User talk:TeaLover1996/Archive 9

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 5

←

Archive 7

→

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, TeaLover1996, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Information about STiki, including:
- Using STiki and its hotkeys
- Comparison with other tools
Information about vandalism on Wikipedia

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my Snow Pea Crisps page

Hi,

I'm working on a Wikipedia page as a class project that is due Friday.

Regarding edits on our page:

1) I saw that for uploading images, we had to be concerned with copyright. How can I verify the copyright of images I take from a website?

Say for example I want a picture of some snow pea chips. If I cannot verify whether I am allowed to use an image of this food off of a website, would I have to purchase a bag of these snow pea chips and take my own photo? How is my own photo verified?

2) What is considered a "constructive" edit? I am not sure what this means.

Thank you very much! TokieDokie^3^ (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)TokieDokie^3^

@TokieDokie^3^: Hello there and welcome to Wikipedia. About your questions,

1) Anyone is free to upload images as long as using the image does not violate any copyrights, if you want to use an image from a website, you need permission from the copyright holder, is there a contact page on the site where you could phone or email and ask for permission?, you may want to save time by doing what you said, purchase a bag of them then take a picture using your camera, then because you've taken the photo it is copyrighted to you so when you upload it you can credit the image as your own, you are probably better of doing it this way as even if you ask for permission there is no guarantee it will be granted so you would be saving yourself some time, however do what you think is the better option. To upload an image please use the File Upload Wizard, however before uploading any files please read The Help Page on Uploading Images to Wikipedia.

2) Unconstructive edits are edits that are not helpful or are not beneficial to people using Wikipedia, usually unconstructive edits are unintended however deliberately adding unconstructive content is Vandalism and repeatedly adding unconstructive content constitues Disruptive editing and those who persistently disrupt the encyclopedia may be blocked or banned indefinitely.

One more thing...
Please don't take offence but you said this is for a school project?, Here at Wikipedia, we cannot do your homework for you.

If you have any more questions or need any more help, please don't hesitate to leave me a message here or on your talk page, if you do on your talk page then please place {{ping|TeaLover1996}} before your message which notifies me. Thanks and happy editing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Okay, thanks, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't yet more issues with our content as we are creating it. As you can imagine, neither my professor or I would be very happy if our page was deleted or essential content was removed.

As for your last comment, yes, that is understood going in. I'll keep my questions to clarifications of rules here as opposed to being babied through every step, I know what it is like to try to give classmates tutorials on material in class (and asking for said tutorials). TokieDokie^3^ (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)TokieDokie^3^

@TokieDokie^3^:, Hope I helped you with your questions. Thanks TeaLover1996 (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk page: Pacheco quotation

Hello. I had cut that passage because it seems irrelevant to the topic at hand: "The Founding of PETA." Also, this page is about Newkirk rather than Pacheco. So how is a long block quotation from Pacheco about his former love of meat relevant here? There is a significant problem with both relevance and proportion, as it constitutes about a third of the text of this section. Given what this section and page are, it would make much more sense to go from the first sentence to "It was Pacheco who ...." As I had suggested previously, if someone wants to retain this quote, it would make much more sense to put it on Pacheco's page rather than Newkirk's. I would like to hear why you think it's important to retain this quotation here, if that's the case. Just because someone put it here in the first place does not make it essential. Also, there is arguably too much reliance throughout the article on that one "New Yorker" piece. Please respond to my points.

In addition, the "Public image" section is extremely negative and appears to violate neutrality standards, so I may make some edits there as well to achieve a more balanced perspective when I find the time.Wilbur777 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear from you. I really don't think my change was anything at all like "vandalism." It's an improvement, when you consider relevance and proportion. Perhaps I shall take this subject to the talk page for this entry. Wilbur777 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Graham Dorrans

Please read the article talk page (Talk:Graham Dorrans) before reverting again. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Your recent editing history at Graham Dorrans shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please go back to the article and read the talk page section Talk:Graham Dorrans#Transfer window, follow the links from that section to the Football League website and Premier League handbook to check their accuracy, and if you still think the transfer can't proceed until 1 July, please explain your reasoning in that talk page section and gain consensus for your opinion before removing sourced content from the article again.

