|"There is nobody who, having a garden, shouldn’t plant a great number [of black currant bushes] for the needs of their family,” wrote the Abbé P. Bailly de Montaran in 1712. And he added: “Black currant is a fruit that promotes long life in human beings.” Podsolnechnik (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)|
|The Empty Set Barnstar|
|For emptying Category:Orphaned articles from March 2008. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC).
Yo Ho Ho
You've got mail
Hello, BlackcurrantTea. Thank you for your message on my talk page.
I am aware of the policy on verifiability, and my changes to serious articles almost always include a reference. I admit that I was a tad idle in not including a reference on Ulster Protestants. I felt that it was wrong that the Methodists were not mentioned in the main body of the article and that, given that the infobox did mention Methodists, my edit was simply bringing alignment. I should really have done some searching on Google Books to find some reference to how Methodism came to Northern Ireland.
With the edits to Fleabag and Johnny B Goode, it is worth pointing out that most articles on popular culture do not have many references. Wikipedia has an article on virtually every TV series, radio series, band and film - and most of these articles are light on references. This is also true of many of the articles on hobbies; for example, there is a lengthy article on knitting with hardly any references and not even a warning tag to say that the article needs more references. I've been on Wikipedia for many years and this just seems like an established custom now. No one seems to be making any effort to police those articles for verifiability.
Part of the issue is that reliable sources (as usually defined on the serious articles in Wikipedia) do not normally discuss subjects such as TV series or knitting. If administrators were to be strict in enforcing the line "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", a lot of articles would have to be deleted entirely.
I hope that you understand me here. I understand the importance of verifiability as a policy on Wikipedia, but I was just following a long-standing custom that this policy is not enforced much on the less serious subjects. Best wishes Epa101 (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Epa101, thank you for your thoughtful response – and for adding references to those articles. Because I fix CS1 errors, I may pay more attention to references than most editors. I know that many articles are short on references, reliable or otherwise. I don't see this as a desirable state of affairs for any topic. I realise there are subjects for which sources are scarce. Sometimes when they exist, they're inaccessible. At the Wikipedia Library there are requests that can't be fulfilled despite the best efforts of dedicated editors. Those aren't the sources I had in mind when I left the message on your talk page.
- I'm sure you want to improve Wikipedia, otherwise you wouldn't be editing. You say that verifiability's not often 'enforced'; I see it as something that shouldn't need to be. A missing reference in that knitting article may not have the potential for harm one in a medical article might, but isn't it nicer to have it than not?
- Imagine yourself as an interested reader who's not an editor (yet). Isn't it more fun to know where the information came from? Of course you can look around online for yourself. But perhaps there's an odd old book that wouldn't show up in a search, or an obscure Dutch website that Google's algorithm won't show you until page 14 of the results, and because there are thousands of us here someone will have found those sources, and they're right there for you. Isn't that brilliant? Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
AN talk page
- Right, of course. I remember how labyrinthine the noticeboards can seem, and knew that wall of text on the talk page wasn't going to do them any good. I wasn't thinking of the time requirement for autoconfirmed, and didn't look at their history closely. That's rather more drama than most editors manage on their first day. Thanks, Someguy1221. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Curdle, error messages can do that! Glad I could help. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
A cup of tea for you!
|Thanks for your help and recommendations. Hope your enjoy this tea. (By the way funny story, (maybe) I'm actually drinking tea while typing this message). Making disambiguation pages appear orange is really helpful! OkayKenG (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)|
- Thanks for the cuppa, OkayKenji! As you might expect from my username I quite like tea, and another cup is welcome. I'm glad the orange links help. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Block in Middle power
Filter of this type doesn't work. Somebody added Ireland without citations.Now article is ridiculous. The fact somebody edited many times isn't sufficient to qualify. Thank for your attention. You should delete Ireland aand you solve this problem. Thanks again.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- 33Hudsonbay33, thanks for letting me know. I've removed Ireland. In the future, the best way to get something like this fixed is to post on the talk page - which I see you did - and use an edit request. With that you can ask that the unsourced information be removed, or, if you find a source for it, ask that the reference be added. Edit requests are added to a queue which will often receive a quicker response than posting to an individual editor's talk page like this one. Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
ETA was classified as a terrorist group by Spain, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and the European Union, but not for you or for english Wikipedia. All very coherent. --Goldorak (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Philippe. Thank you for following the COI procedure. I understand that requesting edits and waiting for another editor's assistance might be frustrating, and I appreciate it. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, there have been a series of edits at Carl Eduard von Bismarck page, would you help keeping an eye on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedrichsruh-Aumuhle (talk • contribs) 11:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Friedrichsruh-Aumuhle, I took a quick look at it. If it's an ongoing problem, you might want to request page protection for the article. I noticed you undid my revert of the IP's edit.
- The edit removed references. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Removing references to reliable sources is not helpful.
- The edit added titles which we do not use. Please review the Manual of Style, especially the section on titles.
- Please sign your talk pages posts with four tildes (~~~~).
- I don't know how long you've been here, as you seem familiar with some Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but not all of them. I'll put an automated welcome message on your talk page with lots of helpful links. As I'm about to log off and I'm not sure when I'll next be editing, please visit the Wikipedia Teahouse if you have questions or need help. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for my recent edits of spaces, because it’s a new article I didn’t want to loose my modifications due to many changes oftentimes in less space of time from many users. Thank you and see you soon!😁--Consumers (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)