes with monks and friars
Once again, welcome. I noticed a large series of changes you have made in the last ten days concerning the use of the words monk and friar in hundreds of articles. While I have no quibble with many of your edits, some of them may be problematic because they are not supported by citations given in the article, and run counter to Wikipedia's reliance on reliable sources to verify article content.

I have examined a small handful of them, and reverted one (more on this below). I'm concerned that many more of them need to be examined, and I don't know who's going to do it. In the meantime, could you please stop making changes of this nature?

Since you became active this month, you have altered over 700 articles which use the terms monk or friar so that they correspond with the Catholic encyclopedia definition whose url you give in the edit summary of each of those edits. (Sample edit summary: members of monastic Catholic religious orders are called 'monks', while members of mendicant orders are called 'friars'.) Although many of the articles you are editing are on Catholic religious personages or topics, many others are on more general topics such as towns, buildings, disambig pages (Lawrence, diff), or unrelated topics (Oaxaca cheese, diff) that just happen to have the word monk in them. Are you sure that the changes you are making are always in a Catholic context where this change is appropriate to the article? For example, in the case of the usages, "dominican monk" and "dominican friar", the latter is indeed more popular in recent books, but this hasn't always been the case.

Your pace of changes of this type appears to be around three or four edits per minute. While I don't disagree with your changes in many cases, I wonder if fifteen to twenty seconds per article is really enough time to ensure that the changes you are making from monk to friar (or vice versa) are correct. For example, in your change to Monaco, you changed monk to friar in this sentence: Monaco was first ruled by a member of the House of Grimaldi in 1297, when Francesco Grimaldi, known as "Il Malizia" (translated from Italian either as "The Malicious One" or "The Cunning One"), and his men captured the fortress protecting the Rock of Monaco while dressed as Franciscan monks—a monaco in Italian, although this is a coincidence as the area was already known by this name. to this: Monaco was first ruled by a member of the House of Grimaldi in 1297, when Francesco Grimaldi, known as "Il Malizia" (translated from Italian either as "The Malicious One" or "The Cunning One"), and his men captured the fortress protecting the Rock of Monaco while dressed as Franciscan friars—a monaco in Italian, although this is a coincidence as the area was already known by this name. (Emphasis added) This both changes the meaning of the final appositive (bolding added) to something nonsensical, as well as going against the citation already given in the article (the original text of the May 2012 archived version of that source states: "It all began on January 8, 1297 when the Guelf François Grimaldi dressed as a Franciscan monk, seized the fortress protecting the famous rock of Monaco and the port of Hercules."). I've reverted this change.

I checked Google books for "dressed as a Franciscan friar" catholic vs. "dressed as a Franciscan monk" catholic, and friar beats monk 7::6 in first-page results with bolded snippets (and also in total hit count, but that is unreliable). A Catholic encyclopedia definition may be the "right" one, in your view, or the Catholic Church's view, or the Domincans' view, but that's not how Wikipedia works; we go by usage as seen in independent, secondary, reliable sources. This one experiment is not sufficient to draw a definitive conclusion about term usage, but if this trend holds up in further investigation, it would indicate that monk is is not a fringe usage, but is a term used by a significant minority of reliable sources to refer to Dominican friars.

As another example: your change of an image caption at Kirchheim in Schwaben from "Former Dominican monastery..." to "Former Dominican friary" based on the same edit summary may be problematic. The trend over time has always preferred the former expression to the latter, regardless of what the Catholic encyclopedia may prefer.

In using the same, Catholic Encyclopedia reference in the edit summary of every one of hundreds of edits and ignoring citations to other reliable sources that may be present, you privilege that one source unduly. Going forward, please use citations to reliable sources in the body of the article, and do not make changes that run counter to Wikipedia policy. As you only started editing a few days ago, you probably shouldn't be making these edits at all, until you understand Wikipedia's policies on verifiability better.

By ignoring policy and making so many changes so fast, you may be making extra work for other editors who may have to come in behind you, and examine what you have done to see if it's okay as is, or needs to be undone. I would view any resumption of this activity as disruptive, so please hold off making further edits of this type until this can be looked at further. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)