User talk:182.239.146.18

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Seven Years' War, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. It is inappropriate to require a citation in the lead that summarizes the rest of the article, as per MOS:LEAD. Peaceray (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2023 (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.

Your comment "Inappropriate to require a citation in the lead that summarizes the rest of the article, as per MOS:LEAD". Only it does not summarise the article, because there is no cited reference in the article to support the statement. Citation needed reinstated per MOS:CITELEAD - "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation". Consider the statement challenged. 182.239.146.18 (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Seven Years' War. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. it is well established that this conflict took part on the continents of Europe, North America, South America, Asia, & India & is therefore global. That the conflict occurred on each of these continents is verified by reliable sources. If you do not understand WP:V & WP:RS, please do not claim WP:POL. If you are thinking that it is WP:OR, you would be wrong on that account as well. Please see the second paragraph of Seven Years' War#Nomenclature. Peaceray (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2023 (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.

The article needs a reliable source to support its contention. You are the one that needs to be aware of WP:POL. Don't try to bully me, or I will ANI you; then we will see how your past editing history shapes up over on the "bloodsports" page as its denizens go to work. 182.239.146.18 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: your edit summary at Talk:Negrito of "Leave something of a trail on the page, surely?"

In the auto-archiving code you changed 1 thread left to 5. If 5 post/threads are left on the talk page after auto-archiving kicks in, the last 5 posts/thread will be ones from September 2021, December 2021, and February 2022. I don't understand why posts & threads with no new posts since 2021 and 2022 should be retained - those posts have received no editorial discussion for years - 2 years in case of the September 2021 posts. If folks are interested in past discussions they can always take a look through the talk page archives. Shearonink (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Shearonink, I find your attitude fascinating. Nobody showed any interest in the archiving of any of the approximately 30 topics dating back to 2005. I set up an auto-archive process in which a Wikipedia bot will create the archive file within the next 24 hours, and move on. You decide that you will intervene with that WP process and a) create the archive page yourself(!) b) change the parameters so that all but one topic is left. Why would anybody do that, apart from exercising control (a form of ownership) over the article? Additionally, your intervention with the bot process has led to zero archiving in the past 24 hours. Any ideas when the archiving bot will kick in? 182.239.146.18 (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not claiming ownership over the article at all, I just don't see why thread and posts that have had no interactions within a year or two should be retained on the main talk page. If there's been no interest from readership in continuing a discussion, why should it be kept on view? But whatever - I'm not going to fuss about it. I have no idea when the bot will kick in. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Shearonink, it is my view that there should be several subject items left on the talk page (5 being my preference), so that a visitor can easily see what the more recent (even if it is 2 years ago) subjects for discussion were, without referencing the archive files. The "flavour" of the more recent events, if you like. Similar to you, I am ambivalent to you changing it back - it is not worth contending over.

You still have not explained why you overrode the auto-archiving; I suspect that you may not know yourself. I had noticed from the commencement of our discussions that from your User page, that you are a highly respected editor. My view is that WP is a journey among both fields of knowledge and a community of other editors, and at the end of that journey you will have learnt more about yourself than you have about the topics on offer. Enjoy the journey; watch also yourself. Regards, 182.239.146.18 (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

"why I overrode the archiving"? Do you mean why I changed it from a year to 90 days? Because 90 days seems like plenty of time for posts/threads to sit without a reply before being archived. I left the 5 subject posts threads code intact and, btw, have also fixed the archiving code so the bot should now start archiving within the next day. If the bot doesn't start archiving I'll ask someone to take a look at the code. Shearonink (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Shearonink, I meant that you had manually created the first archive file that was about to be automatically created by a WP bot, which would then have immediately commenced the archiving. However, thanks for your time and let us hope that the archiving kicks off shortly. Regards, 182.239.146.18 (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The archiving of 42 topics has just occurred. All good! 182.239.146.18 (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

When I am looking at creating an archive for a talk page or am working on archiving a talk page, I usually check to see if any kind of an archive has already been created - sometimes they already exist but with a malformed title or maybe the title of the article was changed but the talk page archive was overlooked or sometimes an archive just hasn't been linked to on the talk page, there can just be orphaned already-in-existence archive pages floating around Wikipedia with no new content. So, whatever, I check those parameters & I then might go ahead & manually create an archive page. Sometimes there hasn't been any archiving - manual or bot-driven - for *years* (for instance, in the early days of Wikipedia posts won't have the now de rigueur time stamps & signature so a bot wouldn't work anyway) so I'll manually move stuff off the talk page into the archive. As with many things around Wikipedia, editor's choice, that's all.

Yeah, I saw that the bot finally kicked in. Yay! Shearonink (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I saw that you added signatures to some of the older posts missing signatures at Talk Negrito. That can work but your signature is present instead of the original poster's. Wanted to give you a heads-up that I am going in and changing those 2 present signatures to who/what originally posted them and also reverting that "taken" tense correction to the original of "take". For instance, the first post on the page with "The 1212 purchase of rights to settle implies that the Negrito..." is actually from 169.207.90.216 in 2003, not you in 2023. The code/Template I use is a variation of Template:Unsigned - {{subst:unsigned|user name or IP|date}}, filling it in with the missing/appropriate information. Shearonink (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks - nice work with the template! I did this because I cannot be bothered digging around to find out who and when the edit was made; I simply tag the topic and the archive bot will move it off the Talk Page at some time in the future. I guess it would be neater for me to simply manual archive them. Your solution is best. Happy editing! 182.239.146.18 (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

---