User talk:82.136.210.153/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Man date

I erred in reverting your addition to the mandate disambiguation page since it was to the See also section, which I failed to notice. Clearly mandate and man date are not the same word to be disambiguated but the see also can cover similar terms so there was no need for the reversion. I would have deleted the automated message left on your page as a result of my revert but you had already removed it. So I leave this message and my apology instead. Donner60 (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Please do not make unconstructive edits as you did at Last Man Standing (U.S. TV series)[1] and List of Last Man Standing episodes[2]. These particular edits were contrary to WP:TVOVERVIEW and have been reverted. WP:TVOVERVIEW stipulates that series overview tables should be transcluded to the main series article. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please WP:GF. My edits were meant to be constructive, and the guideline you're referring to was apparently (very) recently changed. You should know better than to address me like you did, given your participation in the related discussion on the MoS talk page. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Your edit summary at the main article said "Error-prone and unnecessary" which is not correct. The table has been seen to be necessary and a very easily fixable problem with a single citation,[3] which you didn't mention in either of your summaries, is not justification to delete the entire table. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
AussieLegend - Your changes to the manual of style don't work terribly well and shouting at people trying to fix the problems your changes have created is absolutely out of order. Nick (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is shouting and the changes seem to be working well generally. This IP's edits actually had nothing to do with the MOS changes. His edit summary failed to identify the problem, which was easily fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: "This IP's edits"? Please read Wikipedia:IPs are not people and Wikipedia:IPs are human too. Instead refer it as "The user behind this IPs edits". Thank you! (t) Josve05a (c) 20:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, do you not have better things to do? Please read WP:SPADE. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Then my response have to be...no. Please alseo read WP:NOSPADE. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
AussieLegend, my edits were related to the recent MoS changes - although, at the time, I was unaware of its changes. WP:SPADE applies to neither your first remark here nor the way you addressed me later. WP:SPADE states "tell it like it is", i.e. there's no need to be friendly but remain civil. Being civil includes the behavioral guideline to assume good faith. The style guide for TV-related articles had (very) recently changed. You were aware of this, because you partook in the tabular overview drafting process. Both my edit and the guideline change took place in the same month, September. In response to my edit you did not mention the recent guideline change; what you did is write "please do not make unconstructive edits". That's somewhat harsh. Even if you did not understand or disagreed with my edit summary ("Error-prone and unnecessary.") or edit, my edit was no obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. Nonetheless you used "unconstructive edits" and pointed to the (recently changed) MoS guideline. This is probably what editor Nick referred to as "shouting". When it comes to your "this IP's edits" remark: this is not telling it like it is (either). It's factually inaccurate, because Internet Protocol addresses do not make edits, editors do; people. I'm not an "IP", I am an "IP editor" or as Josve05a described it 'a user behind an IP'. Whether the transclusion of those tables is error-prone and unnecessary is debatable, as you've seen here. It was a good faith edit and you could've been more civil. In fact, "unconstructive edits" usually refers to vandalism. The phrase is used in, for example, Template:Uw-vandalism2. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template:User wikipedia/AGFWWRUP has been accepted

Template:User wikipedia/AGFWWRUP, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Huon (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Something in the Water (Carrie Underwood song)

Can you convert bare URLs to cite templates? I believe Cajalden usually simply added bare URLs on every pages. 183.171.170.27 (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article. I see someone already mentioned citation templates to Cajalden on that user's talk page. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Gamine (disambiguation)

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! Rijin Talk 11:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Meh. It's unfortunate that you undid my edit without explaining why, neither in your edit summary nor in your message on this talk page. I've re-added the content, except this time without references; I've added those to the article about street children. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |<ref>www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1029830-witches/}}</ref>
  • |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks bot. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template:WPAFCInvite has been accepted

Template:WPAFCInvite, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

(t) Josve05a (c) 20:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

XLinkBot

Information icon Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Flora D. Darpino. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.  
Your edit here to Flora D. Darpino was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/39thTJAG) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

XLinkBot, we meet again. Once again I have reverted your undoing of my edit. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for processing my COI requests for the Assured Neace Lukens page. I will revisit the areas where the COI requests were denied. Thank you for your time. SjohnsonCMC (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Have a cup of joe on me

Thanks for your response and barnstar specifically, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, generally. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurogamer

I don't think the links to the primary sources are the best way of handling that (we should only mention the journalists that other secondary sources mention as being noteworthy), but the two links you're looking for are:

(under "Oli" and "Dave", nicknames) czar ♔ 06:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added those. Yes, non-primary sources that establish their notability will be required. Those author ids go to 256 and beyond, if we single out some of them there should be a good reason to do so. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steam. 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. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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.
Unnecessary. Not an edit war. I collaborated via edit summaries. Also, if you had read those properly, you probably would not have undone my edit. Either way, see Talk:Steam#For other uses. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You have made this change 5 times today already, and reverted it a further 3. That is edit-warring It doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong, it doesn't matter if you're discussing it by the medium of interpretive dance as well, that's edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you, for various reasons, one being that undoing my own edits doesn't count. But I'm not going to waste my energy discussing this further. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 82.136.210.153. You have new messages at St170e's talk page.
Message added 17:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

st170etalk 17:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Apoplexy (level editor) (November 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chess was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Prince of Persia. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! 82.136.210.153, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:82.136.210.153/Archive_2"