Jump to content

User talk:142.167.242.182

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

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

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:

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 (142.167.242.182) 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 Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here 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 (~~~~).

Happy editing!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 17:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Snowycats. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Raymond Fraser have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Snowycats (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Information icon Hello, I'm IntoThinAir. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Becky Pettit have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. I get your point and you had some valid arguments but the fact is, she was editor-in-chief of a major journal (Social Problems) so she passes criterion 8 of WP:NACADEMIC. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 04:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Actually, its impact factor is now higher than it says in the article for the journal now (which I will update shortly). Now it's 2.071 and it's ranked 30th out of 146. [1] Whether that constitutes a "major" journal is somewhat subjective, but it is certainly "well-established" as it has been published since 1953. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 05:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Louis E. LaPierre has been accepted

[edit]
Louis E. LaPierre, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Redirect-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!

~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Zena Sheardown has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Zena Sheardown. Thanks! KJP1 (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Danielle Lee (July 17)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:
This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. 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.
David.moreno72 02:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, 142.167.242.182! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! David.moreno72 02:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jeffrey Epstein, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Prior to removing referenced material, discuss those changes on the article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 submission at Articles for creation: Zena Sheardown (July 23)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
John Sheardown qualifies for a separate page because of his diplomat status. Without that, I think neither would notable for standalone pages and instead should redirect to Canadian Caper. With that in mind, I don't see her as independently notable and inherent notability would also not apply.
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.
CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Trinity Western University. You claim I am a connected editor. That means something on Wikipedia. Show your work, Fredericton. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.
You announced it yourself, dipshit. Your connection is that you attended; you're alumni. [2] 142.167.242.182 (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm an alumnus. Alumni is plural. As I wrote, if you would like to out me, take it to Wikipedia:COIN. I have not edited there with conflict of interest. I have neither hidden that fact, but I also have no CoI. As I wrote, I edit that article as I do all articles on my watchlist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. You're not hiding that fact. So you are admitting that you are connected, and the template should stand on the talk page. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
142.167.242.182, you misunderstand "conflict of interest". It specifically applies when the author has something to gain from promoting a particular point of view. Writing about something which you merely find "interesting" is not the same thing. It is natural that an alumnus of a college has an interest in the subject, but it is an example of the the latter (unless, perhaps, the author is now the chancellor of that institution - of which there is zero indication here). Your argument that someone who once attended a college cannot write about it makes as much sense as saying that someone who one visited China cannot write about things Chinese, or someone who breathes cannot write about oxygen. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do not misunderstand conflict of interest. Alumni have a vested interest in improving the reputation of their own school because any prestige reflects on themselves, increases their ability to find employment, etc. See the conflict of interest section at WP:WPSCH/AG#NPOV. Thanks for your input though, random stranger who can't be bothered to check Wikipedia guidelines. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline for COI at universities, the schools guideline doesn't apply

[edit]

Doug Weller talk 12:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It specifically says that university alumni often have a conflict of interest at WP:BOOSTER. In any case, what we are talking about is not whether he has a "conflict of interest" it is whether he is a "connected contributor" (for use of the connected contributor template on the talk page). He has openly announced his connection with the university (as alum); therefore, there should be no problem in using the connected contributor template on the page. Since WP:BOOSTER specifically says that alumni are often motivated by COI, there should be no hesitation in applying the connected contributor template to those who admit that they attended. Warning about possible COI is exactly the purpose of the template. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a conditional in there. I am not motivated in any way of the term. I have asked you to take it to CoIN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, 142.167.242.182. You have new messages at Talk:Sonia Fergina Citra.
Message added 02:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Newslinger talk 02:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zena Sheardown has been accepted

[edit]
Zena Sheardown, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:142.167.242.182&oldid=863956839"