User talk:SteamboatPhilly

What do you think about AIs on Wikipedia?

Hi SteamboatPhilly,

Welcome to the Wikipedia community! :)

Did you know that there are numerous Artificial Intelligences (AIs) that support Wikipedia? I saw your post on Teahouse, so I wanted to reach out. Are you interested in participating in a short interview to share your thoughts about how Wikipedia AIs should work? It would only take about 15-30 minutes over phone or video chat. Could be a fun way for you to learn more about how Wikipedia works!

I am working in collaboration with Wikimedia Foundation staff to do this research, so if you decide to participate, your opinion could help build the future of Wikipedia. I’m personally contacting only a small handful of new Wikipedia editors, so please let me know if you are interested or have any questions. Hope to talk to you soon!

Best, Estelle FauxNeme (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You can learn more about our study here.

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, SteamboatPhilly. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi SteamboatPhilly! You created a thread called Best way to start new article? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation needed

You might be interested in the Template:Citation needed. "The {{Citation needed}} template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided. Other templates are available for other or more specific issues; see the list of inline templates." StrayBolt (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! SteamboatPhilly (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi SteamboatPhilly! You created a thread called A question about two editors editing the same article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, SteamboatPhilly. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi SteamboatPhilly! You created a thread called Added an already-existing image to an article, a bot removed it, not sure why at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Ford

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I believe your last removal of content was in violation of 3RR; I would suggest that you self-revert. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's really rich, coming from the guy who started reverting my edits of content that is sourced to a blog. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:EW and WP:3RR. With certain exceptions (that don't apply in this case), "being right" is not an excuse for crossing the 3RR bright-line. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit violates WP:3RR, and per policy it does not matter whether your edit was otherwise correct or not. I suggest that you revert and wait for consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi SteamboatPhilly! You created a thread called First time considering submitting an article for deletion at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi SteamboatPhilly! You created a thread called If a content is sourced to a personal, self-published blog (written by a non-notable writer), should that content be removed from the article? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]