User talk:Getbacktothecarpet

Welcome!

Hello, Getbacktothecarpet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. JarrahTree 12:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Paul Tisdale, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joey Mills

The article Joey Mills has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability criteria at WP:NACTOR. No real references to satisfy WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Tristan Brübach has been accepted

Murder of Tristan Brübach, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Alarichall (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Hugh Jackman. Thank you. 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 12:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 2 sources to confirm his UK citizenship. One is the law itself and one is an article quoting him stating that he has a British passport. Regardless of sources, the info is neither controversial nor unreliable, being an undisputed and automatic matter of both British and Australian law.--Getbacktothecarpet (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If, and only if, a reliable source mentions the fact that someone is a (for example) Canadian citizen, it's reasonable to add that fact to an article. However, you should not add claims based on your interpretation of the legal position. That is original research, and is not allowed here - in those circumstances, your edits will be reverted and you should not re-add them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not my interpretation. Indisputable legal facts made very clear in the citizenship legislation of the respective countries. Regardless of the guideline in question, the reversions are contrary to all common sense as the statements about their citizenship are factual aspects of law that are automatic upon birth. Nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's interpretation.--Getbacktothecarpet (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that the citizenship of these people is unsourced. If you want to pursue this, I suggest you raise it for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello, I'm Wham2001. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Max Rushden have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Wham2001 (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominici affair and other BLP issues

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Drmies (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the edit history clearly shows that there are BLP problems: click on this. And Dweller is an administrator who knows what they're doing. Second, "vandalous edit" is poor English, and it's crap. I don't care how many thousands of hours were squandered by BLP-violating editors. It is you who should discuss restoring some of this content, possibly on the BLP noticeboard. Third, I see this is not the first time you have been alerted that your edits might violate the BLP, as they certainly did here. Please be mindful of the policies of this website. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will stop editing now. But it is sad for Wikipedia as a whole that you and many others support an arbitrary approach totally contrary to common sense, using bad rules to justify deleting swathes of good content for no good, common-sense reason other than "it's the rule". I assume such people would jump off a cliff if they were told it was the rule to do so? If these are the policies of this website, the whole concept of it is utter crap and has sadly deviated hugely from its original purpose - an encyclopedia that anyone can add useful contributions to - so I will be mindful of the policies by no longer contributing well-sourced and interesting information. It is sad that so many admins couldn't care less about the number of well-meaning people, including experts in their fields, being put off from improving the content by overbearing admins and terrible rules.--Getbacktothecarpet (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of MorbidStories (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]