User talk:Tutelary

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:13, Saturday, June 8, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Speciality Restaurant

Hi, My page for the above restaurant chain in india has been tagged for speedy deletion. I had typed the information manually with basic info only and under the correct head. Kindly advise the what is putting this article up for speedy deletion. Thank you Cmadtha (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) cmadtha

Emperor Blackhat

Hello, What can I do for my article, please tell me, you added a speedy deletion tag on my article, but it is a notable personality please see the talk page of Emperor Blackhat for more information

Gendered language

I saw you reverted my edit on Extortion replacing a handful of instances of unnecessarily gendered language with ungendered equivalents, citing that there's no wikipedia policy against gendered language as the reason for reverting.

I'm confused that this is a valid reason to revert, since it seems to be a small, harmless tweak designed to slightly improve the article - not unlike other small grammatical or stylistic tweaks that I presume would be OK.

Could you explain why this edit was worthy of being reverted?

Cheers, 124.168.216.145 (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Namely, because I don't know of a policy that requires articles to be gender neutral. Sure, it's a small change, but I saw that it might have been politically motivated, and therefore you might be in violation of the Conflict of interest policy. Also see WP:ADVOCACY. If you do find a policy that specifically instructs you to do so, let me know. Tutelary (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI states "the aim of Wikipedia [...] is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia". Being "gender neutral" would seem to follow that aim, and so is not in contravention. 58.6.234.157 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV for that. You can also ask on the talk page of that page whether this is truly the interpretation. Also, I would seriously reconsider making an account. It will give you much more power and privileges on this Wikipedia. (Though again, is not required.) Tutelary (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot log in. Just to be clear, I'm not the same as OP/editor, but I am 58.6.234.157. I think my conclusion is that I just don't care about Wikipedia enough to follow this up myself, but like, if anyone's action here was to be "politically motivated", it seems like it might be the one that was going out of one's way to revert an edit that i) in no way reduced the quality of the article, and ii) used a more general term instead of several specific terms. (I'm not saying you are so, but if you were to look at the two actions side-by-side — the edit, and the revert — that's what I would guess!) Kivikakk (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please demonstrate good faith, as well as read the Wikipedia policy; Assume good faith. Do not talk about me as an editor. Talk about the edit in question. Personal attacks cloud up the discussion and leads towards animosity towards editors. If this were to be persistent, a possibility of a block is also in question. Nonetheless, also see WP:SHE. You're actually right. You should use gender-neutral language whenever possible. Feel free to revert my edit back. Tutelary (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Woah, I explicitly said "I'm not saying you are", and "look at the two actions": I was talking about the edit, and the revert, and nothing more. Your concern was that the original editor might be in violation of WP:COI; I merely supposed the same might be said about your edit. I'm the one who's been keeping this to edits. :/ Will revert. Further, your pseudo-threat of a block is really not cool. Kivikakk (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you did already. Great! Kivikakk (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:GENDER states that gender-neutral language should be used where it can be used with clarity and precision. 124.168.109.57 (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:GENDER is an essay by one or more Wikipedia users. It is not a policy or a guideline to follow. Tutelary (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language, a guideline that WP:GENDER points to. But like that guideline states, we should only follow that when "this can be done with clarity and precision." It lists exceptions. And if WP:Reliable sources usually use gendered language for a topic, I feel that we usually should as well, per WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

And, oh, "he or she" is gender-neutral language; just because a minority of people (significant minority) don't refer to themselves as he or she (are perhaps genderqueer) or use terms in place of the he or she pronouns, including terms that are not accepted as part of common language, it does not make "he or she" any less gender-neutral language. When it comes to the majority vs. the minority, we more so go by the majority here at Wikipedia...per WP:Due weight. That stated, I don't think that WP:COI applies to the IP/Kivikakk in this case. WP:COI is not about something like this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Joseph B. Platt

Hi Tutelary,

I saw that you tagged the entry for Joseph B. Platt for deletion. I did copy it from another source but I was trying to leave the source credit: http://www.idsa.org/joseph-b-platt There in the first paragraph is the source of the information. I was surprised that Platt is not in Wikipedia already. He designed the Parker fountain pen's iconic Arrow Clip and he was the set designer for the epic film 'Gone with the Wind' I am new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure how everything works. Can you assist me in order to properly give Joseph B. Platt the credit and acknowledgement he deserves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPWaterhouse (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot use any non-free text. In short, you have to paraphrase everything (and even then, if it's too similar, then it can be tagged as a copy violation.) For the reasoning on why this is a speedy deletion criteria, it's because it has potential legal issues for Wikipedia. You need to write everything in your own words, and while you can use it as a source, you can't just copy and paste the text and put it as an article. Tutelary (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to LastPass (software) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |Safari]]. There is also a LastPass [[bookmarklet]] for other browsers.<ref name="features" /><ref>{{cite web | url=https://helpdesk.lastpass.com/features/bookmarklets/ | title=Bookmarklets |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Live at the Brattle Theatre

