User talk:49.3.72.79

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Talk:Gordon Brown. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (49.3.72.79) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emir_of_Wikipedia&action=edit&section=new my talk page], or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

MelbourneStar
MelbourneStar made a statement that I did not know how to cite sources and I like to inform him that is completely untrue. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not citing reliable sources which is exactly the context I made that statement in. Please read this before adding in content again. A person's Tweet is not a reliable source. Regards, —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 09:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to establish whether the two state governors were related.

The fact is the current WA and NSW governors have the same surname and readers would want to know whether they are related.

I mean Beazley is not exactly a common name is it.

You seems to be indicating to me that you have ways to get to better sources.

If that is the case why don't you establish whether there is any relation between the two governors.

Criticising me for not able to come up with so-called reliable sources is counterproductive.

At least I tried to be helpful here and criticism is not what I asked for. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no personal criticism, I can see your edits are in good faith. With that said: I have and will again mention that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify the content we add in. Twitter is not a reliable source, it’s completely user-generated; a published book, a newspaper article (like from the ABC for instance), a documentary, etc. are reliable sources. If what you’re adding is noteworthy, then it can be expected that there will be reliable sources that cover it. Having said that, the onus for finding such sources lies with the editor wanting to add said content in. Thank you, —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 14:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Electoral district of Port Macquarie, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2021 (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 add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. 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 Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Donner60 (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please review Wikipedia guidelines such as Verifiability. You are asking Wikipedia readers to accept these statements as true without verifying them. Here are some excerpts:

No original research. "Main page: Verifiability. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at Verifiability."

Verifiability. "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable."

Verifiability. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

"Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this."


 * Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Introduction; Simplified ruleset; Simplified Manual of Style; Referencing for beginners; Identifying reliable sources; Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Verifiability; No original research; Neutral point of view; Notability; Biographies of living persons; What Wikipedia is not; Manual of Style/Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I have not looked back at your edit history to find fault. It has been coming up in the Huggle recent edit feeds. If I did not see problems in them, I would not have reverted them and left messages with useful links. My previous edit on this page gave you helpful information, which I left in lieu of a warning message for another edit. As such, I was trying to help you understand Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Before you insert any more baseless attacks on editors in edit summaries, which was baseless and unnecessary, I suggest you read No personal attacks and Civility. I also notice that you have been adding citations so I look forward to further productive editing by you. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Hello, I'm Volteer1. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ian Smith (Australian politician), 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Volteer1 (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2021 (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.

You are wrong and you had no idea what you were talking about.49.3.72.79 (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Barnaby Joyce—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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Rdp060707. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gareth Evans (politician), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Rdp060707&#124;talk 08:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC) I wrote an explanation on this at Gareth Evans talk page and I don't believe that you know what you are talking about. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A couple of tips
I strongly recommend you study up on WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN so that your Talk page contributions become more easily readable by others. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Gareth Evans. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.   Meticulo (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Frontbenchers, retaliation, and leaving you alone.
It seems you misunderstand the purpose of sources. They are meant to be external references TELLING us that something mentioned in an article is true.

The two "sources" you have supplied are not sources telling us that ministers are sometimes called frontbenchers by journalists. They are apparent examples of journalists doing that. That is original research. It's not proper sourcing.

So I still believe your edit is incorrect, but won't revert this time in the interests of peace. I'll leave it to other editors, if they notice.

As for your allegations of a retaliatory edit, and not leaving you alone, that's just nonsense. I don't follow IP editors around. That's far too difficult. I follow articles via my Watchlist. And the word "retaliatory" makes no sense. I recommend looking it up in a dictionary. On the point of you being an IP Editor, have you considered registering, as recommended in the Welcome note at the top of this page? It has many benefits, and no disadvantages that I've discovered in over decade here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to HiLo48
On the chance that HiLo48 is reading this.

I already gave the reason for my edit at the Gareth Evans article at its talk page which by your response have chosen to ignore.

I hereby interpreted it as an act of bullying and would like for you to leave me alone.49.3.72.79 (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Your ignoring things is more of a problem. Multiple people have responded to you on this page and others with links intended to help you better edit Wikipedia. You really should click on them, read the policies and guidelines, and edit accordingly. Meticulo (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 1998 Australian federal election, 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. Rdp060707&#124;1 Year of Service to the Encyclopedia 08:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Spyfall (Doctor Who), 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. Specifically, you would need to start with a direct quote that you can paraphrase.‎ DonQuixote (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * RE:DonQuixote has demonstrated his unfamiliarity with Doctor Who and this was nothing more than a personal attack on me
 * Seriously, dude, it's about properly citing and summarising reliable sources. If you can start with a direct quote and paraphrase that properly, then there won't be a problem. DonQuixote (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The source that you cite has to literally say something link "This is in reference to the fact that..." before you can cite it for saying something like "This is in reference to the fact that..." DonQuixote (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Shadow Cabinet, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.  You did pose this issue in article talk, but it was never agreed upon through consensus and you never gave a reliable source. Azrakjo (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Outpost (TV series), you may be blocked from editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

January 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Whovians (TV series), 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. Mako001 (C) (T) (The Alternate Mako) 11:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Whovians (TV series), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T)  22:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about as you are basically asking to provide something that didn't happen. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Hello, I'm Terasail. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 1927 New South Wales state election, 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. Terasail [✉️] 04:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Hello, I'm Sheep8144402. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Abby Dalton, 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. Sheep (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 1987 Australian federal election, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 2010 Australian Labor Party leadership spill, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   16:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 2012 Queensland state election, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 1987 Australian federal election, 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. Materialscientist (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Smile (2022 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ― Blaze WolfTalk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 01:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Your useful contributions are welcome but unfortunately many other of your edits are damaging. Everything in the encyclopedia must be cited to a reliable source which actually says what you claim. You are often making edits which, while they may be true and you might find interesting, are not cited to a source and are trivial, or irrelevant, or your personal viewpoint, or all three. Several times you have introduced your own commentary by way of synthesis and/or original research.

