User talk:80.6.178.12

Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal

Would you please add a page number(s) to help locate that info on the victims' ethnicity? I took a quick look and other than a bit of info supporting your change, I didn't find much. It might prevent someone else undoing your edits. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsure how to add page numbers directly, pgs 142, 141 and 94.80.6.178.12 (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It is also something the talk page established some time ago. 80.6.178.12 (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 80.6.178.12. You have new messages at Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal.
Message added 10:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Colgated (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@80.6.178.12: just waiting on your response to the latest message. Colgated (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

May 2023

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not my own point of view, it is quite literally noted in the "history" section of the article with sources. I will be reinstating it. 80.6.178.12 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 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.

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, you may be blocked from editing. Dirkbb (talk) 21:34, 23 May 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.

POV terms in Battle of Queenston Heights. You have repeatedly added the POV term "invading" to the lead/lede of this article, despite objections that this is unhelpful and unncecedssary. You have defended this by stating that "It's the very first battle of the war, it needs to clearly state who the aggressor was since its patently relevant". This is poor research. There had been earlier battles at the Siege of Fort Mackinac and the Siege of Detroit. In both cases, British (and Canadian and Native American) armies had occupied US territory. Should these articles be rewritten to refer to "invading" British? Inserting clichés such as this reduces encyclopaedic articles to the leaden pronouncements of e.g. Enver Hoxha or Trotsky. I will revert again. If you revert in turn, I will consider this to be edit warring and will refer the matter to the administrators. HLGallon (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No probs! Since it's not important I'll make sure other articles are reflected of the same. Cheers! 80.6.178.12 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

---