Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for contributing edits that were made in good faith, but have been deemed not to contribute positively to the article. These edits have thus been reverted. Wikipedia's page on unacceptable additions may explain why. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
Some good links for newcomers are:
- Help contents – the main help page.
- Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article
- Tutorial
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out the Teahouse, ask the Help Desk, or place {{Help me}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Once again, welcome! Yngvadottir (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Celco85, as you know I put in some work on the Brighton Icebergers article and gave you some free advice on the talk page there. I've also tried to rescue your article on the toy soldiers company, which has now been moved to King & Country (company). I saw your note on the talk page there asking whether the company is notable, and my answer is yes, it is, and thank you for the article, which increases Wikipedia's coverage by adding a company that is important in its industry but that many of our editors, me included, didn't know existed. (However, it's still at Articles for deletion and it's possible that other editors will disagree with me.) Thank you also for creating the article with references, especially the Korea Times one, but please have a look at the things that are now included in the article about its history and so on; who collects the figures is not a major point about it, and not a way of demonstrating that it's worthy of an article. (You may find this page useful as a summary of what a new article should have.)
I don't think you ever received a "welcome" template with links to our policies and so on; all I see in the history of this page is an invitation to the Teahouse new editors' help-space, sent by a bot. I have taken the liberty of adding one because I wonder whether that has been a large part of the problem with your edits here. This is an encyclopedia, and pops up at the top of most searches people make when they are looking for information. It's serious publishing, while things you post on Facebook may not even be shown to all your friends. So, before putting stories about punch-ups or what someone once said about some former politician into articles, you must always consider first whether the point is (a) from a reliable source and (b) important enough for inclusion in that article. Defamation is a concern, but so is stuffing articles full of trivia. Wikipedia is fun and I've met some great people here as well as learning to write better and getting to read about fascinating as well as horrifying stuff, but it's not a game. Many of us also have blogs, and some of us are also either journalists or academics (or, I imagine, in a few cases both), but writing for the world's most important encyclopedia is different from any of these. Please keep the info and pics about the Locco family for your writing elsewhere, further rein in what you write about political figures (its being true isn't the main thing; how relevant is it, based on what your source(s) say?) and try to make a reasonably complete and well-sourced account of the topic before hitting "save" on a new article. (I use the preview button again and again, and I still make mistakes.) If you're not sure about something, ask; feel free to ask questions at the Teahouse, on other editors' talk pages, or here (there is a help me template), and see the first link in the Welcome template for other help pages. A lot of people have helped me, not just when I was new.
I hope this helps and doesn't come over as totally nannyish. If you're in Brighton, can you get down to the beach at sunrise and get a photo of the Icebergers swimming? (One where the faces aren't visible would be best, so it wouldn't matter if it was kind of low-light, but I don't know whether they bother in summer.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
@Yngvadottir and Deepfriedokra:
- See page [1] for warnings leading up block on 26 December 2020.
- Disruptive editing. Despite your being blocked during the past week for various reasons, you still continue editing without adding references correctly, adding references which do not relate to the subject being discussed or duplicating references in an article.
- From 11 edits on Brighton Icebergers since your return, I have reverted one item where the reference for the change was included in the edit summary and not in the article itself. Since the 11th edit I have added cover for one bare reference URL and deleted some unsourced frivolous material.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Celco85, I'm also concerned. The article is about the club, not the baths: Frank Locco is irrelevant, John Locco's actions to safeguard the baths are irrelevant (you also changed the wording on his political career to over-emphasize the baths), and the hit and run death, while sad and while relevant to the article on the school where she was formerly the principal, is completely irrelevant to the article about the club. All of your changes should be reverted. Please find something else to improve. Can you find additional news coverage of the school, such as from when it opened? Do you have any other topics, like Town & Country, that you could make a new article on? You're in a rut, I'm afraid, and making the article worse, not better. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir and Deepfriedokra: Agreed - reverted as suggested by Yngvadottir Fleet Lists (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Yngvadottir I have edited other pages like John Hewson highlighting the visit Keating made to a cake shop in response to the birthday cake but that kept getting reverted to so nah on seconds thoughts I will just stop editing. Besides anything I edit will just get reverted.
