This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi FAdesdae378! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Shirt58 (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, you reverted my edit to the Frederick Karl page. There, someone else had made several claims without any support or citation: that Karl's book was "infamous" for omitting Saroyan; that Saroyan was "one of the 20th century's most popular, esteemed, and influential writers." I put a little flag on this sentence — "Says who?" — so the reader would be alert to the editorializing and lack of evidence for these claims.

Anyway, you probably have the better of it and the whole line should be deleted until some evidence can be adduced to support it.

Cheers.

174.64.49.58 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Explain your revert because right now it's looking a lot like vandalism and improper reversion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read carefully Template:Redirect/doc and Template:Redirect-distinguish/doc. FAdesdae378 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Had you bothered to actually include that in your edit summary, this wouldn't be an issue. Going forward, you must provide edit summaries when reverting someone unless it's obvious vandalism PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi,FAdesdae378. With due respect, your editing behavior tends to convey the impression that you might have edited Wikipedia at some time in the past, being as you are rather overeager and abrupt for a rank beginner. Calling a simple question "vandalism" is considered disruptive. Not answering an honest question may be seen as rude. Perhaps you have extensively edited other wikis, perhaps even Wikipedia. Nonetheless, your edits at the Teahouse as well as certain "antivandalism" actions have flagged your behavior in the eyes of other editors. Have you read The 5 pillars of Wikipedia?

As you may or may not already know, once your Wikipedia account is 10 days old and you have made 500 edits, you are able to edit protected articles.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I have never edited Wikipedia before. I removed the question because it was posted on the top of my talk page. I have read carefully the five pillars of Wikipedia. I am a constructive editor, and all constructive editors revert vandalism. The edit I reverted to Zach Bryan was disruptive. The IP who made the edit changed the home town without providing an edit summary. FAdesdae378 (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think your reversal of my addition from a cited article, which was meant to fully express Cindy Sheehan's own ideas was based on politically inclined censorship, which is what wikipedia is not supposed to be about. I didn't add any that wasn't from the cited article and most of it was a quote from Cindy Sheehan herself that fully expressed how she felt herself. If people censor wikipedia editors who are acting in good faith to add relevant info how can it possibly survive? Archiecastlebooks (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to re-add the content, please do so outside the wikilink. FAdesdae378 (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi FAdesdae378! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Page protection, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi FAdesdae378, the edit summary of Special:Diff/1093515445 appears to be incorrect, as the user had voiced an accuracy concern (which is implicitly a verifiability concern, as there likely won't be reliable sources for inaccurate statements), so the removal was not "unexplained".

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)