User talk:128.151.71.7

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).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

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:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

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) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No thanks. 128.151.71.7 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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.-Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Forbes
Forbes can sometimes be unreliable. (You did ask.)

Please note WP:FORBESCON. A few years back the Forbes website included a lot of content from external contributors, which did not have the same amount of oversight and editorial standards as readers might normally expect. This led to guidelines against including content from these contributors as a reference source because the quality was so low. The guideline remains but the Forbes website has changed substantially and they aren't scraping the barrel and publishing clickbait like they were doing.

Editors will read WP:FORBESCON not knowing the history and argue that even "senior contributors" should not be used as references. (You can argue that the writer is staff or a subject matter expert, but good luck convincing anyone.)

Generally though it is better to save yourself time and use a different source if at all possible. -- 109.76.192.23 (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Hello, I'm FlightTime. I noticed that you recently removed content from Steve Martin 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. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Genesis discography, 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. ✯✬✩InterestGather (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You should not just drive by an article and tag it as biased, you should leave an explanation on the article talk page, detailing the specific reasons why and specific errors. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The tag is the explanation. Just going on the talk page and saying "this section is clearly biased" when it's clearly biased isn't a viable use of my time.  When I see something that needs a citation, I add a Citation Needed tag.  When I see a section that may be original research, I add a tag.  When I see a clearly biased section, I add a tag.
 * If you see the tag, take it seriously and address the issue. Don't just untag it because you didn't get the detail you want.  It's not *required* and you shouldn't just take it upon yourself to remove a tag. 128.151.71.7 (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just placing a tag helps no one without knowing what specifically is the issue, such as what passages or text is biased and why. What is clear to you isn't to others, and bias is often a matter of perspective- Donald Trump probably thinks that anything that isn't a glowing, complimentary piece is biased, including the many articles about him. Everything has bias, this is why sources are presented to readers, so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. You need to do more than just tag. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I specifically placed it on the section because that indicated that the entire section was biased. That is sufficient.  Again, the tag should be all that is needed.  Should I have to spell it out?  No.  That's what the tag is for.128.151.71.7 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not enough. How is "the entire section biased"?  What does that mean?  How should it be fixed?  Everything has a bias, so if the bias in a particular section is so bad it needs to be changed, we need to know how. If you aren't interested in getting that deep into a discussion, you shouldn't be placing tags that require an explanation. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Limited Run Games § Firing of community manager
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Limited Run Games § Firing of community manager. &#x0020;This discussion is in relation to content you have previously added to the article. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to note, because you can't ping IP editors, that I've replied to your most recent message on the article talk page. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Paul Butterfield Blues Band
I have carried out the RM request on this page. Feel free to expand it with content from Butterfield's article. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  08:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Hello, I'm Discospinster. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Nintendo 64 accessories—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. ... disco spinster   talk  01:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)