User talk:TeaLover1996/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Harry Lewis (Gamer)

hello sir, i just wanted to ask u that why did you delete the page harry lewis (gamer). he is a youtube celebrity, he has over 4.5 million subscriber, almost a billion views, they are many people on wiki with even less subscribers and views. he is even on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTube_personalities#W. If the content wasn't satisfying enough please give me the content so i could work on it more. Regards Immu 01 (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)immu01

@Immu 01: I didn't delete the page, but I did nominate it for deletion as I believe it met Wikipedia's Speedy Deletion criteria, under section A7 which can be found by clicking here, plus the article did not contain any references or sources which contradicts Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy. If you need any more help just ask, also you can ask at the Teahouse, there are more experienced editors there who can help as well. Thanks and happy editing. TeaLover1996 ^{Talk to me ☏} 14:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

i got the page back. anyways thanks Immu 01 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Cédric Soares

Hello there from Portugal,

can I please contribute too in this article? I have already respected your approach and leave the intro since the player will only join on 1 July, but: we don't write "he will join" in an encyclopedia (future tense), and he only played for Sporting B in year 2013. And it's full name in intro (Sporting Clube de Portugal), compression is for box.

Please respect my work like I have come to respect yours. Am I asking too much? Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think I was polite and civil, I see you think not, sorry to bother you. The entire storyline (even the "he will join" bit without a full stop) stays, but I have removed the WRONG year in box. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

His editing history suggests that he thinks all IPs are vandals I'm afraid. I note that those are the only edits he ever reverts. "lol" eh! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tealover, having looked at Cédric Soares, it looks like you're probably correct- WT:FOOTY consensus is that if the sources say they're moving on 1 July, they are still counted as playing for their old club until then. But please leave a message explaining this on Talk:Cédric Soares explaining this, and encourage the IPs to discuss it there with you. Constant edit reversions don't solve any problems, discussions do. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Reporting me here [[1]] is just disruptive and bizarre! You have been edit warring your preferred version of the article without any edit summaries or explanation on the talk page and also removing content from your talk page in an unhelpfull manner Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996:, I think you meant WP:ANI not WP:ENI LOL... the educashun noticeboard?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

June 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 Cédric Soares 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:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I am seriously impressed. Perhaps the most rare words at ANI are "I am wrong." We need more editors such as yourself here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Can I say that I think in general you're a good editor, and we all make mistakes. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Yes you may thank you! Also do you think I can become an admin with time? TeaLover1996 ^{Talk to me ☏} 18:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk:TeaLover1996/Archive 7#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeaLover1996 lol _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Seriously, stop. All you seem to be doing is complaining about, and making fun of, their mistakes. The fact is they've racked up hundreds, probably thousands of good edits. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Joseph I'm sorry, I disagree. These activities highlighted (repeatedly) are ones that would have been avoided by reading policy, engaging with others, and avoiding border-line trolling. He is not a new editor. It's nothing personal you will understand: just very odd. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And how exactly was posting a link to admin archive in any way helpful? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it proves my very point. I suggested the an editor has a history of making the same 'mistakes.' Hey presto. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Fortuna, that appears to be a different type of mistake. I, for one, manage to constantly find new ways of messing something up here. Don't you think all would be best served if the stick were dropped for now? Nothing good is coming of this. TeaLover, you might become an admin someday, although expressing such a desire so soon in your wikipedia "career" will not be viewed positively by all. That doesn't mean you'll never be an admin, but not now, and not soon. I gently recommend that you can best serve the community right now by striving to increase the scope and accuracy of topics which most interest you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well; it was one of many to chose from. However I am perfectly willing to stretch good faith a little further, in the interests of goodwill. I suggest, however, that along with the advice you have given above, you add that which I gave: engaging other editors and reading policy. Then all our faith may be justified. I for one look forward too it. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC) -In fact an opportunity to quote User:TeaLover1996 himself... Dicussion closed _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate 3RR warnings

Please do not warn Users about 3RR edit warring when they have not! What are you doing! JMHamo (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: They were repeatedly undoing each others edits TeaLover1996 ^☏ 21:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Days ago... Do you know that I warned them about this at the time and the edit warring stopped. You do not need to template them inappropriately, you are not an Admin and will probably not be one because you do not understand how Wikipedia works I am sorry to say from what I have seen. JMHamo (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: I honestly wasn't aware you had warned them, but they were reverting each other on Memphis Depay that is why I warned them TeaLover1996 ^☏ 21:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Where are your warnings, I cannot find anything? TeaLover1996 ^☏ 22:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

They are here and here... JMHamo (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo:. Cheers friend. TeaLover1996 ^☏ 22:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)