Hi 109.255.90.188! I noticed your contributions to RNA vaccine and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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! ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 00:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to RNA vaccine—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 Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2020 (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.

• thanks for re-reverting this Materialscientist. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Megxit, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2020 (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.

@Sundayclose:, I have contributed to Megxit, and there is no evidence now of any requirement for such a tag now (perhaps there once was, but maybe archived?). Also, I think it is a good idea to have auto archiving on that talk page? 109.255.90.188 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your unilateral decision to remove the "Not a forum" template. Sundayclose (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose:, I don’t see any evidence of somebody using it as a forum? Also, why remove the auto archive as well? thanks, 109.255.90.188 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

If several editors reinstate content you disagree with, please do not continue to remove it repeatedly. This is edit warring. If you disagree with the content, then post it to the talk page so other editors can review the materials. Please review WP:BRD on how this is done. The procedure is to challenge the content on the article talk page. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made just one revert? Although, I think this is sorted now and the material removed? 109.255.90.188 (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've already been warned about edit-warring at other articles. Per WP:BRD, if you are reverted, you need to start a discussion on talk, not the editor who reverts your change. I have provided guidelines and explanations for why you were reverted, it's now on you to get consensus for your changes. Popcornfud (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud:. If you check the above three notices, you will find that MaterialScientist re-reverted themselves when they realized they had reverted me in error on RNA vaccines (happened twice); SundayClose, once they considered my reply, also re-reverted themselves on the Megxit talk page. The Utah monolith was a close group that warned me after making one change and then organised a talk page consensus where they quickly voted against me and then immediately closed the discussion (although, I notice that my concerns have been upheld, and others have finally made the removals I advocated). That is life as an IP on Wikipedia I'm afraid, you are often assumed guilty until proved innocent, however, at least when I have explained, most have been fair.

Tenet is an absurdly complex film, and a 700-word plot is not going to work. WP:FILMPLOT specifically covers this (re Memento). Although, no plot is really going to work for Tenet (I am not sure the plot is sufficiently coherent that it can be fully explained), however, there are some small nuances (e.g. like the reader knowing that the starting Opera scene happens on the same day as Sator being on his yacht in Vietnam), however, there is little point if such an expansion is going to be resisted. This is an excellent article, some small parts of which would help the article Tenet: What the hell happened? The film's most confusing scenes, explained. Perhaps even a separate sub-section on what a "Temporal pincer movement" is, would really help on this article. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your edit and take your argument to the talk page to get consensus. Popcornfud (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem interested in any discussion and seem to treat that article as your own personal space? 109.255.90.188 (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Fed model has been reverted.
Your edit here to Fed model 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.youtube.com/watch?v=8E-ZFmgw4dg) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
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) 12:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

That is a link to a freely available video from the Financial Times so will revert. thanks. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Nightenbelle. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Fed model, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightenbelle, I did add a source from a good finance academic journal (Journal of Asset Management), from which I made my changes. I did not do them all in one single edit, but you can see from my last few edits that I have added it. It is a pretty good source, and an important clarification to the article in my view (i.e. a low real interest rates, not just nominal rates, the relationship breaks down)? thanks. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid these kinds of reversions in the future- just say in your edit note you will add the reference in a minute. Or do all the changes at once. Glad that you added the source. I'm sorry- When I'm recent change patroling- I don't go back and look at the edit history of every editor who makes a change- I just look at the individual change. So adding those edit summaries really helps :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightenbelle, understand and thank you for that. Is it okay that I restore? 109.255.90.188 (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My apologies if I am not following proper protocol here, I am a novice at Wikipedia feedback - although I'm a long time user and donor.

I noticed some time ago that content on the Fed Model page had been removed. More recently, I tracked it down to a change I believe you made with this version: 15:59, 19 December 2020‎

The content that no longer appears was under the heading: "Is the Fed model mis-specified?"

I have found this content particularly valuable and have referred others to it. I'd like to understand why it was removed, but could not find any reasoning.

Could you tell me why it was removed (or point me to a record on Wikipedia if there is such a thing).

Thanks, Jjoyce1sbc (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this IP address or network has been used to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse.
If you are not the intended target of this block, please read the information below in order to receive assistance.

Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block IP addresses to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These blocks can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.

IP users (without an account): If you do not have an account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. To request an account, simply click here and follow the directions provided on the page. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. When filling out the account request form, please refer to this block in the "comments" input field. If you've been instructed to request an account via email, please refer to this block in your message.

Registered users (with an account): Please make sure you are logged in to your account. If you are unable to edit while logged in, you may request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]