You need to read our wp:policies (including the ones whose links you have now removed from your talk page). Make sure your edits (generally, we all make mistakes) conform to them. And accept this is a collaborative process, and you need to get other users on your side. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Any edit to an article must be supported by a reliable source wp:rs, what you think it is is not enough wp:or. Someone else must have also said it publicly wp:v.
2. Text must be relevant to the topic, whatever you think if it is not relevant (SEE 1) wp:undue.
3. Assume good faith, no user is out to get you (Nor are our policies) wp:agf.
4. Comment on content, not users. Argue against that they say, not who they arewp:npa.
5. When you are a lone voice in the wilderness do not fight your corner, accept no one agrees with you, and do something else with your time.
7. We are all unpaid here, we do this out of a sense of (whatever reason someone gives), they do not want to waste it.
To a degree yes. If you just repeat the same comment over and over again it will be seen as disruptive, as will if you ask why an article does not say something when it does. But no, not every word or comma. Just enough to not look like an idiot when you (for example) ask why the WW2 article does not mention Nazi Germany. wp:cir may well be brought up if you keep on asking foolish questions. You will be expected at some point to stand on your own two feet as an editor, and not ask the same question over and over again in the hope of getting the answer you want. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red Wikilinks
An editor may create a red-color Wikilink by putting double brackets around a word or term for which an article does not yet exist. The intent is to suggest that this is a valid topic for an article not yet written. In general, removing red Wikilinks does not improve an article, although in some instances the red Wikilinks are to topics so obscure that there is little to no potential for a draft on those topics to succeed. Better to leave red Wikilinks in place. David notMD (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are doing well. Your CVUA course is ready here. Sorry for the delay as I have been busy crosswiki. Hopefully, you have edited some articles, as to understand how the policies and guidelines are put into action. If you have any inquiries, I will always be there for you. Good luck! ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also wp:cir comes into it (I am sure I have mentioned this already), you existed a lot of patience by asking "but what can I do", "yes but hoW and WHAT do i DO", ad nausium. look at your own talk page, how many teahouse threads? Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you do not need an account, you can still read WP without one and [[1]] is an edit, the first one you made, so now you are also clearly not telling the truth I will leave you to dig an been deeper hole. Note if you keep on waisting users time here, you will lose the ability to edit this talk page as well. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it was a justified block. I haven't seen the user contributing to actual content, and just waste people's time. Given that they enrolled to the CVUA, I will close the course as invalid. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello TheSmartWikiOne! The thread you created at the Teahouse, owner of wikipedia name, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
