Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your host, 49.3.72.79 (49.3.72.79), is registered to Optus and is believed to be a static address used by only one connection. However, this IP address may represent more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock.
If vandalism is noted from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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:
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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.
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☆talk09:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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☆talk14:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please review Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability. You are asking Wikipedia readers to accept these statements as true without verifying them. Here are some excerpts:
Wikipedia:No original research#Verifiability. "Main page: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources."
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. "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."
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations. "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 Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this."
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 Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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|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)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Shadow Cabinet, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 your recent edit to Arthur Fadden or add a inline citation to a reliable source substantiating your claim. voorts (talk/contributions) 07:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