In the National Party of Australia article you re-inserted your text "at all times" which I had removed as redundant, saying "Not redundant as there have been instances of Senate leaders resigning from the ministry or shadow ministry but not as Senate leader". Please realise I did not dispute nor remove that fact, I simply removed "at all times". The meaning of the sentence is exactly the same with or without "at all times" - the very definition of redundant.

Your edit to Shane Love inserts, after some basic indisputable facts, text which is almost entirely your own commentary, referencing a source which says almost none of what you claim. In any case, given that the source is an opinion piece and not a news item, this should be acknowledged in the edit: ie "Journalist X of 'The West Australian believes that..." and then say what the opinion piece actually says. Almost none of what you wrote is mentioned in the piece.

Your addition to John Fahey (politician) is especially egregious. The source you cite says Fahey had an Irish Catholic upbringing, his parents were ALP supporters who campaigned for Gough Whitlam, and Labor might have expected him to join them. The assertions that "political observers had formed the viewpoint that Fahey may have joined the wrong party" and "his Irish Catholic upbringing made him more akin with the Labor Party" are completely your own, and have no place here.

Without tediously finding, copying, and pasting the links, I have seen edits of yours using the words "despite" and "ironically" and similar. Ask yourself firstly, is there a source for these claims that says what you say? And if so, do those sources use the words "despite" or "ironic"? If not, it's very likely that these are your own original research and/or synthesis, and very unlikely to belong in Wikipedia.

Please don't think I am trying to stop you editing, it is clear you have an interest in Australian politics and other areas of Wikipedia and make many useful contributions. I only want to improve the quality of your edits for the benefit of the project. Please therefore have a serious read of Original research and Synthesis policies, as well as Neutral point of view, Reliable sources, Due weight, and any other policies that may be referenced when your edits are questioned or reverted. Fair warning: I will be going through your edits and will be careful to explain why I amend any of them. Please try to understand the reasons rather than making a knee-jerk revert. It might be a good idea for you to create a Wikipedia account rather than editing from an ip address which may be used by many other people.

Best wishes, Captainllama (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at 2023 Western Australian Labor Party leadership election. Materialscientist (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

<div class="user-block uw-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.


 * I am sorry to see you still pulling together poorly-sourced threads to weave a trivial factoid onto which you graft your own interpretation. Simply stating "Dewey's 1948 running mate Earl Warren unsuccessfully sought the nomination" would have been sourced and factual, though trivial. I may be wrong but I cannot see in the source given that Bicker is mentioned at all. Neither source links the three men together regarding the 1952 election, and certainly neither source suggests anywhere that any of these people were "at odds" with each other. It may seem an obvious conclusion to draw from the disparate facts, but pulling together facts and drawing conclusions that are not explicitly stated by reliable sources is exactly what Wikipedia editors are not to do.
 * You are clearly capable of valuable contributions to Wikipedia. I urge you to please review the policies that have been pointed out to you, in order that your contributions add to rather than damage the project. I hope you will also re-read the detailed post I made above, and understand that my interest in your edits is in the hope of improving Wikipedia, and not a vindictive "stalking" of yourself. Many of your edits I have either lightly edited or left completely alone, they are not all problematic. Peace Captainllama (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Account
Have you considered creating an WP:ACCOUNT? LibStar (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no interest to do that. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No more messages
Please stop leaving me messages on my talk page and I would kindly asked Doniago not to contact me again as I deemed his last message to me which I have deleted as a personal attack. Also he knows full well a certain fact about Doctor Who: Turn Left to be true. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

February 2024
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Terry Mills (Australian politician). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Steelkamp (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. Steelkamp (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't state claims, I state facts
I do not state claims, I state facts.

I do not waste time writing something that might not be true.

This has come about after Steelkamp had repeatedly used the word claim on an edit of mine and I repeatedly told him it is not a claim, it is a fact and also made clear that I do wish speak to him if he continues to speak to me in this manner. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * IP editor, as you have been warned multiple times over the years, each factual statement made in an article requires citation to a reliable source. What might be obvious to you might not be obvious to other people, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that the information contained in it should be verifiable. Continuing to add unsourced material is disruptive editing. I suggest you either add a source or revert to Arthur Fadden or add a inline citation to a reliable source substantiating your claim. voorts (talk/contributions) 07:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that you have added a source, however, PhD dissertations are generally not considered to be the good sources, and you should find another; you also didn't cite to a page number, making it hard to verify that the source supports the claim in the article. Additionally, the way you have phrased the content that you've added "not keen" is not in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 07:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)