User talk:198.23.5.10

November 2013
Hello, I'm Turgan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Dominica, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Turgan Talk 17:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm Epicgenius. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Wynton Marsalis because it did not appear constructive. 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. Epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2014
Hello, I'm Super48paul. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to One for the Angels because it did not appear constructive. 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. Super48paul (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Leechburg, Pennsylvania has been reverted. Your edit here to Leechburg, Pennsylvania 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.facebook.com/pages/Leechburg-Cemetery-Company/208876755802203) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. 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) 22:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Welcome!
Hello, 198.23.5.10, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Carliitaeliza  TALK  15:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting Started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

January 2015
Hello, I'm Anon126. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Teffi because it did not appear constructive. 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! Anon 126  (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 15:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2015
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to User:AvicBot— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ping me with &#123;&#123;u&#124;Jim1138&#125;&#125; and sign "&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;" or message me on my talk page. 04:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Campus sexual assault
Hi,

You reverted my revert of you on the campus sexual assault article. A back-and-forth would be unhelpful so I'll try to hash this out rather than reverting again. Before we get into the actual substance of this issue, I'd like to ask you to work on a precarious bit of text. Of Harvard, you said,

"87% sexual assaults happened in co-ed college managed dormitories[.]"

The source you used, the Boston Globe, says the following:

"According to the survey results, 87 percent of female victims of sexual assault occurred in dormitories[.]"

Your edit describes the dormitories as "co-ed college managed." The source you used does not. While there are probably no Harvard dormitories that aren't managed by the school, the word "co-ed" either itself needs a source (is every dorm at Harvard co-ed?) or it has to go.

That said, I was hoping for an explanation of your edit summary reverting me, where you said your edit was "Well sourced and extremely topical." The implication here is really confusing. "Because it's true" or "because it's well-sourced" are not standards for inclusion on Wikipedia, and believe it or not, "it's relevant" isn't quite enough either. Furthermore, I never said your edit was false, poorly-sourced, or irrelevant so it's strange that you reacted to my revert like you did. For what it's worth, I believe your edit to be accurate, (mostly) well-sourced, and topical.

As for me, I provided an edit summary explaining myself: "''Removed excessively (even suspiciously) defensive material; the claim that 'it should be noted' isn't verified in the sources and seems to be a statement of fact from the editor, not a source."

You replaced the phrase "it should be noted" with "for context". I can't tell exactly how this is an improvement because the phrases are both pretty meaningless and your text gets the same point across if you don't include either (or anything else). That's not to mention that, like your claim that "it should be noted," you have no reliable source indicating that your edit is, in context, an important addition to the article. (I'd say it's impossible for you to get a reliable source that essentially says that "here's information that should be added to Wikipedia for the sake of context.")

And when I said that your edits were "excessively (even suspiciously) defensive," I was talking generally about generally about everything but specifically about "These policies are challenging to students because non-verbal cues are difficult to interpret and the policies are confusing." That sentence has three parts, and if the second and third parts were sourced appropriately, the first wouldn't need to be sourced because it would be obviously true. The second part of that sentence does not appear to be sourced. Your source, an article in the New York Times by Sandy Keehan, says nothing to verify the plain statement that "non-verbal cues are difficult [for students] to interpret" and indeed, if you look at what Keehan said about men, a majority (61%) would claim that they're able to decipher consent via body language. I also couldn't find where in the article you found anything backing up the claim that "the policies are confusing" because at one point it says that the affirmative consent law in New York "standardizes prevention and response policies and procedures relating to sexual assault." I actually think Keehan was trying to get across the opposite point here: she bookends the article with two anecdotes from Tyler Frahme, a college student in Albany, who starts off upset about the new law but a month later is happy it's there.

My guess is that the context you're hoping to provide is a sort of pushback edit against an article that you feel is slanted too far in favor of people, sources, etc. that don't believe the concerns you raise are valid. If you believe that, you're not necessarily wrong; this sort of information could be helpful. But if it's a pushback edit, that means you have an agenda and that's a pretty big issue. Using edit summaries like "Qualifier given this section seems to suggest most assaults happen in fraternities" indicates you're using edits to push your opinions and beliefs on a very contentious topic. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Hello, I'm FuriouslySerene. 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 Robin Camp seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Template:New England Patriots roster, 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. Thank you. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 17:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

July 2020
Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been [ disallowed by an edit filter] because they did not appear constructive. 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. Also feel free to ask for assistance at the Help Desk whenever you like to. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Shashti Poorthi—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) 19:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2024
Hello, I'm Fanfanboy. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Talk:Fritz Reiner, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Fanfanboy (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Elvisisalive95. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Rio Rita (1942 film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I saw the film on DVD t wo days ago and the song is  in  the opening  credits---the film had a mish mash of various music contributors. If you're referring to the "talk page", I made my source known 198.23.5.10 (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tribute to a Bad Man, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * IMD was my source---but all of those I listed were credited in the closing credits of the film. Especially restore Peter Choing as the Chinese cook. 198.23.5.10 (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Play Safe (1927 film). 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. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)