User talk:VariousStuffs

Welcome!

Hello, WombleYT, 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 to the page TARDIS‎ did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always 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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. DonQuixote (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... I am currently working on adding a new section to the article on the TARDIS, detailing inconsistencies between the real police box and the many props of it seen throughout the show's run. however, it keeps getting removed, presumably due to a lack of citations (or reliable ones) to verify it. Admittedly, I have done some "original research" in measuring the dimensions of the props from scale diagrams and finding the scale differences in percentage, but other than that, it should be valid. Unfortunately, I am struggling to find good sources to cite my work to, as most of my results are just pinterest links to other sites I've already looked at, like The Mind Robber's page which I have already used to gather some information and references (including the diagrams). WombleYT (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WombleYT! Unfortunately, even if the original research is minor, it is still not allowed on Wikipedia. For further information, please see this subsection on what Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, if someone removed unreferenced content, that means that they are challenging the information you have added to the article. When something is challenged, it cannot be re-added without a citation to a reliable source. Here is a direct quote from the aforementioned policy:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

If something cannot be verified, then it does not belong on Wikipedia. HouseBlaster^talk 17:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... getting this paragraph onto the TARDIS article. it keeps getting rejected due to either a lack of citations or original research, and i can't seem to get it accepted. so can someone please edit my paragraph and photo w/ description to make it acceptable for the article?

Inconsistencies between Props and Real Police Boxes

The prop has almost never been accurate to the real Police Box, its most accurate portrayal was in the Dalek films starring Peter Cushing where it is almost completely identical. the original prop is fairly close, but is noticeably smaller[1]. the free for use of public sign changed doors inconsistently throughout Patrick Troughton's run, starting from Evil of the Daleks (1967). The Shada box, used from 1976 to 1980[2] and inconsistently throughout the early eighties (notably Logopolis and Castrovalva 1981-2) is stockier with a completely flat roof, though it was steeped again for its appearance in Logopolis and Castrovalva. in 1980, a new prop was constructed from fibreglass[2] for The Leisure Hive (1980), and is now larger again with a firmer build, though still smaller than the genuine article. the 1996 TV movie is also slightly larger, and its windows, which normally have six panels with the two in the bottom corners being white or off-colour, this one has some panes in the wrong slots. the one on the right door is in the top corner and some have the off-colour panes directly adjacent to the other one.. the Eccleston/Tennant prop is much larger, and the panels/windows are almost square and take up much more space. This has caused many a joke where a character to comment on how "the windows are the wrong size" with the in-universe explanation being that the TARDIS is so old that the "bigger on the inside" has begun leaking out, causing the outside shell to grow. the original prop was navy blue, though on-screen it was grey as the show was in black and white at the time, and it was repainted to a lighter blue in 1972 which remained consistent (albeit some minor colour shifts) throughout the rest of the run. The 2005 prop is much greyer, with a green-yellowy twinge to it. The Smith Prop is a vibrant navy colour with an intense wood effect, while the Capaldi Prop turns this down significantly, making it a mostly solid blue. The Whittaker Prop returns to the 2005 Prop's colours, but re-adds the wood effect. Since the show's reboot in 2005, the dimensions have stayed identical with only minor alterations. The Hurt Prop, as seen in Day of the Doctor (2013) is essentially just the 2005 prop with sand and grime all over it and a few cracked windows. However, these inconsistencies don't just apply to the Doctor's TARDIS, as in Logopolis, both a real Police Box and the Master's TARDIS assume the Shada Box's proportions and in The Doctor, The Widow and The Wardrobe (2011) The Doctor finds a real Police Box that looks like his. Both of these situations were probably caused by budgetary constraints though, as it would be uneconomical to have many separate Police Box props in storage unused. The roof lamp has changed too, the original was rather accurate, while in season two it was replaced by a cheap plastic cylinder along with the whole roof being less steep. The Shada Box uses a generic lamp, while in its namesake story and a few others before and after it, it has a blue spinning police car lamp. The 2005 Prop uses a cylindrical lamp, while the Smith Prop has one from a ship (boat, not space-ship). None have ever gotten close to the real lamp, which would've been encased in a cylindrical cage with a dome on top.

then add picture named "Dinky Toy Police box" and its description (with alterations for brevity's sake) and add citations and the relevant links to where they are needed, and you're done! thanks in advance for helping me curate this paragraph for use in an article. WombleYT (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you ask for help on the article's talk page: Talk:TARDIS. Please provide detail about the published reliable sources where you read this information, including whatever [1] and [2] refer to in your paragraph above. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopaedia, which is a tertiary source. Which means that it primarily cites and summarises reliable sources. Think of it as a term paper that you need to write for a class (as opposed to a take-home class project). The easiest way to start is to go down to a library, get a direct quotation from a book or magazine, and start paraphrasing that quote. Cheers. DonQuixote (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gilbert Mackenzie Trench (March 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jenyire2 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Try adding more good sources

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gilbert Mackenzie Trench and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Gilbert Mackenzie Trench, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jenyire2 20:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WombleYT! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jenyire2 20:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hyvät herrat

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Hyvät herrat, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 "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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DMySon (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gilbert Mackenzie Trench (July 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Clearfrienda was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Notablity is not shown here. Please add some more reliable, secondary sources from notable organizations to show notability (e.g. news articles from notable news organizations).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gilbert Mackenzie Trench and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Gilbert Mackenzie Trench, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Clear friend a ^💬 17:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gilbert Mackenzie Trench has been accepted

Gilbert Mackenzie Trench, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joel Souza

The article Joel Souza has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies, and is only notable for the recent Alec Baldwin accident.

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. Edl-irishboy (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Cryptoland

Hello, VariousStuffs. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cryptoland, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Cryptoland

Hello, VariousStuffs. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Cryptoland".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]