User talk:Richylondon

Welcome!

Hello, Richylondon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ross

You might like to read Wikipedia:Neutral before editing the page again. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to say it remains "a popular show". That should get round any confusion. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A show can still be popular, even if it isn't in the top 30, though I agree that calling it one of the most popular shows is out. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ok like that. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khan

Please stop inserting this envelope rubbish to the article, you have been stuffing it in since april and that is you only contribution here. I dispute its long term notable value, move to discussion on the talkpage, we are looking for notable additions not the repeated... he used envelopes .. partisan titillation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi babe. The article you refer to is speculative and not an unbiased source. Best source is the judgement by John Lyons on the issue of expenses misuse. Describing expenses issues as 'fraud' when there has been no public investigation is libellous and leaves you open to legal action. Be careful! MadamSilly(talk) 16:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your reverts

Hi, you have multiple reverts on the article, please stop. Use the talkpage for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

envelopes

Please will you refrain from removing this MPs expenses trangressions - it is a fact that he broke the rules this is material information that must stay here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richylondon (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding it , it is worthless and not notable, this is an important persons life, about the jobs he has had and so on, the silly envelope rubbish is not a notable issue in his life. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khans expenses indiscretions are clearly highly notable and it is troubling that editors seek to remove such content. Keep up the good work Richylondon. I've also added many more sources now to avoid any further problems.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Staffs Hospital scandal

Hi. Just to let you know why I have reverted many of your recent edits regarding the Mid Staffs Hospital scandal and a number of ex-Ministers from the Labour Party. These all consisted of synthesis, that is you were combining a number of unrelated sources to create a connection between the past Labour government, and specifically some members of it, with the recent scandal. Wikipedia does not permit this kind of original research. In order to mention any kind of connection between the two you need a reliable source to do it first. You cannot be the one to do it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed what you placed into the Peter Carter (nurse) article. Again, if you wish to have these claims in an article, you need a reliable source to make them first. This is particularly strict policy within biographies of living people when adding controversial information that could be libellous, which indeed this could. Please do not add them again without doing this. Please also note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for "getting the truth out". It is an encyclopaedia, so it should only reflect what is verifiable from existing reliable sources. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 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 Elizabeth line, 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 your 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. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you edit warring on this? You have been reverted twice with good reason yet you persist and have added the same information again? Please stop, or got to the article's talk page and explain why you think your change is relevant. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]