TeaLoverHistoryGuy

Welcome

Hello TeaLoverHistoryGuy, I'm Quaerens-veritatem . I noticed you just started editing Wikipedia in July and August. Welcome to Wikipedia editing. To help you along:

(1) Please take some time to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Also the Manual of Style should be useful.

(2) Please provide a summary of every edit you make. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. Summaries help other editors by (a) providing a reason for the edit, (b) saving the time to open up the edit to find out what it's all about, and (c) providing information about the edit on diff pages and lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists).

Edit summary content is visible in:

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

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit and a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.

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)

If the edit is minor, the "This is a minor edit" box can be checked. See, Help:Minor_edit. A good rule of thumb is that only edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits.

Many who are ignorant of the Wikipedia policy on edit summaries fail to add them. Some ignore this basic brief task; however, failure seems arrogant and inconsiderate specially since summaries are so easy to add. According to Wikipedia's consensus policy, all edits should be explained —either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page.

(3) If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk.

Welcome again, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly! TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! TeaLoverHistoryGuy, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TeaLoverHistoryGuy,

Rather than coming to ANI, which is for addressing serious misconduct problems, if you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or its policies and guidelines, please bring them to the Teahouse which is a user-friendly forum where experienced editors can give you advice, support and a second opinion. ANI is not for minor problems or when you don't understand an editor's behavior. Also, do not remove messages from another editor's user pages, ever. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you! My deepest apologies for the ANI post. I feel as if I’ve learned a lot today. I guess the Teahouse would be better for me since I’m a tea lover and I have tea in my username, haha! Cheers, ~~~ TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Just a reminder though, please do not assume IP editors are vandalizing pages. Before creating this account, I edited as an IP editor and we have some IP editors that have edited for years. Having a registered account has advantages (like a Watchlist, user pages, etc.) but some editors just prefer to edit anonymously and that's a valid choice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I will certainly keep that in mind. Thank you, ~~~ TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

TeaLoverHistoryGuy, sockpuppets shouldn't start threads on popular noticeboards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of BitLife

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.

A tag has been placed on BitLife requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitLife. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If I provide more information, will the page stay? Thanks, TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It needs to satisfy the notability requirements with multiple independent, in-depth reliable sources. You currently have zero such sources on the article. That article has been recreated and deleted several times for failing to meet notability requirements. MrOllie (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

::Okay, my apologies. ~~~ TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We Are Afghan Women

Hi TeaLoverHistoryGuy! I noticed this revert with the edit summary "Reverting nonsense." Perhaps I'm missing something, but what was nonsense about the original edit? The anonymous editor added Category:Laura Bush to a book with an introduction written by Laura Bush. You also left a level 3 vandalism warning when, even if it were vandalism, a level 1 warning would have been more appropriate. Of course, I'm not sure it was vandalism at all.

I understand that you're new to Wikipedia and want to help, but I wonder if it might be better to take it slow and learn about our policies and guidelines and Wikipedia culture before diving into Twinkle? Woodroar (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, my apologies. I didn’t see the introduction written by Laura Bush and I added the wrong vandalism template. I think you’re correct, I should take it slow. My sincerest apologies. Thanks, TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Woodroar, I understand that you are an Administrator and you have to do what is best for Wikipedia, but I am not any of those people that you claim I am. I am legitimately a new user who just wants to contribute to the Wikipedia community. I might share similarities with those other editors, but I swear I am not any of those people you have claimed I am. I hope you understand that. Thanks, TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:SteKelBry per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SteKelBry. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)