I don't want to report you for edit-warring, but you've now reverted three different editors seven times over the last few days. If you keep blindly reverting, I'll have to. Thank you for listening. Struway2 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

and thanks. I assure you there was nothing personal about any of my interactions with you. Just trying to correct mistakes and hopefully help you not make the same mistakes in the future. If you'll accept a piece of friendly advice: you've had problems with edit-warring in the past, and I can think of several editors who'd have taken you straight to the edit-warring noticeboard if they'd seen you at the Dorrans page. If three very experienced football editors disagree with you, it's certainly not a guarantee that they're right but it ought to make you stop and think. Pity no-one began a talk-page discussion sooner...

The other thing is, when you're using an anti-vandal tool, you're still responsible for the edits you make. Obvious vandalism is obvious – if someone types rude words or nonsense or malicious insults: the definition of vandalism is HERE – but if someone asks you about an edit that you've made, it's always best to give them a thoughtful answer, whether you thought of the edit yourself or whether it was suggested to you by an anti-vandal tool. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2: Ok cheers friend TeaLover1996 (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit of Thomas Lang page

Hi,

I'm contacting you following my editing of the page of Thomas Lang. Could you tell me why you believe the article was better before my changes? Is it about the way I did it, the information...? (It's the first time I edit a Wikipedia article, sorry!)

I actually discovered that artist thru some music learning app, and looked up the guy because I liked the lesson and was curious about it... Then I saw there was a part about how he was into teaching other people, so I decided to put a reference to the app I discovered him thru. Please let me know if it's wrong in any way, so I may or may not edit Wikipedia articles again!

Cheers XLP5122 (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XLP5122 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edits as they did not appear constructive, and you made some mistakes when you edited the page which is common with editors who are new to the encyclopedia. I would recommend taking a look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style and also Help with editing on Wikipedia if you have anymore questions, just ask. TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Your revert on Intel Core page

Hi! Thanks for leaving me a message at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:188.142.212.227&redirect=no about your revert of my edit on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intel_Core&action=history. To review: Someone added the entirely meaningless "<h>ahgash</h>" string to the article on May 20 by mistake or vandalism. I reverted it. You reverted my edit. A fourth user then reverted your edit. Out of the four edits the one I don't understand is yours. Does "<h>ahgash</h>" have some useful meaning that I'm missing? Or did you undo my edit and leave me a message about this by accident? 188.142.212.227 (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears I may have made a mistake on this occasion, please accept my apologies in this matter. TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Only Connect

Hi there,

Hope you don't mind the query but I wonder why you undid the edit to the Only Connect page?

80.43.203.59 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@80.43.203.59: I reverted it as I didn't think it was constructive. If you need any more help, just ask. TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Dedryck Boyata

Could you provide a source to support that? None of these reports on the transfer say the contract starts on 1 July: BBC Sport, Celtic, Man City. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Read the Wikipedia article Transfer window this will tell you all you need to know. TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting and 3RR

Hello TeaLover, please please stop reverting on Dedryck Boyata, or you could end up blocked for a WP:3RR violation. Also, Boyata's transfer has gone through as backed-up by many Reliable Sources. JMHamo (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of my removal of vandalism on Voltaire was falsely marked as vandalism. Please be more careful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltaire&type=revision&diff=664375523&oldid=664350071

--Kenblu24 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Typo

You have a typo on your list of trusted users. ;) (Joeseph2302 should be Joseph2302) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: So I did, thanks for letting me know

TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! After all, it's hard to fix what you're not aware of and I figured that was something you'd want to fix. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, TeaLover1996! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with 44 Medical Task Group. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Difference between Vandalism and Good-faith

Hey there. I notice that you've recently received the 1000 Stiki award, congratulations! Unfortunately, you've seem to also have had a number of false-positives using it, judging by the amount of feedback you've received on this talk page. We need to be careful while using it, especially when we can make mistakes on a large-scale using this tool, that's why there's a criteria for editors who are allowed to use it.

One thing to remember is, the distinction between Vandalism and a Good-faith edit. I've briefly checked a few of you're most recent reverts, instance 1, 2 and 3 and in the strictest sense, they aren't vandalism. The definition of vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. " All these three instances do not seem to be intentional or causing any damage, instance 1 changed an episode name, 2 removed a few words and 3 changed a definition, all this could be done in good faith and are thus not vandalism.

WP:NOTVAND and WP:ATWV are recommended to read. If you have any questions, feel free to ask, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion Comment

Please don’t nominate articles for deletion without giving a rationale as you did here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/44 Medical Task Group The result was speedy keep. Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)