User talk:Mendezes Cousins/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Mendezes Cousins, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DES (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
No it should not be removed if not sourced. Single Coil pickup article is very encyclopedic, so thank you Mendezes, as large amounts of unsourced, uncited material is added by stupid editors such as me. It all should be removed by you because you're so great. I see you are extremely experienced. Please don't revert yourself. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will make fixes. Mendezes Cousins (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Mendezes Cousins (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Done so well. If it is not sourced and after a bit of time it will be removed by you sir. Most of the article needs to be removed at this point. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Twist-locking connectors


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Twist-locking connectors. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – NEMA connector. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at NEMA connector – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Jeh (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that you are NOT permitted to remove the CSD tag. Jeh (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mendezes Cousins As part of your editting regarding the un-discussed attempts by stupid other editors to remove the existing Twist-locking section from the NEMA Connector article, you re-reverted my revert of your removal with the comment "rv clutter at large by disruptive pretend engineer with no knowledge".  You should understand that what you were removing was not "clutter", and that the reversions by myself and three other experienced editors were most certainly not "disruptive".  As for the accusation that I am a "pretend engineer", that is beneath contempt.  For someone who has been editing WP for only a few days, and who has already nominated himself as an WP administrator, you are taking a very strange approach to demonstrating that you might be a useful and constructive member of the community! FF-UK (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Build wiring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Authenticity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mendezes Cousins "Build wiring" is not an expression in normal English usage (either British English or American English) it is not, therefore, an appropriate WP title. The correct expression would be "Building Wiring", but the existing article:  Electrical wiring describes itself as This article is about building wiring. and a WP search for "Building Wiring" will return the Electrical wiring article.  That article also has a redirect from Wiring   There would seem to be no need for another article on the same subject! Given your current controversial activity on a number of articles it would probably be a judicious move for you to delete Build wiring rather than waiting for another editor to mark it for speedy deletion. FF-UK (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Twistlock
You do not need to discuss this first before making such a radical change to the articles. Per WP:BRD, you Boldly made a change, which is fine, it was Reverted, which is fine, now it is incumbent on you to Discuss why that change should be made. Crow  Caw 18:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the complications of that subject means it warrants an article of its own. Mendezes Cousins (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That may very well be true, but you need to get consensus among the editors of the page first. Just copying the content to a new article without expanding it, though, doesn't really make your case for it needing its own article. Crow  Caw  19:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mendezes:
 * You've been reverted twice, by different editors. You have no consensus for this change. Nobody is obligated to agree with your stated opinion.
 * It was an admin who previously deleted your page Twist-locking connectors for reason WP:A10, " Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". So you are not only going against consensus here, you are going against an admin's decision. If you persist I will simply CSD the page again.
 * You should be aware that there are connectors that could be described as "twist-locking connectors" that are not NEMA connectors, so while that title is appropriate for a subsection under NEMA that covers the NEMA twist-locking connectors, it is not appropriate for an article title.
 * You are not permitted to simply copy text from one article to make a new article, as that action does not preserve the edit history. Instead the new article's edit history makes it look as if you wrote it all. That violates Wikipedia's policies about attribution.
 * When deleting the material from the NEMA article you have been giving deliberately misleading edit summaries, like "all fixed now". This is distruptive behavior. As is editing against consensus.
 * This is not the place to discuss whether "twist-locking connector" does or does not merit its own page. Please take that discussion to TALK:NEMA connector. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the place to discuss would be Talk:NEMA connector, where you would create a New Section using that button, called something like "Split off NEMA locking types to new article", then discuss. Your latest revert said "Already discussed", which it has most certainly not been. Just saying your opinion, then proceeding with the change, is not discussion. There's no rush, so having us all talk it out on the talk page for a few days, then arriving at a consensus (read that link), is the proper way to go. Continuing like this is likely to get you blocked, and nobody wants that. Also, not following our standard discussion policy is not going to work in your favor here... Crow  Caw  19:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Your recent editing history at NEMA connector shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeh (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:BRD. When a change is disputed, the article should stay in the status-quo situation from before the change until discussion says it should be changed. In this case, it means the twist-connector content is in the NEMA connector article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. —Jeh (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Schmidt–Rubin 1896/11 Rifle