Hey there. I realize that the original author was blocked for jokes/vandalism in other articles, but Live at the Brattle Theatre was created before they were blocked, and is a real album by a notable artist. For future reference, just because an author gets blocked does not mean we delete all their articles. Deleting articles like this would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Know what I mean? :) Steven Walling • talk 23:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I'll look into their block before I use the CSD nomination for it again. Just curiously, how would the CSD nomination category for blocked/banned users be used correctly in that sense? Tutelary (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

One of two ways, to my understanding:

1. If a user was banned for specific activities. For instance, if I was topic banned from writing articles about Evan Dando for BLP violations, and I did that anyway.
2. If a user is sockpuppeting. Often obsessive people come back with a secondary account to repost articles etc. repeatedly, even after being banned/blocked. If an account is identified as a sockpuppet and then blocked, articles they created in violation of ban might be tagged this way.

Of course, if someone writes an article that violates another CSD criteria, it doesn't matter if they are blocked or not, we should delete. Thanks for the quick and courteous reply, Steven Walling • talk 23:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I understand what I did wrong this time and I'll make sure not to do it again! Tutelary (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I know there is a lot of work to do with new page patrol, etc. We all learn as we go. Steven Walling • talk 23:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014, Reply

Dear Tutelary, thanks for your gently message. On the talk page of the article that you've updated, we have left important information that establishes a separation of the two articles in question. If you consider joining information from two articles, we believe that a redirect link is right. Best regards. --Escrituras (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Then create the text for the church, then. Don't copy text from another article. I redirected because this is the case. Tutelary (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Again, thanks for your help. We are going to create the text for this article. --Escrituras (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Unjustified reversions

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heartbleed. Users are expected to collaborate with others rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please assume good faith from other editors. If you resort to undoing their changes, please pay particular attention to how you do that. Revert only when necessary, and when you have to, do so in a respectful manner. --Chealer (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

7 Th Day

dnt put the full plot and story in wiki as it is easily accessible to each and every one, i tried to edit it but who the hell r u to edit and put all story again and again in it, including the second climax and suspense, its still running in theaters, plss remove it Please see WP:SPOILER. We are not going to omit the plot just because it is still recent. It is Wikipedia policy to even include such things. Tutelary (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Archiving help

Thank you for your help with the archiving business, I think I've gotten the hang of it now --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Also I decided to add the auto-archive, I see the appeal of it and it will definitely help when my life gets busy again --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Whittl

Hello Tutelary. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Whittl, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:, I'm going to stop new page patrolling, and focus on recent changes now for a while now. Sorry for all the trouble. Tutelary (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Naya Rivera wasn't fired

Hi Tutelary, A Rep for Naya Rivera confirmed to USA Today that she wasn't fired from Glee, if it was true Naya would have confirmed it herself

I've removed the offending section. The USA Today article came at 11:51 PM, after I went to bed. Thanks for letting me know. Also created a relevant talk page on the matter. Tutelary (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseAurora (talk • contribs) 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nexus LARP

Hi Tutelary, My page was marked for speedy deletion while in the middle of editing and revising its content. The page is a viable page that has all the needed information if not more than other LARP societies that currently have wiki pages. If there is some other reason why this was flagged for deletion please tell me why. I see no reason why any thriving organization should not be able to survive when attempting to get their name out to the public as a documented member of the business world. Pantherios — Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pantherios:, I tagged it for deletion under speedy deletion criteria A7, which means that it didn't make a credible claim of significance for this event/group. If you were to make a credible claim of significance, I'd be forced to remove the tag. Tutelary (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Saintseneca

Hello, Thanks for your message! In regards to the Saintseneca, I felt like being a new band that is on a major-indie label (ANTI-), and substaintial attention from major music new sources like Rolling Stone and NPR, and are on the major US touring circuit would qualify them to be notable for a wiki page, no?

Thanks. Jessrock12 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, I saw that it potentially qualified for an A7, and when it was not. I apologize, as it is very bitey to mark an article for deletion, even if it sees as it qualifies for a speedy deletion. Added a few tags that are seen as needed. Since you're the one who created it, maybe you can work on that. Tutelary (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be sufficient now (Saintseneca) I will continue to improve it as well. Jessrock12 (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedies

Regarding this and this: since repeated counseling and warnings have not been effective, the next speedy deletion tag you post will result in your being reported to the appropriate noticeboard. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

STOP!

Please stop add deleting template to to articles without reason. Do you Google? See what you can search in Google about Maya the Bee.--Včelka Mája 2 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)