User talk:209.150.58.4

June 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to IGR J11014−6103, did not appear constructive and has 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. If you want to make additions to Wikipedia you absolutely should! I had to revert your edits because you were introducing a lot of grammatical + spelling errors - A good place to see how Wikipedia should be formatted is WP:MOS :) ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:49, 26 June 2020 (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.

December 2021

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. I really appreciate the work you did on the article but you cannot put your own notes in it pointing out what you view as inconsistencies. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 23 December 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.

January 2022

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to 1984 New York City Subway shooting, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note: All your edits are on this page (Single-page editor). GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 20:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 1984 New York City Subway shooting, 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. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 21:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

See Talk: In popular culture section, where deletion of this section was previously discussed.

You raised the issue of deletion. It doesn't matter much if this section is kept or deleted, so keep it if you want. In the past this section just kept growing with many insignificant silly mentions (for example, garbage utube songs with under 100 views). You can start the process again, lets see what happens, not worth making an issue over at this time

Neither you nor I own any Wiki page and of course constructive contributions are welcome. Are your contributions to this article constructive and in good faith? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems you added an unreliable biased source you favor as the lead link in the article with the pretext that it provides the pronunciation of the subject's name (a non-issue), and give this source the status of a meaningful reliable source. The pronunciation of the subject's name was never an issue and is widely described in countless sources. I'm busy with work and will look for a better printed source in about a week, there are many audio sources, many utube media stories or songs (Billy Joel?), but it seems you set a printed source as the standard. Do you want to use You Too Klan too as source for name pronunciation?(sarc.) Can any unreliable source be prominently added to any Wiki article using the justification that the source gives the correct pronunciation of a name? Can't we use a better source ... perhaps a NY Times article, the Fletcher book, etc?

January 2023

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 1984 New York City Subway shooting, 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. Prairie Astronomer ^{Contributions} 22:43, 25 January 2023 (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.

How can describing the specific evidence (in only 2 words!) be considered not constructive? It makes the reader better informed. Most average readers will be misled by the existing sentence if the evidence is not better explained as described in the source. What standard are you using to delete the two words?

---