Tesk0002

Welcome to Wikipedia

Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

• Main Introduction — What is Wikipedia?
• Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers — A good starting point.
• The Five Pillars — What are the principles behind Wikipedia?
• Quick Introductions to:

• Policies and guidelines — How does Wikipedia actually work?
• Talk pages — How do I communicate in Wikipedia?
• Referencing — How do I add sources to articles?
• Uploading images — How do I add and use images?
• Navigating Wikipedia — How do I find my way around?

• What Wikipedia is not - even though everyone can edit it, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the many help pages.

• Google: Wikipedia is very well indexed by Google. Searching for a term, even about an editing question, followed by "wiki" or "wikipedia" usually pulls up what you need.

Where next?

• Check out Help:Watching pages. Your own Watchlist can become your favorite place to visit.
• If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
• If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
• If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
• For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page or the Wikipedia:Teahouse page could be your next stop!

See also

• Help:Starting editing

Good luck and happy editing.```Buster Seven Talk 06:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Tesk0002. 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 TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pygmy pipehorses.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pygmy pipehorses.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! smtchahal^(talk) 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm SarahStierch. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It was not a mistake it was frustration, then to be accused at a supposedly welcoming place of "canvasing," a typical bite the newbie bad faith accusation, get your article rejected by someone who can't speak taxonomy, then this template on top of everything? A personal kote would have been much more welcoming and considerate, one that included reading the situation with an editor who has been so completely told off. -198.228.216.155 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Pygmy pipehorses, non-monophyletic

I have had this happen and have it happen all of the time The general consensus on Wikipedia is that anyone can aggregate articles for an encyclopedia. You should not read the amphibian articles too closely, at species and genus levels there is one editor plagiarizing a forty year old field guide onto Wikipedia, and higher taxa are a contradictory mess of pre and post PCR taxonomies written by an editor with no understanding of evolution. Yes, the pygmy pipehorses can have an article as a distinctly discussed group of organisms, although the article should not have a taxobox. You have a registered account, and you do not need to use articles for creation. Of course you will probably run into a deletion battle by the same group that does not understand taxonomy and organism articles on Wikipedia and is blocking you now, but, slender comfort that it may be, your proposed article is fully within the guidelines of organism articles on Wikipedia, as you have pointed out. The fish articles could use a good editor with some expertise, but it is difficult to be accepted.due to the hihh social networking trumping the encyclopedia. I hope you try again, as I would like to read your article about these curious fishes, so closely related to the seahorse, but not upright swimmers. -198.228.216.155 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Instead of just sniping from the sidelines with snide and unbalanced remarks, I invite you create an account and improve the articles you think can be improved. There is certainly a lot of work that needs to be done, and if you mostly know what you think you know, you could become a highly valued editor. If you just stomp around loudly putting everyone down, your useful messages may get lost because editors are not bothering to move past the rudeness. But if you are even handed, you will mostly have good experiences. Tesk0002 had problems which shouldn't have happened, but his biggest problem was when he prematurely withdrew his article. That's what really blocked the process. Some robustness is needed to be an editor on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I found his/her assessment how the system works (or doesn't work) very enlightening, and have changed my strategy accordingly. Putting it out into the open and letting someone who has just finished editing an article on "Star Wars - Attack of the Clones" have a go at it was clearly a bad move. Now I'm quietly building it up where only those who really have an interest in this subject will come across it. Tesk0002 (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Good. Once you have an account (not just an IP address) over 4 days old with more than 10 edits, it becomes autoconfirmed and you have more rights (this account is now autoconfirmed). You might be interested in joining WikiProject Fishes. You might also find it useful to develop articles in the privacy of your own sandbox. I'll start one for you if you are not sure how to do it. This avoids being hassled while you are developing an article. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for moving forward with the article. I look forward to reading it. -198.228.216.175 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be good. Concerning WikiProject Fishes, I'm more an invertebrate guy who happens to have worked on fishes a few years ago. I'll see if I can find myself another group to join. 129.96.149.137 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... it seems you can't create a sandbox for someone else now. Click on this redlink: User:Tesk0002/Sandbox and then save it. That should create your personal sandbox. At the top right of your screen is a link called "Sandbox". Click on that and it should open your personal sandbox. You could check out WikiProject Gastropods and WikiProject Arthropods. If you introduce yourself to Invertzoo (talk · contribs) she will give you a warm welcome to the gastropods project. From now on try and remember to log in each time to your proper account. Otherwise you will be using your IP account, as you did in your last post. You may enjoy reading about the famous Randy in Boise. You will meet Randy again in different disguises, as we all do. Regards, and I hope to see you around. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice cup of tea

Hi! I saw you at Special:Log/newusers, and when I read your talk page, you seemed frustrated. Hopefully a nice cup of tea will help?

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

~~~ has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Nah, I'm more of a coffee+beer drinker and prefer life in the hectic lane. All seems quiet, but that's because I've learned from my mistakes and am doing things in secrecy now... Ta, Me Tesk0002 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hippocampinae

I saw a link to the article, and took a look. It's actually quite good. :)

I'm sorry if my comments at the Teahouse came across wrong. Due mostly to my lack of familiarity (which is apparently shared on AfC) with the critters, the fact that the taxonomy is rather confused (at least as far as how WP is linked now) and what was said in the text you linked, I misunderstood what article you were trying to create. It read like you were wanting to create a detailed article on one of the members of Acentronura.

Not that that in and of itself would be a bad thing, but without changes to other articles, including the one I linked, it would be even more confusing than it is now.

I did a couple of formatting tweaks, mostly down at the bottom of the page, adding the navbox and biology portal. I'd like to suggest a couple more changes, not to the content (it's an excellent article, and I compliment you), but to the layout. This is mostly because of what I see when I adjust my screen to different zoom levels. For some people, the column of images on the right really breaks the way the text appears.

I started a thread on the article's talk page, and gave a link to my 'suggested' layout on a copy of the article. Please take a look and let me know what you think in that thread. Thanks. :)

I also adjusted the way the 'pygmy pipehorse' is linked, for reader clarity. Pygmy pipehorses is now a redirect, that aims someone who searches for it to the 'sublist' in the genera section. This isn't 'permanent' or anything, it's just to change what people will find when they do a search....the article, instead of a 'not found' page.

Revent (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, the layout now looks weird on my screen because there's a huge gap in there, but it should be better on tablets. I was actually planning to create a fairly short page on pygmy pipehorses (which makes sense if there's even one on pygmy seahorses, which are not yet a taxonomic group of their own). That page would list all the species, with links to the species pages that already exist, and give more detail on the fossils, but it wouldn't have a taxobox.

Tesk0002 (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for the slow response....I actually like Epipelagic's fix a lot better than mine...I was just kind of 'illustrating' what was broken about it with a quick tweak. FYI, when you create the 'pygmy pipehorses' article, the way to do it is to search for that term, then look at the top of the page on the Hippocampinae article that comes up. Click the 'redirected from' and it'll give you the 'redirect article', and you can then edit that like normal....just leave out the redirect line. Revent (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for DYK

I've nominated Hippocampinae for a DYK. I've done this for you this time so you can see how it is done, and you can do it yourself in the future. If the nomination is successful, then in a few days the article will get considerable exposure by being mentioned on the front page of Wikipedia for 8 hours, and you will get the credit for its expansion. You can follow it's progress and make any changes you want here. --Epipelagic (talk · contribs) 23:02, 9 May 2013‎ (UTC)

DYK for Hippocampinae

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lübbecke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)