User talk:1.43.19.78

August 2018

Hello, I'm Luk. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mary Carlisle seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Luk ^talk 11:31, 5 August 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.

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Betsy Baker (supercentenarian). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to List of Prisoner cast members, you may be blocked from editing. Jusdafax (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Thomas (reporter)

You are welcome to update Bob Thomas (reporter), but please do not revert my edits there again. Your changes introduced multiple errors, removed content without explanation, and added content without sources. I'm more than happy to help, but simply reinstating your errors is not the way to go. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Herman Smith-Johannsen. Plaba123 (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}. Spencer^T•C 17:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spencer: This edit looks like the sort of copyediting tweak I would make myself, while this may be controversial, is sometimes the sort of edit we see a lot on biographies. What editing privileges have been abused? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Thanks for the ping. I did a deeper dive into the contribs; in my spot check, the edits appeared to be more of the second type, which based off of the report seemed to be nationality-type disruptive editing. Will be more careful in the future when looking over contributions. I've gone ahead and unblocked. Best, Spencer^T•C 18:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I was writing a "please use edit summaries and explain yourself, particularly if the changes look in any way nationalist" type of message, but by the time I'd finished, you'd already blocked. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

Herbert Stothart is already linked twice in the article. One or two links at most, please. See WP:DUPLINK Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. Such edits are considered vandalism and quickly undone. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Cachexia --Eihel (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm NottNott. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Susan Hanson— 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. -Nott Nott 12:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twinings of London

Twinings of London is primarily known for selling tea. The company was given its Royal Warrant for tea. I believe that it was granted a warrant during the reign of Queen Victoria, at a time when the company only produced tea. Chocolate and coffee are more recent additions to the company's range. The company's website in England lists a range of other items offered for sale, and not just confined to beverages; including coffee, hot chocolate, confectionary (chocolate, marmalade, preserves, biscuits, sweets), teaware (teapots, tea caddies, mugs, tea-cups and storage jars), syrups, gifts, calendars and novelty items. The website in other countries, including my own country, does not mention products other than tea. My understanding is that the company first began selling coffee in 2005 - many years after it was granted a royal warrant.

So, if you want to be pedantic, the explanation should read Twinings of London (tea, coffee, hot chocolate, confectionary (chocolate, marmalade, preserves, biscuits, sweets), teaware (teapots, tea caddies, mugs, tea-cups and storage jars), syrups, gifts, calendars and novelty items.) And, why not make an effort to provide an exhaustive listing for each company?

But, surely, this is not the point? The comment in brackets following the name of the Royal-Warrant holder is designed to indicate which product or products the company is best known for. It is not intended to convey an exhaustive list of every item the company sells, or has ever sold. The article is not about Twinings - it's about royal warrants. Readers who are interested in learning more about Twinings can follow the links to the Wikipedia article on Twinings where they can access the fine detail- but for the purpose of this article, the main consideration should be to provide a basic and succinct explanation for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with the company.

Therefore, if you insist on adding this type of additional information to Twinings, then why stop of just one? Perhaps we should consider expanding the explanation in brackets for all companies:

Twinings of London (tea, coffee, hot chocolate, confectionary (chocolate, marmalade, preserves, biscuits, sweets), teaware (teapots, tea caddies, mugs, tea-cups and storage jars), syrups, gifts, calendars and novelty items.)
Cadbury (confectionary, chocolate, beverages
Fortnum & Mason (preserves and marmalades, ready-to-eat luxury meals, chocolate, tea, hampers, seasonings and spices, cheese, caviar, foie gras, fresh meat and fish, wine and spirits, homewares, gifts, restaurants)
Yardley of London - skincare (hand cream and body lotion), talcum powders, perfumes, soaps, toiletries
Land Rover and Aston Martin - (cars, car parts, car accessories, motor vehicle repairs)

These descriptions should also be updated on related articles such as List of Royal Warrant holders of the British Royal Family.

The selective attention shown to Twinings, and not to other companies mentioned in the article could be construed as bias or Point of View (POV) pushing. The same rules should apply to all - if you wish to provide an expanded description of one company, then you have an obligation to do the same for every company mentioned.

I think that there are two options here:

1. Delete all references to the products provided, since they are causing so much bother.
2. Provide comprehensive or exhaustive listings of all products sold by the companies mentioned.

BronHiggs (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again reverted your edit, but this time, I have gone back into the article and removed all the product examples since this is apparently your concern. I have no idea what point you were trying to make (as stated in the edit summary). I have also copied my previous comment to the article's talk page, so that it is made clear to other users why product examples are not used in the article, and hopefully so that other editors will not add them back in again. BronHiggs (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Footy Show (rugby league). 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. DannyS712 (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Catherine Booth, you may be blocked from editing. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 13:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2019 (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.

March 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Wendy Blacklock, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 16:44, 9 March 2019 (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.

Bronx Zoo

In the future, please be careful about making edits like this to Bronx Zoo. You reverted my addition of an inline citation without even looking at the edit. epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC) i am allowed to add a citation note, if it is not properly sourced, thank you for adding he information, incite citation's are a priority.[reply]

or sorry if i overlooked your added info.

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.