User talk:13tez

Welcome

Hello, 13tez, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 04:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

United Kingdom Special Forces

Thanks for contributing to the article United Kingdom Special Forces. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you.. Dormskirk (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Future Commando Force has been accepted

Future Commando Force, 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!

SN54129 14:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Election denial movement for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Election denial movement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Election denial movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. rootsmusic (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russell Brand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics - gender and sexuality, biographies of living and recently deceased people

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look also at the information at this page, which appears every time you edit J. K. Rowling; Rowling is subject to two sets of sanctions, BLP and gender-related. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Transgender people in Nazi Germany

On 10 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Transgender people in Nazi Germany, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in just one night, thousands of books on the experiences and medical care of transgender people in Nazi Germany were burned (pictured) for being "un-German"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender people in Nazi Germany. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Transgender people in Nazi Germany), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,314 views (1,026.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for your work on the article, also featured on Portal:Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit - sources for consideration

Hi! I've noticed some RSP green sources from outside of the UK taking a notably different tone than the UK sources on the topic of your latest edit:

USA Today

Entertainment Weekly

Not sure if the current sourcing is already enough so thought I'd just leave them here for you. Since the wiki article already mentions the subject being litigious and the UK's restrictive libel law I thought a non-UK perspective might be worth considering. Have a great day! Umdlye (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alice Litman has been accepted

Alice Litman, 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 B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! 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!

Encoded Talk 💬 20:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Scarr

Hey 13tez, I came across your sandbox draft of Emily Scarr while checking links to the recently created Katy Watson article. I hope you don't mind I added infobox stats and otherwise formatted to player article standard. Although only a stub it looks good to go, ie passes GNG, and what better month to move to mainspace than Women In Red: Women in Sports Month! If you'd like any help or assistance with it feel free to ask. I noticed when creating Watson's page that Sunderland Echo is useful for establishing notability and content, for example [1][2][3], as well as Northern Echo it seems.[4] All the best, otherwise happy to adopt draft if needed. CNC (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the help. I've not been on Wikipedia for a while, so I've submitted it as a draft now to improve later when I (or someone else) has time. I still want to add "Career statistics" and "Honours" sections at some point, as well as updating Template:Sunderland A.F.C. Women squad (mainly writing for my own reference later on). 13tez (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Emily Scarr. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation overkill

Regarding this edit.

There is absolutely no need to introduce so many references for a short, simple sentence. Please see WP:OVERKILL. Mark83 (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emily Scarr has been accepted

Emily Scarr, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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!

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sunderland A.F.C. Women, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ellen Jones.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed source removal

Why are you repeatedly removing the La Nación source, now citing WP:RSPSOURCES? Its an Argentine newspaper of record and is not listed as deprecated or unreliable. I am disputing your removal, if you wish to gain a consensus to remove please take to the talkpage. AusLondonder (talk)` AusLondonder (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't make any more edits, but because the BBC is a far more reputable and well-known source that is one of the best ones to use for current news (see Wikipedia:Suggested_sources#Current news) and its article is in English so can be more easily understood by readers of English Wikipedia. It's just stronger sourcing and is easier to read. 13tez (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "far more reputable"? There's already multiple sources in English there. AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the most read news sources and has an established track-record for factuality. You can read more on why it's deemed more reliable and as one of the most reliable sources at WP:RSPBBC. That's why it's explicitly listed as one of the recommended sources for current news. It is true that there are already multiple English language sources there. Do you see that as a problem? After all, this is English Wikipedia, so sources should be in English if possible. A source being in English means that the readers of an article will be able to read the source too if they so wish. 13tez (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see English-language sources as a problem but I think the Argentinian source is helpful as well. I'm not suggesting the BBC is unreliable. You're suggesting the Argentinian newspaper is unreliable without evidence. Not sure why it's such a big deal. AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think having an Argentinian source would be helpful? I haven't claimed the Argentinian newspaper is unreliable. I'm saying the BBC is more reliable and reputable than the Argentinian newspaper and that we should use the most reliable and reputable sources possible. Do you disagree with that principle? If there was a different source even more reliable and reputable than the BBC we could use, I'd be advocating for that different source instead. However, that's not the case because, as I discussed in my last reply, the BBC is among the most reliable and reputable news sources. 13tez (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Rogan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understand policies before citing them

WP:USERGENERATED refers to things like Wikipedia, where any non-expert could add third-party information. Someone using their own social media to share something about themselves is not that, instead coming under WP:BLPSELFPUB. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realised that the relevant policy is WP:BLPSELFPUB rather than WP:USERGENERATED shortly after I made my relevant edit, but thanks for the heads-up! :) 13tez (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you undid my edit and restored the information re Keira Walsh being in a relationship with Laura Feiersinger in Keira Walsh#Personal life. WP:BLPSELFPUB says such a source may only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties". Similarly, WP:SELFSOURCE says such a source may only be used if it "does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)". WP:SOCIALMEDIA tells us we can only use such a source if it "does not involve claims about third parties". Since this clearly pertains to another person besides Walsh, please can you explain why sourcing from (only) Walsh's Instagram is acceptable here? Thank you! 13tez (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kingsif, I hope you're doing well! I'm not sure if you got a notification for my above reply ("I just saw you undid my edit and..."), so I'm just mentioning you now so you'll definitely see it. Please read it over and get back to me when you can. Thank you! 13tez (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, you'll have probably noticed I've not been on Wikipedia since then, so sorry for the late reply. To answer, while I don't think there's ever been a formal discussion about it, people posting about their relationships (especially when the other party is tagged/mentioned) has always been accepted under BLPSELFPUB - the "third parties" notes were written with the intention of preventing anecdotes that would otherwise be non-RS under SOCIALMEDIA (i.e. a person recounts an event they were involved in and mentions other people, the source cannot be used on the article for the other people to say they were involved).

So while by the absolute letter of how it's written you could argue that the "third parties" note would mean, somebody posting that they are in a relationship is fine but them posting who they are in a relationship with is not, in practical terms there is no difference. And especially when their partner is tagged and so it is implicitly their publication, too. By the spirit of the policy, it's always been accepted. Of course, if you're a stickler for the exact wording, I imagine there will be posts on Feiersinger's Instagram too - when it was originally added to Walsh's article, there was just a generic Instagram link so I tried to find the posts I assumed the user had seen myself and just went with one. Kingsif (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for getting back to me.

while I don't think there's ever been a formal discussion about it, people posting about their relationships (especially when the other party is tagged/mentioned) has always been accepted under BLPSELFPUB

Is this written within WP:P&G, or any other rules or advice for Wikipedia? Are there any prominent examples of the editor community forming this view as a consensus? I couldn't find anything to that effect in WT:BLP or its archives.

somebody posting that they are in a relationship is fine but them posting who they are in a relationship with is not, in practical terms there is no difference

Do you not think there's a difference between somebody confirming their relationship status and somebody confirming they're in a relationship with a particular person?

And especially when their partner is tagged and so it is implicitly their publication, too

Do you think Feiersinger being tagged makes it a joint post? After all, this is different from collaborative posts on Instagram, the functionality through which posts are published jointly with other users on that platform.

Do you think, if we were to decide that an Instagram post is a suitable source to say someone is in a relationship, that this one does that? After all, the caption is only "Liab." I'm not sure which language this is, but, as far as I can ascertain, it isn't an explicit statement that the two are indeed in a relationship.

Thank you! :) 13tez (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]