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:

• 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

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Carliitaeliza TALK 15:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! 198.23.5.10, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Carliitaeliza TALK 15:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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! Anon126 (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 {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" 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)

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.

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)

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 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)

The indicated edit does not appear to be vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Somebody agreed, as my original entry was quickly restored.Thank you. 198.23.5.10 (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

June 2025

Hello, I'm Gommeh. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Ra's al Ghul—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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. » Gommeh (he/him) 18:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Both entries are factual and I cited sources.Please read again 198.23.5.10 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Metamorpho. 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. Please cite sources in the article and not in the edit summary. » Gommeh (he/him) 18:36, 11 June 2025 (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 stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 'Mazing Man, you may be blocked from editing. --pro-anti-air (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of the series and this happened.The comic book owner was an irascible Senior citizen with a mustache who ran into some of the supporting cast on t eh subway and was furious that he had to come out of a well deserved retirement.You use the word "vandalize" very loosely.facts are not vandalism. 198.23.5.10 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that you are adding all this information without supplying a reliable source. You can learn which sources Wikipedia considers reliable at WP:Reliable sources and find out how to add the sources at Help:Referencing for beginners. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Four Jills in a Jeep. 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 Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Brute Man, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

If I added cast members, my source was the usually reliable IMB files.Please restore. 198.23.5.10 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

There's a page at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that provides the consensus on commonly cited sources as to whether they're reliable or not. You'll see that IMDb is considered an unreliable source. This is largely because the content is provided by users of the site. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Lord knows why they're considred "unreliable",I've always found t hem to be quite accurate 198.23.5.10 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Nevertheless. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2025 (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.

Hello, I'm Jabbahwocky. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bob Meusel, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jabbahwocky talk) 12:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The remark is a famous one and I didn't think it needed any confirmation.Oh well. 198.23.5.10 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

If it's famous, just find an article to support it! Jabbahwocky talk) 13:04, 16 July 2025 (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.

August 2025

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Deathstroke, 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) 13:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Universo. 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 Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Igor123121 (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Far from controversial--the events imention took place in Mid-1967 during Universo's second appearance.Posing as the Vice-president of the United Planets,he succeeded to the top post upon the President's death(not regarded as suspicious) and sponsored a water-treatment planet spiked with hypnotic drugs;giving him a wide range of slaves. Rond Vidar,held captive in t he Presidential palce;escaped to aid The Legion,who had been declared outlaws to be hunted down. 198.23.5.10 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Hello, I'm Criticize. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dead Men Tell, 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. Criticize (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I saw the film yesterday and everything I wrote is completely accurate.I will re-write it before the day is out,please retain. 198.23.5.10 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

i SAW THE dvd OF THIS FILM YESTERDAY AND WILL ACCURATELY REWRITE THE DETAILS AS SOON AS MY BLOCK EXPIRES. 198.23.5.10 (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Arrowette. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Criticize (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

yOU DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT---i JUST ADDED accurate infoRMation. 198.23.5.10 (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Mickey Simpson, you may be blocked from editing. Criticize (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I am simply reciting what happened in t he episode,.It is HArdlY personal opinion.Anybody who's seen THE CLOWN WHO CRIED knows that 198.23.5.10 (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make a disruptive edit to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Captain Boomerang. Criticize (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

All I did was correct a spelling error.PLEASE STOP EDITING WITH YOUR EYES CLOSED 198.23.5.10 (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to A Night in Casablanca—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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Francis Covers the Big Town, 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. JeffUK 15:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Saw this movie y esterday.the information is quite accurate,but the paragraphs did seem a littl ejammed together.I'll rewrite it 198.23.5.10 (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2025 (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.

---