User talk:81.23.57.177

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Ruhollah Khomeini has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Eric Black has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 06:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Prison Break (season 4), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Prison Break (season 4) was changed by 81.23.57.177 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2009-03-04T05:55:55+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Man Kam To. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wolfrock (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Shannon Elizabeth, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Lionel Messi. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Denis Healey, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop removing the honorary titles from this biographical article. You have now done this twice today ([1], [2]) and on neither occasion have you left an edit summary to explain the reason for this BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

You may wish to read WP:OVERLINK to see why linking very common terms such as countries' names is deprecated here. --John (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Edward Heath, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Waterboarding has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. —SpaceFlight89 15:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking

Can you please take a look at WP:OVERLINK before adding any more links to the names of countries? --John (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop your current editing pattern and discuss your changes on article talk pages. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I already mentioned WP:OVERLINK to you. If you continue to make edits that flout our policies and add no value to articles, you can expect to be blocked. No further warning will be issued. --John (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's rather rich of you, considering I was the one who went through making sure that every single one of them had consistency. How is it overlinking when you remove ALL links to the country they're from? Do you have some sort of issue with one link to the person's nationality on a page? Every other person has their country of origin linked at the very LEAST in their opening sentence, and usually in the box as well. If you're going to moan about overlinking with these Labour politicians, go through and remove every extra link to the Labour Party if you will. Such a task would be gargantuan, and needless, but if you're going to be consistent, you really should do it. Otherwise, with all due respect, cease your own needless meddling. If you're going to get rid of links to the UK in these articles, fine, but at least leave ONE link. Having a link to it on every sentence is overlinking. Having it represented in the box and in the opening sentence...is not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.57.177 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for at least discussing your proposed changes instead of just mindlessly reverting. You see, Wikipedia works on consensus. If you were to read the link I've sent you a couple of times, you will see that there is a consensus (and a fairly broad one) that linking to countries isn't helpful. The comparison you make isn't valid as the Labour Party isn't a country. If you wish to change the consensus, I suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:Linking and trying to generate a new consensus there. Pending that, we don't link to countries unless there is a special reason to, which I don't see. Why not try to improve our project instead of making these edits which will only generate work for someone to undo, and risk getting you blocked as well? --John (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; I must admit that on almost every single other living person I've seen, their nationality in the first sentence is always linked, but if that is the correct channel to go through, I shall do it through that!

This is a practice that dilutes the valuable wikilinks in the vicinity. Gradually, these low-value links are being removed. Please do not reverse this trend. Tony (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well. All I can say, assuming that you are planning to remove every link to a country on just above every peron's page, is that I wish you bloody good luck with that one.

I am surprised you're not on board in that respect. If you value the wikilink system, surely you want to maximise the chance that readers will click on at least one or two links in an article (there is professional opinion I can link you to that suggests we editors vastly overestimate the amount of link-clicking readers do). A low signal-to-noise ratio doesn't help. We need your knowledge and skills to help funnel readers down the most useful target links—the project relies on that input. Please consider it. Also, if people on this account would like to contribute on more than a short-term basis, it would be excellent to see you as individual accounts. It takes two minutes. Cheers. Tony (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PS You might be interested in looking at User:Tony1/Build your linking skills. Feedback on how to improve it is welcome on the talk page. Tony (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had agreed to follow the consensus? --John (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Boris Johnson, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Lcawte (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Peter Mandelson have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

December 2009

Warning removed, my apologies. Jusdafax 18:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at John Prescott, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Dennis Skinner

You have described Dennis Skinner as 'The Right Honourable'. I am wondering why. Has he been appointed to the Privy Council? In light of his extreme republican views this seems unlikely. I am also unsure why he would have been thus appointed. Tony Benn had to become a PC, rather against his will, in order to be in the Cabinet and did it, he said, for the good of the party. Skinner has never been a member of the Cabinet so why would he be in the Privy Council? He would hardly accept it as an honour.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. You have been active on Wikipedia since I left my message and you have not responded to it. It would be a good idea if you were to do so.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sanad, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Sanad was changed by 81.23.57.177 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-03-07T16:11:46+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Helena Bonham Carter, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dissolution of Parliament

It is a small point and I don't disagree with your edits, but Parliament will not be dissolved until tomorrow (Monday 12 April). The current session has been prorogued but formal dissolution and the issue of writs for the new Parliament is a few hours in the future. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll just add this: Member of Parliament is a status that once it has happened, should not be removed. Although technically, you may be correct, we are not a journal of day-to-day events and I see no reason to remove that, per WP:RECENTISM. Although between a dissolution of Parliament and the ensuing general election, no person is an MP, merely a PPC, this kind of attention to temporary detail seems to me to be totally unnecessary, and in my view, should cease. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that the loss of the post-nominal MP is temporary, between dissolution and general election, but for those not standing again, it is as good as permanent. I agree it would be silly to change every MP to PPC, but as I say, these ones are not standing again and thus the removal is permanent. Therefore, it is a choice between removing it now, as opposed to doing it all in the early hours of 7 May. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.57.177 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 April 2010

If we are concerned about recentism, which Wikipedia defines as "writing or editing without a long-term, historical view", perhaps the policy should be never to include the postnominal "MP". Infoboxes and the text of the article can describe the subject's political career, indicating periods of history when they were an MP. That avoids the problem of what to do during an election. After all, most MPs will have spent the majority of their lives not being an MP. JRawle (Talk) 14:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

Jim Murphy was not Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from November 2005 to May 2006. He was a parliamentary undersecretary of state for the Cabinet Office, but when John Hutton was promoted to Work and Pensions Secretary, it fell on Murphy to handle many of Hutton's old duties, such as handling CDL questions. A simple search of the London Gazette demonstrates this as Murphy would have, under the Ministerial Salaries Act, needed to be gazetted as Chancellor whether or not he was in Cabinet. -Rrius (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony Benn

I reverted your edit as the positioning of the picture was discussed in the peer review and it is better where I moved it to. Cheers. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I also reverted your formatting changes as in my view they added nothing. --John (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack Straw

How magnanimous to allow us to have "Jack Straw" in the lead. As for the rest, when called upon to explain your edits, you should do so instead of simply edit warring. It was clear there was disagreement with your bizarre need to follow the order of precedence for England and Wales, yet you persisted. You were asked why you were changing the majority, yet you never bothered to answer. Actually discussing your edits, preferably on the talk page, is the correct course of action, not assuming that you must be right and the other editors wrong. -Rrius (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Labour Party (UK). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. If you don't like it, I suggest you open a discussion on the talk page. Rodhullandemu 02:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Sathyabama University. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. JovianEye (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. While everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your contributions, such as your recent edit to Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days, did not appear to be constructive and was automatically reverted by DASHBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• DASHBot produces few false positives, but they do happen. If you believe the bot has reverted your edit wrongly, it is helpful if you report the error so the bot does not make the same mistake again. Please:

• Click here to submit a false positive report.
• Edit this page and remove this message.

Thanks, DASHBot Anti-Vandalism (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nathan Modest, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at On the Floor, you may be blocked from editing. RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 20:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Not University of Sheffield

Hey guys, this ip is not owned by the University of Sheffield. It actually is used by a group of flats in Sheffield called "Opal 2", which are privately owned by the Opal Group and serviced by internet company ask4. If you need to send abuse reports, send them to ask4 as the University will not have jurisdiction over what happens in Opal 2. Thanks, 81.23.57.177 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC) (former Wikipedia editor)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kargil War with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

---