User talk:86.87.191.180

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Sri Lankan economic crisis (2019–present), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. UtoD 20:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote is not 'original research' it is an established fully academic position (Modern Monetary Theory - go and read the Wikipedia article on it which is also tampered-with and biased), which I linked to. I don't need 'tutorials' thanks. You might want to consider sending them to the people who have merely quoted an unsubstantiated opinion presented as fact, and perhaps to yourselves for allowing something like that stand. However, carry on abusing your power and shaping narratives. I've been contributing to Wikipedia since it began and never have I had to face something as disgraceful as this. 86.87.191.180 (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. UtoD 19:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - UtoD 06:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis, you may be blocked from editing. El_C 11:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing. Specifically, WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct persisting after warning. Also: failing to live up to the spirit of WP:BURDEN, WP:CITE, WP:ONUS. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 19:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Covered every angle for yourselves. Every disputed point is given a silly name: 'onus', 'burden', 'battleground'. Perhaps the burden is actually on editors to vet things properly rather than in a targeted fashion? It's a low bar when someone can just cite any old opinion and get it accepted just because they attached a happy little footnote number to a non-authoritative source. This is why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously academically. 86.87.191.180 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Anna Wolkoff. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard. The article is about a UK subject and that is standard for writing of dates in the UK. There are no date writing conventions following the one I corrected.

Thank you. Daisne. Daisne (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you have reverted my edits to a date writing system that doesn't exist? I clearly told you why I edited it. Daisne (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.