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Schmidt–Rubin 1896/11 Rifle. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Schmidt–Rubin. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Schmidt–Rubin – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Jeh (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Addendum: As you will see in talk:Schmidt–Rubin the bulk of the material in that article was discovered to be an unambiguous WP:COPYVIO, and has been deleted. This included all of the text that you copied from there to Schmidt–Rubin 1896/11 Rifle, so the corresponding material has been deleted from that article as well. The CSD remains but will shortly be changed to reason A3, "no content". Sorry about that. Jeh (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Building wiring (electronics)


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Building wiring (electronics). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Mains electricity. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Mains electricity – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Jeh (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition, the word "electronics" is not used to refer to AC power wiring, so your article title is misleading. Jeh (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps later
Hello Mendezes Counsins and welcome. I see that you registered your account about a week ago, and I appreciate the fact that you want to help Wikipedia by removing vandalism and improving articles that are about subjects you know something about. That's great! I also noticed that you have nominated yourself to become an administrator on English Wikipedia. Being an administrator on Wikipedia is no small task, and it usually takes a lot of experience before someone is ready for this responsibility. I suspect that you might not have enough experience on Wikipedia to start administrator tasks, although perhaps later this will change. An essay that might help you understand this can be found by clicking here.

The good news is that you can correct vandalism yourself -- as you have done already -- without needing the administrator tools. The main difference is that with the tools, editors who vandalize a lot can be blocked and, when needed, articles can be deleted or undeleted, or special protection can be applied for a period of time. Meanwhile, when you need these tasks performed, you can ask an administrator to do them. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 23:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Davison Electrical


A tag has been placed on Davison Electrical, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jeh (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

General note on copying article content
Articles that have a long edit history generally have a large number of editors interested in them. Although WP does recommend "be bold", you should be aware that a new editor who comes in and tries to dictate a new organization on long-standing content is going to elicit some pushback. To avoid this, please first discuss the copying or splitting proposal on the original article's talk page. Then you may avoid getting a bunch of notices like the ones above.

Such copies also lose the edit history of the copied material, and it is important to preserve this. There are template tags for that. WP:SPLIT has the details.

Even if that is done it is most egregious of you to claim credit for "starting" the new article, as you have in three cases. You haven't "started" a new article unless you've created the body text, and that does not mean copying it from somewhere else, even with attribution!

Also, please be careful about creating redirects and when moving articles. Your Extension cables redirect would appear above as a WP:CSD notice, but it's already been deleted. Reason: "Extension cable" is a very generic term, but you redirected it to Stage pin connector. I'm aware that there are extension cables in the stage pin connector area, but you must be aware that there are a very large number of things called "extension cables" that have many other types of connectors - I probably have a dozen different types in this very room. So the terms are by no means synonymous. (Nor do we generally end article titles with plurals.)

In sum, in just one week you've created hours of unnecessary work for other editors. I would advise you to please slow down and try to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's norms. A good way to do that while still contributing is to focus on making small improvements to articles for a while. In particular, don't simply remove "unreferenced" tags; fix the problem. (But not by copying copyrighted content, of course.)

Thank you for your understanding. Jeh (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

RfA
Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have deleted your Request for Adminship before it started. We appreciate your enthusiasm but immediately wanting to be an adminstrator on Wikipedia is not a good reason why anyone should join the project. We are surprised that you were unable to read and understand all the instructions and advice you were given before creating the RfA page, and I've also noticed the many comments here on your talk page which show that you don't yet have sufficient knowledge of our policies - especially about creating articles. That said, Wikipedia does need your help and you  could start  by making  small  but  important  improvements to  existing  articles. When you have made 200  edits to  articles without  any  problems, you  may  wish  to  help  us combat  vandalism and you  can learn all  about  that  at  WP:CVU. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. S warm  ♠  06:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

All right, I was in the wrong and for that there is no excuse.

I'll try my best to conform to all the guidelines and framework once the block gets lifted.

Many thanks.

Mendezes Cousins (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given your response, I'll go ahead and lift the block early. Regards, S warm   ♠  06:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)