User talk:58.109.94.172

April 2014
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Laureen Harper, 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. Jim1138 (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Melbourne3163. I noticed that you made a change to the Bruce Baird article on 18 April 2014, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. Thank you. Melbourne3163 (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding that reference to the Bruce Baird article on 18 April 2014, it makes all the difference. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Peter McLellan
Further to what I said in the revert edit summary, you are right, it IS a valid point. The problem is that it is your valid point, which means it is original research. If you can back it up with a source, go right ahead. Frickeg (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to The Tomorrow People (U.S. TV series)
Thank you for your contributions to The Tomorrow People (U.S. TV series). However, I reverted your recent edit on said article because we can't accept: Things such as saying certain actors are special guest stars, needs to come from the production company, not ones own point of view; which makes this original research (OR). If you do have a reliable source to say that Nicholas Young is indeed a special guest star, please feel free to edit the article thoroughly (meaning don't just change one section to 'special guest star', update all points in the article), including a reference of the reliable source for your information.
 * speculation;
 * personal commentary;
 * original research (OR) in articles.

You are welcome to share your thoughts about this on The Tomorrow People's talk page, or even my own talk page here.

PS; I do understand that your edit was indeed a good faith edit, please do not interpret this as a harsh comment/personal attack towards you, I am simply explaining why I reverted you edit.

Thank you --Limbsaw ~talk~  01:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear


 * After the revert of edit and me posting the above constructive criticism, you further reverted the previous revert I made. This means if you carry on reverting, you are likely to brake the three-revert rule. I desperately would not like this to happen. I would like to discuss the edits we have made on The Tomorrow People (U.S. TV series). You also stated "do not contact me again" in your revert edit summary, this isn't allowed as Wikipedia advises us to "not engage in discussions in edit summaries".


 * I apologise for causing any kind of bad feeling towards your edit, you were being bold, and that is very much admirable. I now realise (after reading into reverting), that I shouldn't of been so quick to revert. Instead I could of simply edited the wording into a more suitable sentence that didn't require a source.


 * You believe that Nicholas Young is a "Special Guest Star" because of his celebrity status. As I described in the edit summaries, to title an actor as a "Special Guest Star" and even "main" cast status, you need a source/reference from the production company (who produces the TV show) to cite that they define said actor to be a "Special Guest Star". This complies with WP:MOSTV.


 * You further said in your edit summary that "He is credited as such and should be acknowledged here", please can you further explain in detail what you mean by "he is credited"? By simply saying something is credited, doesn't mean that it can become a source, you actually have to link the evidence to the text - this is what makes Wikipedia, without references god knows what content would be in articles!


 * I have made a compromise, to label Nicholas Young as "Guest starring Nicholas Young". I hope this works for both of us.


 * Thank you, --Limbsaw ~talk~  02:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

MHS
That's fine, but where's the reference indicating it was Evans who abstained? Timeshift (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That's unreliably sourced speculation. Timeshift (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you care to comment at Talk:Martin Hamilton-Smith? If you don't comment and you continue to re-add your speculation then you would put yourself in a position to be banned from wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what a watchlist is? I'm not stalking you. I have over 3000 articles on my watchlist. Your contribution is disputed so you need to gain consensus on talk page per WP:BRD. You can't just insist on a disputed contribution. Timeshift (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to The Tomorrow People (U.S. TV series) — 31 May 2014
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Tomorrow People (U.S. TV series). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Reasons for this warning have previously been stated above this post. You've failed to reply to said posts, meaning the edit has been reverted yet again. Thanks --Limbsaw ~talk~  21:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Further to your edit summary "Watch the episode itself and don't contact me again.", I have watched the beginning and end of both episode 8 & 9 where Nicholas Young guest stars. In neither episode does it state his name. At the rolling titles near the end, it gives a list of "co-starring", but this DOES NOT include Nicholas Young. And there is absolutely NO evidence that he is a special guest star. IT DOES NOT list his name anywhere, anytime in these episodes. If you persist to edit this article in such a way, I will have no option but to start a discussion on the Admin discussion page, which could lead to you being banned.
 * And I would also appreciate it if you refrain from telling editors/users "do not contact me again" or "don't contact me again" in edit summaries. You do not use edit summaries for this kind of speech. Edit summaries are a brief description of what you have changed/added/removed to/from an article. This summary is not open for communication with other users. If you wish to speak to users, you use their talk page, or even the article's talk page you are editing on. Thanks again --Limbsaw ~talk~  21:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Lazarus
Stop your WP:OR with no WP:CITE. Timeshift (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition
Hi do you know the dates for Frank Anstey's deputy leadership? As in more accurate then the years? Do you also know if Gardiner served both Tudor and Charlton? Cheers The Tepes (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm A. Parrot. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Philip Purser, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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. A. Parrot (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Vince Gair with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:34, 13 September 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.

October 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—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. Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

John W. Bricker
I've reverted your change to John W. Bricker. Someone's opinion in a Google group is not a reliable source. Besides, there's nothing there that supports the claim that "the absence of Bricker ... may have been a factor in Dewey's failure to win ... Ohio again." If you can find a relevant and reliable source, please add it. Otherwise, don't just revert it again without comment. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Opposition (Queensland)
Hi there, You said: "Your conduct in the said article back in July 2014 was absolutely appalling." I guess if you think asking for clarification is "appalling" then the rest of the conversation is already tainted.

You said: "Anthony Lynham was always going to get a place in the Shadow Ministry as the ALP Caucus is not big enough to have a backbench." Yes. So why didn't you say that? Instead of just saying "is expected to"? Why not actually describe why this is a certainty instead of assuming?

You said: "You were basically asking for an expectation of what two and two equals to" By your analogy what you said was "The sum is expected to be 4" and what I was asking you to write was "Because the numbers to be added are 2 and 2, the sum is 4".

Hope this helps.

happy editing

Whistlemethis (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page David Shearer has been reverted. Your edit here to David Shearer was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/david-shearer-rules-out-running-for-labour-leader-2014101322) 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) 21:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

January 2015
Hello, I'm Redrose64. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Kemp and more
Hi. Please read reliable sources and biographies of living persons policies. If you cannot find the source, then guess what: you cannot include the information, full stop. You can't just say, oh, I remember this from twenty years ago. That's not on. Frickeg (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at The Mind Robber. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:56, 11 January 2015 (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. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * 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.