User talk:TeaLover1996/Archive 19

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 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, TeaLover1996/Archive 19. 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) 14:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

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 Ivica Olić 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! Mattythewhite (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bafétimbi Gomis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You've previously been reverted by two different editors on this article, and have made no contribution to the thread at the article's talk page. Please consider spending your time improving articles rather than trying to force your own preferences into pages regardless of the opinions of others. You yourself started an RfC on inclusion of the league division. Please wait until it comes to a conclusion. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Roberto Soldado

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Roberto Soldado. It is Sourced!!!!! Read the edits and see the sources. Sourced from Villarreal and ESPN article has spurs official post. I will not warn you again. Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shreerajtheauthor: Yes it is now, but it wasn't before. That's why the edits were reverted. Please take care in the future. TeaLover1996 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We'll continue conversation below because you were clearly wrong because my edits were FULLY SOURCED and you need to admit it, instead of saying I did something wrong.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shreerajtheauthor: When I looked through the edit there weren't any sources, that is why the edits were reverted, and you asking me to do proper research isn't a good idea, when an editor adds or changes content that is likely to be challenged they must provide a reliable source, and it is not the responsibility of other editors to find sources for one editors edit, as WP:CHALLENGE says the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material so if an editor adds or changes content is is them who has to provide a source, it is not the responsibility of other editors to look for sources for another editors edit(s). TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

But below you have confirmed to Mattythewhite that you acknowledge his point that there were sources at that time. As discussed respond to all points below instead of here.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Roberto Soldado

Hi, the edit to Roberto Soldado does include sources. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Yes mate I know, but when I was making the reversions there were no sources, but now there is. TeaLover1996 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. Sources were present when you made this and this revert. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Ok thanks for letting me know. Cheers TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Exactly! So TeaLover1996 has now admitted that he removed my edits that HAD Sourced content (I did not add it later), however on my talkpage and above, you can see he is still sending me warnings about my edits, stating I have made an error when I haven not. I can now see from TeaLover's talkpage archive that he has been engaged in an edit war and warned by @Struway2:, he has been warned for STiki and that he could be blocked by @Floquenbeam:. He has been warned for Talk page blanking by :@JMHamo:. He has been warned for Incorrect reversions by @Theroadislong:. He has already requested to @Qed237: and @Adnan n2:to be an admin, but how is that possible because he is being a very unconstructive editor, and refuses to acknowledge when he makes mistakes. What are the next steps because clearly TeaLover1996 is not learning from his mistakes, and I'm tired of him reverting edits that are clearly good.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this should be taken to AN/I for consensus to block until TeaLover knows how to edit properly. JMHamo (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Where were the sources I couldn't find any at the time of the first revert and was told to look for them, but I'm not going to look for sources for other people's edits, its up to the person who adds material to look for sources not others. TeaLover1996 (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

TeaLover, sometimes I don't know if you are trolling or just not getting it. It's worrying. JMHamo (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Shreerajtheauthor included references in all of his edits at Soldado, you can see for yourself by checking the article history. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I was pinged above and have history with TeaLover1996, so will shortly give my view. This first revert was fine as it was unsourced changes to a BLP, but here information with official source from Villareal was added by Shreerajtheauthor. Then to see this revert and this revert where sourced content about the move was being removed is not so good and the fact that TeaLover1996 still has not realised he made a big mistake and appologised to an editor that he warned is problematic. TeaLover1996, you must be more careful. Qed237 (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I was pinged above. I agree with JMHamo. I can't tell if he's trolling or is really so obsessed with being an admin that he doesn't realise you have to learn editing first, but whichever it is, it's gone on long enough. TeaLover1996, when an editor adds content to an article, where do you expect them to put the source? Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice I will take care in the future. TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)