User talk:TeaLover1996/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TeaLover1996. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Continued incorrect reversions

This [1] was NOT an unsorced content change. Please take more care with your edits and warnings. Theroadislong (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to George H. W. Bush does not have an edit summary. I reverted your edit as you gave no explanation as to why you made the change

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

Hi TeaLover, although you are entitled to remove your Talk page messages, it does not make problems go away. Please keep this in mind. JMHamo (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Maybe because I feel patronized TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Take the advice and become a better editor, rather than doing the things that you have been warned about here. JMHamo (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Well I want to become an admin in the future, so obviously I want to be a good editor, and be a helper for the newbies, I am trying my best to contribute, I am not intending to cause problems for this wonderful enyclopedia TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My advice would be to take the time to read different policies/essays and noticeboards, you learn so much. Keep your head down and don't make trouble for yourself. JMHamo (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)May I please second the above advice? I know you want to be an admin, but your actions are moving your goal further and further down the road. I don't think anyone is trying to patronize you, they are trying to get your serious attention. With regards to the AIV warnings, try to place yourself in the other editor's shoes. If there is any way their actions could be interpreted that they were trying to help the encyclopedia (with the exception of libelous material), it should not get a vandalism warning, and ergo should not be at AIV. You have shown willingness to admit error in the past, and taking Nfc123 to AIV was a mistake. Being an admin is much more than blocking and protecting, it also involves the ability to perceive multiple perspectives. As Floquenbeam advised, slow down. Indeed the work to be accomplished here seems infinite, but that does not mean any one of us should try to do it all. I hope that is helpful. Take care. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Do I have potential to become an admin? TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Slow down, you haven't even been a year editing yet, I would say you need at least three years of solid editing and a sound understanding of all policies. Have a read of WP:ANOT, it's how I feel about being an Admin. JMHamo (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: I was hoping 1 year would be sufficient, but I know other editors have their opinions and I respect that. Maybe something else. A user called User:Chris 73 was made an admin with only 6-7 months of service, I really have no idea how that happened, the account was created in October 2003 and he was made an admin in May 2004, such a short time well for adminship anyways. Cheers

TeaLover1996 (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Back in 2004, Wikipedia was a much different place, and 6 months was a significant portion of Wikipedia's lifespan. I wouldn't use any RFA pre-2008 as any indication of what may pass muster nowadays. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I think being an Admin is more of a headache than it's worth but they are an essential part of Wikipedia and we need more, as every year the Admin numbers go down due to various reasons. I am not saying you wouldn't make a good Admin but you need a lot of time to become knowledgeable before your RfA or it will be just a waste of time. JMHamo (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo and 78.26: I intend to keep my head down and contribute when I can. I might submit a RfA later this year TeaLover1996 (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That's your choice, but I say don't as you will not succeed.. SLOW DOWN! JMHamo (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing references

There's rarely any need for three references for a club announcing a signing. The other user quite reasonably removed the superfluous third, sourced to a tabloid newspaper. That user also added a reference to a previously unsourced part of the article's International section. You removed it. Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Farrell Fabrications

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Farrell Fabrications requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Struway2 (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as User talk:Qed237 are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Edits like this and some older ones are not acceptable. Told you before and getting tired of telling you but "Focus on your editing" not everything else. Qed237 (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

removing content

Your edits here [2] and here [3] removed non controversial easily verified content, it’s more useful to add a source, which I have done for you. Theroadislong (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: I don't see how it's his fault that other people decided to add unsourced content, per WP:VERIFY, it is their job to find a source, not his. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was his fault? I said it was more useful to add a reference for non controversial content like this. Theroadislong (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And I disagree. I think it's perfectly acceptable to revert the unsourced change, and encourage the user to find the source themselves, as that way they learn to add sources with their content. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Theroadislong and Joseph2302: According to WP:CHALLENGE the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material basically if someone adds or restores content it is their responsibility to find a source to back it up, not other editors. Joseph thanks for your input. Thanks and happy editing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and particularly in sports articles, there are far too many editors who make unsourced changes. If we didn't revert unsourced edits, then editors would have to spend hours looking for sources for thousands of claims. If the user cannot be bothered to add a source, it isn't anyone else's job to go find the source. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have been editing for more than seven years, I am fully aware of policies and guidelines… what a miserable attitude, you would rather that correct content was removed than references added? How does that benefit the encyclopaedia? At the very least a citation needed tag could be added for uncontroversial facts. Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Theroadislong and Joseph2302: Yes, unsourced content must be removed, it is not one editors responsibility to find sources for other editors, plus the edit is in the page history so it isn't lost. Thanks and happy editing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content must not be removed if it is not controversial (more critical at BLPs). It is the person adding the content that should add the source and while others can add it, they dont have to. Tagging with citation needed, could be a good idea if content is not controversial. Qed237 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Sorry I meant material that may be challenged. TeaLover1996 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Sean Ward for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sean Ward is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Ward (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Admin

February 2012. Giant Snowman 13:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

An interesting exercise would be to count the number of times people have asked you to be more careful. This by itself is not a horrible mistake, but it's the same basic issue all over again: not being careful, making mistakes, not understanding the mistake being made, being bratty with other editors who are actually in the right, and then proptly deleting the thread from your talk page without learning anything from it. No need for ANI, blocked for two weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I am sorry, I'm not doing it on purpose. TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I know, but that doesn't change the fact that it has to stop. If you were doing it on purpose, it would probably be easier to stop. But you can't be allowed to keep doing it just because you can't help yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If you don't mind, may I ask your advice for the future, I know I should be focusing on editing rather than becoming an admin. TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to post when I saw Tealover had been blocked. You seem to be continuously making the same mistakes (wrongly reverting established users without explanation), and archiving your talkpage mid-conversation because you don't like how the conversation is going is really annoying. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Established users can look after themselves. Reverting inexperienced or anonymous users who are doing their best but aren't necessarily perfect, and doing it without an accurate or even rational explanation, really is a problem. It's good that Shreerajtheauthor, despite being relatively new here, had the confidence to stand up for themselves. It brought the real problem to a head. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Struway2. I agree. In the future if users (not just TeaLover1996) are not clear whether a edit should be reverted then they should discuss it on the talkpage instead of getting into an edit war. --Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Nigel de Jong does not have an edit summary. Then PLEASE explain your edits with an edit summary

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Arjen Robben does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Hello TeaLover, please remember you are being watched by a lot of people now and if you return to your usual bad editing, I will request you are blocked indefinitely to stop you editing the encyclopaedia. JMHamo (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Yes friend, I understand, I am aiming to become a good editor like others including you. Happy editing

TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, TeaLover1996/Archive 15. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 00:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, TeaLover1996/Archive 15. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Chamith (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Nigel de Jong does not have an edit summary. Then PLEASE explain your edits with an edit summary

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Arjen Robben does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Hello TeaLover, please remember you are being watched by a lot of people now and if you return to your usual bad editing, I will request you are blocked indefinitely to stop you editing the encyclopaedia. JMHamo (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Yes friend, I understand, I am aiming to become a good editor like others including you. Happy editing

TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, TeaLover1996/Archive 15. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 00:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, TeaLover1996/Archive 15. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Chamith (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)