User talk:174.116.196.132

May 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Taifals, 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. Ifnord (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Acadians, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Hello, I'm Jh15s. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Louisiana Creole people have been undone because they 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. Thanks. Jh15s (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

Acadians December 2020
Hi there, I notice that you have twice (2x) removed cited information with at least 4 historian sources that I have added to the beginning of the article Acadians without any detailed rationale. Since the information is fully sourced, I believe it meets the Wikipedia threshold for publishing. I can't understand why you have repeatedly removed it? I believe it is relevant to the article, it gives readers a more complete understanding of modern Acadian ancestry and community relationships. A more complete understanding of who Acadian people are would seem to be lacking without this information. And the historian sources are reputable. If you would like to discuss please leave a message here. I'm sure we would both like to see a quality, fulsome article that touches on many important aspects of Acadian culture and life. Thanks. 174.95.87.187 (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)