User talk:176.57.253.190

February 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Sam Smith, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. William Avery (talk) 14:25, 17 February 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.

Hello, I'm Nlahovski. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Eoin Ó Broin—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. NLahovski (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Uluru. 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. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:35, 8 March 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.

April 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hubert Chesshyre. 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. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:11, 11 April 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.

August 2021

Hello, I'm Isabelle Belato. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Anne Smith, Lady Smith—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. Isabelle ^🔔 23:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Imran Ahmad Khan (British politician), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. MoonlightVector 16:00, 10 September 2021 (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.

Owen Hurcum

Maybe I'm being a fool but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt with your edits to Owen Hurcum and assume that you had simply never heard of a person having a non-binary gender before and that your incorrect edit summary "Grammatical errors corrected, article appears to have been written by someone unaware of use of singular and plural pronouns in English" was a result of genuine ignorance and not an attempt to troll or disrupt Wikipedia. Please note that you will not receive this benefit of the doubt a second time.

Please do not fiddle with people's gender pronouns when they are already correct. Please also take care that your edit summaries are accurate in future. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I have now reviewed some of your other, older, edits (e.g. this nonsense) and I see that I was mistaken to give you the benefit of the doubt. You seem to be perfectly well aware of what non-binary people are. You just seem to have a grudge against them and are engaging in intentional vandalism. Wikipedia is not a venue on which to pursue your sordid grudges. Any more of this nonsense may lead to you being blocked from editing. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Funcrunch (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Owen Hurcum, you may be blocked from editing. Funcrunch (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have already been warned quite enough about your clearly deliberate and intentional vandalism, I am upgrading this to a final warning. If you make any further defamatory or transphobic edits, to any article or talk page, then you may be blocked from editing without further warning. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Sam Tarry, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 24 January 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.

Please see WP:RSPS. The source that you cited is deprecated and cannot be used. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm JediMasterMacaroni. I noticed that you recently removed content from Peter Houseman without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 20:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted material was not about Peter Houseman, it was about the driver of the car that killed him. It doesn't add to our knowledge of Peter.

Wikipedia should not be about naming and shaming. I also have a strong suspicion that the details about the other driver have been included for political reasons and would not be there if the driver had been the son of a Labour politician.

Thank you for the polite tone of your message 176.57.253.190 (talk) 21:09, 5 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.

May 2022

Hello, I'm Fakescientist8000. I noticed that you recently removed content from Steve Turner (police commissioner) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 16:54, 24 May 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.

Eltham

Hi, you have twice deleted a paragraph that is reliably sourced, first time suggesting it was "tendentious" (which I understand means "expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one", and second time because "source article is not really about Eltham and comes from a disreputable newspaper". I have twice reverted the change, reflecting, first, WP:nPOV that articles should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic," and second, that The Independent in 1999 was a highly regarded UK broadsheet newspaper (definitely not "disreputable", but a reliable source). Please be conscious of the three-revert rule WP:3RR; I have taken this issue to the article's Talk so that it might be properly discussed without edit warring. Paul W (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to live in Blackheath so really should know better than to believe the "Eltham is racist" nonsense. The Independent, like its soulmate the Guardian, has a long and sordid record of sending reporters from Islington to write ignorant stories about Eltham to fill up space.

@https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/spate-of-racist-stabbings-in-eltham-had-gone-unpunished-6284643.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/two-decades-have-passed-but-the-hate-goes-on-in-eltham-6285108.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-lawrence-report-eltham-scene-of-the-crime-streets-where-race-hatred-is-the-norm-1073046.html

I think therefore tendentious is the right word here. The writer of the piece cited as the source in the article doesn't seem to have bothered to visit Eltham and has cynically brought it in to beef up his piece from America

You've reverted me twice and I've reverted you once, so presumably it's you who is in the last chance saloon. Thank you though for taking the trouble to send me a message explaining your actions. 176.57.253.190 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you trying to game the 3RR. Paul was right to revert you. If I see you doing the same again I'll be happy to issue warning templates for content blanking. DanielRigal (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention, User:DanielRigal. Paul W (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Peter Houseman, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THank you for your message. I don't find the Wikipedia policies and guidelines very helpful here, one way or the other. However I think that common sense and common decency require that the article does not mention Bartholomew Smith by name.

1) I think he is still alive. He is entitled to a measure of rehabilitation. It is not fair to mention his misdeeds of over 40 years ago. I suggest that most people consulting Wikipedia about Peter Houseman will be interested in his football career and the fact that he died young in a motor accident. The identity of the other driver isn't really relevant

2) The inclusion of "Tory MP father" and "Bullingdon Club" are again irrelevant and I suspect have been included as red meat for a bigoted group of readers. These shouldn't be pandered to. 176.57.253.190 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 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.

Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 Eltham, you may be blocked from editing. Once again, you have sought to remove reliably sourced content from this article - despite a previous User Talk page exchange in which you were explicitly asked not to. Paul W (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My editing is not disruptive, it is removing material which I believe to be inaccurate. Why should you be the judge of hwta appears on Wikipedia? Why should I for that matter? Is there some Forum that could seek a consensus.

You obviously hate Eltham and I am not going to meekly let you pollute Wikipedia with this. 176.57.253.190 (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Disruptive editing. In my view, your edits 'disrupt progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia'; they 'degrade Wikipedia's reliability as a reference source and exhaust the patience of productive editors'.

Seeking consensus is normally managed through Talk pages - the Eltham content has already been the subject of previous Talk page discussions (including inputs from User:DanielRigal - see Eltham section above), but you have ignored requests not to remove reliably sourced content.

Moreover, your responses have now also become uncivil (see WP:civility); please strike through your comment about me 'obviously hating Eltham' (both factually wrong and personally insulting) and 'polluting Wikipedia' (offensive given the 19 years I have been involved with the project). Paul W (talk) 10:42, 17 October 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.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Eddie Izzard, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hello, I'm Adakiko. Your recent edit to Nigel Waterson appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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) 21:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think my version was not constructive? The case is now sub-judice, we do not know for certain that the girls involved were sisters or that the woman was their parent. Describing the somewhat sinisted Family Forever as a "grassroots organisation" is odd. 176.57.253.190 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.