User talk:TheEmeraldBoat

Welcome!

Hello, TheEmeraldBoat, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article previously nominated for deletion may not be reproposed

Deprodding of Multi-Edit

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Multi-Edit, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well that's a bit embarrassing. Thanks for noticing that and fixing it! Teb (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheEmeraldBoat,

First, thanks for becoming an active Wikipedia editor and contributing to the project. We always can use more competent volunteers.

However, you have been just editing for two weeks now and have less than 100 edits. That is not enough experience to judge which articles should face deletion and which should not. This judgment involves being very familiar with deletion policy for the different forms of deletion (CSD, PROD and AFD) as well as different guidelines on verifiability and the many policy pages about notability. No one would expect you to know all of this as you are a new editor and there is a lot of policy content to read and understand. But deleting an article is a serious business and I think you need more experience with just editing articles, understanding what a reliable source is and what it takes to be a good article before proposing that pages should be deleted.

I don't mean to discourage you, just point you to an area where you are less likely to get yourself into trouble. Taking on too many responsibities too soon is a very common way for new editors to find themselves in the middle of a dispute which I don't want to happen to you. Conflict happens on Wikipedia because we have a diverse group of editors from all over the world who have different opinions and styles of doing things but it's not something that should occur to new folks before they have found their footing as an editor and found what activities they enjoy.

If you do have any questions about working on Wikipedia, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse. I went to the Teahouse often when I was starting out because I got frustrated by all of the rules and the regulars there patiently explained things to me. It can really help to have a place where you can ask "obvious" questions that don't make sense to you. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, man, I was getting a bit too rambunctious there. For lack of a better term, I needed to have my ego deflated a bit.

I’ll follow your advice and keep my scope smaller for now; I very much don’t want any trouble.

With best regards, Teb (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Thank you for your recent edit to Överlida, but please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag, and remember that all stub tags go at the foot of the article, not the top - see WP:ORDER. Thanks. PamD 20:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I appear to not have seen the already-existing tag. Thank you for your help, I'll exercise more caution with stubs in the future. Teb (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you

some kind of dog nutter? Stick to video games and leave the page editing alone. We don't appreciate you removing large amounts of information. 87.74.9.36 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

don't entirely understand how this is relevant, I made one edit to the fatal dog attacks page a really long time ago and it was quickly reverted

Teb (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dognutter alert?

Stop trying to censor information. 2A04:4A43:423F:C432:0:0:459:31C8 (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bro chill. I only made one edit to the fatal dog attacks page, it was a while ago, and it was quickly reverted. Teb (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep these in my toolbox for the future. Thank you for your help. Teb (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Vandalism on page for Canadian Psychological Association

Hello TEB, I appreciated you correcting the mass-blanking (vandalism) by CPA consultants and affiliates a couple months ago when they removed 5 entire sections from the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) page. Those sections were unflattering for CPA but were well-documented showing deception and policies for healthcare workers that actually allowed them to harm and kill people. Under the section on Warfare and The Use of Torture, the American Psychological Association (APA) page shows that APA got in a lot of trouble for the same deception and policies.

Within the last 24 hours, the CPA page has again had the same five sections (1.1 - 1.5) completely deleted. I think this is the 9th time it has happened. This time it was by an editor named Wugapodes, who seems to have made hundreds of edits on Wikipedia, and has a long list of contributors he has blocked. I don't want him simply to block me, if I try to correct the historical record on the CPA page, while responding to his concerns. I am sure you know more about how this works than I do; are you able to look into whether his mass-blanking to completely erase that whole history was acceptable (or is again vandalism)? Thanks a lot! PsycProf (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-

I have not even made any changes yet, and Wugapodes has already threatened to block me, on his Talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wugapodes PsycProf (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies for the late reply, I've been away from my computer for most of today.)

While the original content removals were unexplained enough to be vandalism, these newer ones are fairly well explained and there is a lengthy discussion about them in the talk page; this puts it, at least for me, more in the category of a content dispute now.

I recommend you make an anonymous Request for Comment on the CPA page, and get a few more third-party opinions .

I've looked a bit more into this event and, while you haven't done anything wrong, you appear to be somewhat unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia's general guidelines. I recommend you visit the links that you can see on the Welcome message here; they will greatly help you not get into too much trouble.

Also note: Being blocked by someone isn't usually that big of a deal; don't worry about it.

I hope this message helps you resolve this dispute. Teb (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your suggestions TEB. I got a lot of feedback and did a lot of reading of Wikipedia guidelines today, so will bear those in mind when making any new contributions. PsycProf (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

realized i confused site-wide blocking with single-user muting here. oops. too late to help the situation, though :/ Teb (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to The Flintstones: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. MaterialWorks _(talk) 20:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually heading over to put vandal warning 2 on their page, but was a bit stuck on whether to immediately escalate over the 'no kys' edit summary. Thank you for your help. Teb (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I apologize for jumping too quickly to warn you, have a nice day. MaterialWorks _(talk) 20:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]