User talk:82.16.78.185

December 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page List of soap opera villains has been reverted. Your edit here to List of soap opera villains 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.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz-tv/hot-tv/628758/EastEnders-spoiler-character-returning) 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) 19:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
 * Is Metro on the list of unreliable sources then? If so then I had no idea and I apologize. I knew that The Sun and The Daily Mail are not being used anymore but I didn't know Metro newspaper was too. If so then someone should remove all the existing sources on that page.82.16.78.185 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Daily Star also a banned source? I can remove all of them myself if you want me to particularly if they are ones I added. I wouldn't have used them in the first place if I had know about this.82.16.78.185 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Daily Star has been deprecated, like that of The Sun and the Daily Mail. Metro can be used, but other sources are advised to be used. If you're unsure on a source, check WP:RSP to see if it's listed. And I'd advise making an account so your edits are recognised! – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 01:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced DOBs
Hello – when removing unsourced DOBs, like you did at Adrian Edmondson, ensure you remove all mentions of it, like I did here. Thanks! – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 17:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Will do from now on.82.16.78.185 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
Hello, I'm P,TO 19104. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of Coronation Street characters 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.   P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 22 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.
 * Sorry. I found information that Malcolm Hebden who plays Norris, has left the show for good, so I removed him from the present characters list and put him into the past characters section. I should have been clearer. Apologies.82.16.78.185 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I found information that Malcolm Hebden who plays Norris, has left the show for good, so I removed him from the present characters list and put him into the past characters section. I should have been clearer. Apologies.82.16.78.185 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Belwine. I noticed that you recently removed content from A229 road 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. ''Don't remove red links please - they encourage people to create articles! Secondly, the statement about the B raod is not one that would need sources necessarily, it didn't have to be removed. Thanks!'' Belwine  • 💬 • 📜 16:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do NOT remove red links. See WP:REDLINKS Belwine  • 💬 • 📜 16:04, 24 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.
 * If the unsourced bit didn't need a source, then maybe removed the box saying "citation needed" then. Having it there is misleading if no source is needed. Other pages I used encouraged the removal of unsourced material.82.16.78.185 (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It does need a source, but I don't think it's harming the article. I'll see if I can find a source for it. -- Belwine  • 💬 • 📜 16:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I seem to be giving mixed messages here. Let me be clearer... it is ok if it doesn't have a source, but it doesn't need one/it doesn't have to be removed if it doesn't have a source. Belwine  • 💬 • 📜 16:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So if no sources can be found for the information, should it be left where it is anyway?82.16.78.185 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't find any sources, only copies from this English Wikipedia article... I'll just leave it as it is for now, but I'll readd the red links. Thanks, -- Belwine  • 💬 • 📜 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. I won't remove any more red links if I see any, if there is a legitimate reason for them. Apologies. 82.16.78.185 (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ok, during my time here I've probably removed some. It's an easy mistake to make. --  Belwine  • 💬 • 📜 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Max Bowden, 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. 5 albert square (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPREMOVE, any contentious unsourced information on a BLP should be removed, so this IP didn't necessarily do anything wrong. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 19:41, 25 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.
 * I did make the edits. There weren't any sources backing the information up but he did appear in the mentioned shows as they are on his IMDB page. Someone just needs to put sources with them.82.16.78.185 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You removed information and I didn't understand why as there was no edit summary. There was a template stating that citations needed to be added - you can add these.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have said. I was wary because as you can see above, I removed some unsourced material from another page and was told I didn't need to.82.16.78.185 (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Boyz (magazine), you may be blocked from editing. AussieWikiDan (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How is removing unsourced material disruptive editing? Maybe you should add sources to back up the information.82.16.78.185 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This IP does not deserve a tier 3 warning for that edit. Removing unsourced information on articles is in good faith. However, to the IP, it would be better to add a source if possible. If you cannot find one, then remove the information and make that clear in an edit summary. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I usually do. I explain why in the edit summary.82.16.78.185 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, This would have been more appropriate to discuss on my talk page first. The user has received 4 warnings in one week regarding removal of content. My warning was after I noticed a string of edits removing content and giving misleading edit summaries. If we removed every unsourced piece of information on Wikipedia – well, there wouldn't be much left. I believe the warning should stand. AussieWikiDan (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the discussion involves this IP and their warning on their talk page, so this is the suitable spot for a discussion on it. Every warning on here is for removing unsourced information, something which is a good faith edit, especially on a BLP. Wikipedia is not a place for unsourced information! I've advised the IP to instead spend the time sourcing things as it helps to add to the plethora of info we have on here, but receiving warnings for good faith edits is ridiculous. Assume good faith. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I understand that a warning might seem unnecessary because the edits may have been in good faith. However, warnings can be given on a whole spectrum of problematic edits. Only vandalism warnings must be applied for intentional edits and I am not suggesting has vandalised Wikipedia – I apologise if this was implied at any point. However, "Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia." AussieWikiDan (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

List of former Neighbours characters
Can I ask why you didn't provide sources when adding characters to the list ? There were sources available in both the current cast list and the character articles, so you could of copied and pasted them. Remember the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources along with the information. - JuneGloom07 Talk  12:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it had been removed from the current character list when I looked. I had to paste the link before looking into the character article. Sorry I should have got it from there. Apologies.82.16.78.185 (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)