User talk:108.54.159.197

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! Tarheel95 (Talk) 14:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category:Human life scientists and Category:indian human life scientists which I have nominated for deletion. Hugo999 (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just dropping a note to let you know I reverted one of your category edits. I have left an edit summary with the revert, linking to the relevant guideline. To quote the applicable section of WP:SORTKEY:

"The main article/s of a category, if existent, should get sorted with a space as key so that it/they appear(s) at the very top of the category. Example: [[Category:Example| ]] Those articles are typically homonymous or at least synonymous to their category. Furthermore, other general articles that are highly relevant to the category should be sorted with an asterisk as key so that they also appear at the top of a category but beneath the main article/s. Example: [[Category:Example|*]] Those articles are typically called "History of example", "Types of example", "List of example" or similar."

This scheme of sorting certain articles and sub-categories, such as lists, near the top is generally standard practice and fairly consistently followed, at least with country-related lists. This consistency helps both readers and editors quickly locate the list article or list category. Otherwise, keep up the good work and I appreciate your contributions. Happy editing:) --DB1729^talk 22:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at a couple categories you've worked on, I see what you are doing now.

At Category:Alabama politicians you've swapped the sorting scheme of 'sorting types of politicians to top (asterisk) and politicians from city to under letter'; to a scheme that is 'city to top and type by letter'. I think you will find that most categories are sorted the first way, the way it was before you changed. It's a bit of spill-over from categories in the form "X by city" or "X by country" where it is clear that the members should be sorted by the city or country and under the letter of its city or country. And per WP:SORTKEY: "Furthermore, other general articles that are highly relevant to the category should be sorted with an asterisk as key so that they also appear at the top of a category but beneath the main article/s. Example: [[Category:Example|*]] Those articles are typically called "History of example", "Types of example", "List of example" or similar." In the case of Category:Alabama politicians, the types of politicians would be considered the "general" members and thus sorted to the top, rather that the "by city" members, who would then by sorted under letter of city. This rationale is consistent with "by city" categories and probably why so many are done that way.

I would strongly recommend starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization before changing the way perhaps thousands of categories are sorted and the way perhaps tens of thousands of articles are sorted. --DB1729^talk 23:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, I think what you've done is fine, I just created a new category Category:Alabama politicians by city so that now it's inline with most other states. --DB1729^talk 01:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RPI2026F1. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Category:21st-century American anthropologists—because it 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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Silikonz. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Category:21st-century Kenyan writers—because it 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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Silikonz💬 01:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Category:11th-century lexicographers. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Silikonz💬 00:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Category:German gay writers—because it 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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Category:Ghanaian women journalists. 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. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Category:Cape Verdean academics, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime you remove text from anywhere without an edit summary and no obvious reason for doing so, expect a speedy revert. Why should anyone spend time sleuthing the reason for your edit when you could have easily stated it in the wp:edit summary? Adakiko (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits to Wikipedia pages, such as the one you made with this edit to Category:Medieval Polish writers, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kind regards~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 07:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category:New Zealand archaeologists. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. – Joe (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Category talk:New Zealand archaeologists#Recent adjustments. – Joe (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Eteethan. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Category:Waheed Murad—because it 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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Eteethan (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Category:Comedians from Sindh. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Eteethan (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eteethan:. These are good-faith edits and arguably correct and consistent with WP:SORTCAT and WP:SORTKEY. Although defaultsort would probably work better at Category:Waheed Murad and the dot/period might not not have been the best choice at Category:Comedians from Sindh, the edits were certainly not vandalism.

@IP 108.54.159.197: Please consider adding a link to either WP:SORTCAT or WP:SORTKEY to your edit summaries. Your edits are being misidentified as vandalism. Perhaps those links will prevent some reverts.

...AND good-grief, create an account already, would you please? You have thousands of edits by this IP address, going back over a year. It's time to sign up. DB1729^talk 15:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Category:British landowners, you may be blocked from editing. for the love of god, create an account Begocc (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Category:Saudi Arabian pharmacologists. Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Scottish naturalists, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. scotish biologist is not a redundant category. removing it disconnected the category from scottish occupations Mason (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TechnoSquirrel69. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Category:Artists from Princeton, New Jersey—because it 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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category:American landowners. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. please stop. I've asked you several times not to remove the parent category. it is not fully redudant. Mason (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted several of these changes, including when you fully nest academics within educators (which is not correct), when you exclude physicians from the scientist tree (also not correct [1]), when you fully nest journalists within non-fiction writers (which does not reflect the variety of their roles), biologists are not naturalists, landowners are not all businesspeople [2], astronomers are not all physicists [3] etc. It is not helpful for you to remove categories that you have deemed redundant when editors have made it clear to you that they do not agree. You have to actually engage in the discussion about these changes. Mason (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Category:People from Nu'uuli. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 06:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]