- I haven't looked at that one because I don't know enough about Australian politics, but have a look at the reasons given for reverting it: it may have been that you didn't provide a source; or that the source didn't support what you added; or that it seemed excessive ("undue weight"). Remember what I wrote above: "(a) from a reliable source and (b) important enough for inclusion in that article". If the edit summaries don't make clear why you were reverted there, start a section on the article talk page and ask. Note that you can "ping" someone, such as the editor who reverted you, by typing {{U|THEIR USER NAME}} (you have to copy the user name exactly, and some people sign with something a little different; the user name appears if you mouse over a signature, and is accurate in the page history); but it only works if you sign the comment that includes the "ping". You've just started signing talk page comments; well done! (But don't bother typing your user name first - just click on the symbol or type the 4 tildes.) I won't ping you now because this is your talk page and you presumably get a notification whenever someone writes here, but I wanted to thank you for the Herald Sun reference on the "no brainer", which I've added to the article: that is about the club, yes, that can be used! 08:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir and Deepfriedokra:
- Disruptive editing.
- This evening
- I have reverted a series of edits on Beaumaris, Victoria where the facts were incorrect in that the Council name was wrong and some other small matters. It is also doubtful that such a small steet narrowing is notable.
- John Hewson From the edits made tonight I removed a new paragraph were John Hewson was said to have made some minor statement in 2017, backed by a 1992 reference which had nothing to do with it and also removed the previous meaningless paragraph. As has been noted in the talk page Talk:John Hewson#Tone of article about the tone of this article, no more of these statements need to be added. So please let us leave this alone and not just on this politician. If we include every statement any politician ever makes, their articles would become unreadable. And about the Birthday Cake Interview item you asked about adding, it is already in the article relating to that which should suffice.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Celco85, I looked at your edits on the Birthday Cake Interview and most were not improvements: see my latest edit summary. I then looked at the Fightback! article and although the stuff about Hewson's aide objecting years later that policy was being made on the fly is more relevant there, I still find it hard to understand, and you have not given enough information in your citation for a reader to check it. Yes, video/audio sources can be used (although I can't hear them, so I'll have to leave it to someone else to check what exactly was said that you are summarising), but you need to say what the program was, what network aired it, when, and the accurate title: was this one in a series of segments, or did the YouTuber divide a single documentary into parts for upload? Also, the YouTube video can't be cited in the article because it's not an official YouTube channel of the network or the program and therefore is a copyright violation (see my first edit summary on the Birthday Cake page: you rightly deleted the YouTube link there, but not because it was YouTube, the reason you gave, because it was just some dude's YouTube channel). Further ... there's no polite way to say it, and I'm pretty blunt anyway, but I'm afraid your writing isn't up to snuff. "a example"; "would of"; misspelling Madigan's name in the image caption? One of the reasons editors are following you around looking at your edits is that your work tends to need copyediting badly. You're not the only one: that Fightback! article needs work. But you're going to have to up your game, and that makes you fiddling with wording, for example to call Hewson "Dr." (contrary to our manual of style; Wikipedia doesn't use honorifics, because otherwise many of our articles would be masses of "Sri", "Sir", "Professor", "His Worship", and so on) or to stick in the day of the week, particularly risky; you're too shaky on basic clear exposition to make more than the most obvious changes to wording (like inserting the space I'd left out, thank you for that). So now: do a good job with Jennifer Hansen, please; she's a living person. (And yes you can use her official website in the article: as the external link, and if absolutely necessary to source personal details like how many siblings she has. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The article Jennifer Hansen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While the article makes a claim of importance (so no A7), there does not seem to be any claim to notability supported bu sources.
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. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Celco85, I was about to work on this article, because you didn't do a very good job with the references or with using them for info about her, but I found it had been previously PRODded and deleted, so I asked Deepfriedokra to compare the two versions. He's now undeleted the previous history; the earlier versions have 2 references that you didn't use and that I had not found in my search, and also a lot more about her that can be used to search for more sources to demonstrate notability. However, I also have had concerns for some time about your uploaded images, and the one in this article, unlike the others, looks copied from a print source. So, when you get on-line, could you come over to User talk:Deepfriedokra to answer that concern? You cannot claim as "own work" photos where you did not yourself press the button on the camera; there are limited cases where Wikipedia can use photos taken by someone else of people who have since died, such as Madigan and one of the bishops, but they can't be on Commons, and photos of living people taken by someone else require the actual photographer or other rights holder, such as the agency the photographer was working for, to donate the photo through a specified legal process. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)