User talk:Sistorian

Hi, Jéské and Helloheart. Hope you are both well. Thank you for your answers that give me food for thought. Much appreciated and best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.27.91 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to the good comments above that if you do not provide an email address to an account, it is not possible to recover your password if you forget it. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 331dot. I'm surprised an email address isn't mandatory for a membership. It is at many other sites. If I decide to join, I'll bear that in mind. I'm always forgetting passwords. Thank you and best wishes.

79.73.27.91 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add my own "Welcome to the Teahouse" message for you, and just address something the others above have not. You asked about "benefits" and "constraints". The great benefit of editing Wikipedia (whether logged on with a free account, or as an IP user living in Swindon) is the great feeling of accomplishment that you're able to contribute in your own small way to this amazing encyclopaedia, with its 6.2 million articles. There are definitely "constraints", though we like to call them "Policies & Guidelines. Boy, do we have lots of 'em!!!

But don't panic, they're all basically there to make sure we only add content that can be

CONSENSUS, and don't either accidentally or intentionally cause disruption. Common sense basically applies when you start out editing - and I hope you enjoy it. But if you want to get a sense of all those lovely "constraints", do take a quick peek at Wikipedia:List of policies. So, a hearty welcome to a project - one that you'll either try out and abandon after a few goes, or discover a whole new, exciting world of information sharing and world-wide education and cooperation. We're here to help and guide you as you start out on this journey if you need us. Regards from the East Midlands, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You may also want to read Wikipedia:Why create an account? Deor (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nick and Deor. I have decided I will open an account. I do a lot of historical research as a hobby. I think it will be fun to do some editing too. I am short of time this morning. Will think of a name and let you know. Thank you all so much for helping me and your words of welcome. Best wishes and laters.

79.73.27.91 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your positive contributions! It's great to see new editors here at the Teahouse. Have a wonderful day!

talk) 06:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, EpicPupper, and everyone else above. I have opened my account as Sistorian. My sister calls me that because I love history. Don't worry, she has a nickname too! I have made a start by trying to address some of the issues in articles recommended by the system. Two will need a lot more work so I have added them to the watchlist, which must be very useful to have. I am not sure if I will have any more time today but I should be able to come back tomorrow. Thank you again, everyone, for all your help and the very kind words of welcome. Best wishes.

Sistorian (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bit about yourself vis-à-vis your intentions as a Wikipedia editor, written on your User page, will turn your name to blue. David notMD (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. I have been thinking about that page. It seems as if other editors use it in any number of ways. I'll do as you suggest, though, and no doubt the page will evolve in time. Thank you and best wishes.

Sistorian (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, David. I looked at your User page and saw the userbox for an amateur historian, which is what I am. I have "borrowed" it and hope you don't mind. Thank you.

Sistorian (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sistorian! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, British spellings in an article about a British topic, 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 talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Despite being a very new editor, you've independently managed to identify and articulate one of the biggest issues with sportsperson biographies on WP, which is very impressive! I absolutely agree with your assessment of cricketers and I hope you'll consider contributing to future discussions on notability guidelines at

Hi, JoelleJay. Thank you for your kind words but I am not sure about "independently" because I have had considerable assistance, albeit indirectly, from editors like yourself who have posted the concerns and suggested remedies. I believe an encyclopaedia needs to emphasise quality over quantity. Otherwise, it will fail its public and lapse into disuse. I only had to scan the links on Lugnuts' home page to see that they have created masses of minor articles with inadequate sourcing. As I said at the case page, I play cricket myself and I know who is significant in the women's game. I think we should have articles about the players who have received media attention in the form of "significant coverage", but not those who have only been the supporting acts, no matter how good they might be in relative terms.

I will add those links to my watchlist and certainly will take part in the discussions. I have made a start at the AFD process and I am finding it interesting. I do not mind a combative environment at all. I always aim to say what I think and to stay cool. I will look at the past discussions which I am sure will be very useful. Thank you again and best wishes.

Sistorian (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now you've started nominating articles -- the cricket crowd is tough since there are offline/closed sources that sometimes provide SIGCOV, but generally the only editors who have access to them are already in the "keep or redirect everything" camp so it's difficult to assess whether they actually do have more than just proseified stats. The best way to demonstrate that sources aren't likely to exist is to outline what searches you did, especially your analysis of any coverage in Wisden obit-blurbs, searches in a subject's original language as well as any alternate transliterations of names, and potential redirect targets. If you do this in your nomination statement you'll get a lot less resistance and will score some points with the more reasonable cricket project AfD participants, who can get understandably jaded by nominations they perceive as "lacking in BEFORE". Good luck! JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, JoelleJay. This is very useful advice which I will follow as I make progress. Best wishes.

Sistorian (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators:

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.

Girth Summit _(blether) 13:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The page Category:Wikipedians interested in the England women's national football team has been deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. As the page met any of these strictly-defined criteria, it was deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been deleted are:

• The category had been empty for seven days or more and it was not presently under discussion at
  section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion
  .)

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with