User talk:82.38.41.198

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from List of EastEnders characters (1996). When removing content, 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 content 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. - JuneGloom Talk 13:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Coronation Street

Please stop changing Ginny, Ruth, and Leon from "2011" to "2011-" since they are only guests and will only be around until October when Fiz gets released from prison, thanks. GrahamCrusty (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you completely ignore what I said? GrahamCrusty (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Because someone else had edited the page and put the dashes back and I thought that you had changed your mind about the duration and made the page appear more presentable. I apologize for my mistake. It was a misunderstanding.82.38.41.198 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove Jack Osborne from Jake and Debbie. He is there stepfather. Please refrain from removing content in future. Also, maybe you sshould consider creating an account seeings you participate in a high volume of editing.RaintheOne ^BAM 11:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I created an account and got blocked, indefinitely and it was too much hassle trying to get myself unblocked so I took the easy option.82.38.41.198 (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Atleast you admit to being a sockpuppet, saves the trouble of an SPI - but you were blocked for a reason and the sad thing is that reason still appears to be present. It is positive that you use talk pages now, your reasoning even sounds good - but the manner of your edits is the same as ever. You are making disruptions on articles by removing characters you do not think should be in infoboxes, changing date formats agaisnt an MOS, trying to add original research left, right and center. It just isn't good because you have been asked to rethink and you have carried on regardless.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sarah-Louise Platt, 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. Please stop removing Martin Platt from Sarah and Nick's articles, without a valid reason in the edit summary. Martin adopted them, therefore he belongs in the infobox. - JuneGloom Talk 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and 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 List of Coronation Street characters, 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. Please read WP:YEAR and stop changing the years in the list. - JuneGloom Talk 16:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally believe it is more constructive to add all accurate information to the list rather than add it half-heartedly and lazily which is what it appears. I don't understand your logic. Surely Wikipedia is not doing it's job properly if it is not recording information accurately.82.38.41.198 (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No offence, but...

...What is your problem with the constant removal of adoptive children or parents from particular character inboxes (Martin Platt, Nick Tilsley, Vic Windsor, etc)? In a lot of these cases it has been clearly stated within the character's page that they have adopted children, or themselves been adopted by somebody. Plus adoptive parent and child is an eligible family member in the inbox. It's just really tedious and annoying having to constantly revert these edits to how they were in the beginning. Conquistador2k6 7 September 2011 10:40 (UTC)

Reply to the above

I thought that it would be kept simpler if only blood/biological relatives were listed on the page and adding any adoptive, relatives would just make it more complicated. On a family tree, only blood relatives i.e. parents, siblings, children etc. which are mentioned are only blood/biological relatives and if somebody was to make a soap family tree, as I am doing with Eastenders, adding any adoptive relatives would make it more difficult. The Eastenders pages seem to only have relatives that I quote are "directly involved in storylines, or still in the show". To put non-blood relatives before, blood relatives that are no longer around seemed inconsistent and ridiculous so that is why I had the presence of mind to edit them the way I did. In the characters mentioned, Martin Platt has two biological children as did Vic Windsor, so I did not see the need to mention the likes of Scott, Nick, Sarah etc who the characters did not actually father. Also Nick Tilsley was close to his real father whom he idolised and did not like Martin and did not see him as a replacement. Similarly Scott Windsor, did not get on with Vic who at one point disowned him and was angry with the death of his real father who was albeit, a criminal. I hope this has answered your question.82.38.41.198 (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in List of Emmerdale characters, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RaintheOne ^BAM 19:35, 22 September 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.

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in List of Coronation Street characters. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. RaintheOne ^BAM 19:36, 22 September 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.

I don't understand what you mean by different styles. All I was doing was adding information that was not being recorded. I respect the different styles and am happy to comply to them but I thought the information needed to be as accurate as possible? Thats why I added the info82.38.41.198 (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We have explained more than once on different talk pages why they were set out that way, there is a manual of style that includes date formats, you kept changing them after you were asked not to. What is more you just kept reverting without explanation.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I kept reverting them because I was frustrated with the way they were laid out and I wanted to do something about it. Your reasons for having the pages set out that particular way were quite shaky and did not make sense. It seems that they have been changed because someone somewhere has written a manual ordering them to be set out that way and that common sense has not been used which is the premise that I was working on. As a user looking for information, I need it to be accurate and set out in a way which I understand and there must be other people out there who agree, I can't be the only one. Unless it changes back to the way it was then I might have to consider stopping using Wikipedia as a source of information, which is a shame because in the past I have found it quite useful.82.38.41.198 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You do realise the soap articles were virtually all but ran by editors who did not follow any guidelines. Now they are and you do not like it? Sorry btw, but that is entirely your choice not to use wikipedia as your chosen source of information - however we cannot change the rules to convince you to carry on reading. PS - the guidelines were written by some clever wikipedians and were approved by the community. Thankyou.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the editors seem a bit misguided. The list was fine as it was and now their "guidelines" have made it look like the information was put together by children and adolescents, lazily and half-heartedly. On some of the soap character profiles, there is use of slang language which I have at times tried to correct. Their guidelines seem to have the opposite desired effect to what was intended and doesn't make sense. I can't be the only one who has noticed this, others must have too. It suggests that standards in this country are falling and makes us all look bad82.38.41.198 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Michael Moon (EastEnders), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Guessing a DOB with your own theory is not a source RaintheOne ^BAM 21:00, 23 September 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.

If I knew where to find a source and knew how to insert it then believe me I would. You lot don't exactly make it easy for new contributors. I for one have trouble understanding your no original resarch policy. How do you even define original research? It seems that if someone adds information you don't agree with then you just block them. Anyway surely some of the other editors on here who watch Eastenders, namely 5 Albert Square, could find the relative sources and post the links seeing as you all know how to like the back of your hands. I'm sorry I don't share your gifts.82.38.41.198 (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moon

I know you are pretty smitten with Michael Moon. I know you are eager to do his page some justice. However, your theory gives way for him to have been born before New Year - so it is original research and guess work. Please do not add original research. I personally have a thing for Darren Miller, I think he feels the same for me too, always giving me the meaningful stares. Though it would be original research, so as much as it pains me, I refrain from adding it. :(RaintheOne ^BAM 21:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not smitten with Michael Moon or any Eastenders character. (Well apart from the obvious, Dawn Swann, Zoe Slater, Kate Morton etc) I added the year he was born as I thought I knew it. The evidence suggested that he was born in 1972 which is why I added it. I would have done the same with any other character if I thought I knew some new information about them. As for Darren, we know his date of birth, he celebrated his 20th birthday on 27th January. He is the same age as me, born in 1991. Like I say I tried to be as accurate as possible and even stated where I thought was a source and if there was a link I could have added then I would have done if I knew how to82.38.41.198 (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to be humerous because I don't want you to feel like we are doing this because we are know it alls... like you implied in an above post. I can see why think that, not having a good understanding of wikipedia is causing this. You cannot be try to be "as accurate as possible" - it has to be verified as accurate. I'm sorry, but that is just how wikipedia works. Just like you cannot add two characters as villains and add a citation needed template next to it and expect it to stay. Those already present with such tags are a last attempt to appeal to anyone who may be able to add the source to the claim - that was ALREADY PRESENT - after a fair amount of time the information is moved. Just last week a lot of unsourced information was removed from that list as part of a clean up operation, that three editors endorse... so it isn't good to go adding more unsourced info to the list, is it? I'm not saying it to get on at you, just to help you understand better.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:18, 29 September 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.

---