SickNWristed
Welcome!
editHi SickNWristed! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I see that you undid my cleanup of Tea (app) with the summary "app is primarily known for the controversy". I don't think this is a good enough reason to trample on our policies regarding due weight and summary style.--Launchballer 06:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hey Launchballer! At the present time, Tea is primarily known for the controversy it has generated. There's been little mention in reliable sources outside of privacy, data protection, and defamation concerns, and the reception has overall been frosty. SickNWristed (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I did read your edit summary. I don't see why this means (for example) that the article should repeat itself so often or be stuffed with undue quotes from random commentators (or even quote so heavily full stop).--Launchballer 18:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- What quotes do you see as undue? SickNWristed (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you that there's substantial flaws in the article, atm. SickNWristed (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- My version contained no quotes whatsoever, which I think answers your question. Take the first section, for example: First released in 2023, Tea's polarizing reception led it to go viral in July 2025 after it "became the subject of videos and conversations about dating and gender dynamics on social media."[4][5] In its marketing, Tea's makers described it as "more than an app; it's a sisterhood", and promise that it can "find verified green flag men".[6] A publicity release on the company's Instagram channel features a description of the app as "An app that's like Yelp, except for it's reviews of men."[7][8] On its website, the company describes the app as "the safest place to spill tea",[6] using a term that refers to spreading gossip or inside information.[9][10] As of July 2025, the app's developers claimed it has over 4.6 million users.[6] Most of the first sentence (as in, all but the first four words) doesn't belong in this article, the sisterhood and yelp quotes are sourced to its own website (as is the 4.6 million users statistic) and don't really add anything, and the 'gossip' clause is not cited to sources that mention the app.--Launchballer 10:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Those changes seem fine to me. I have no objection! :)
- For now, Tea is known near-exclusively for its security practices and alleged privacy violations, and the resulting social media firestorm about it.SickNWristed (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- My version contained no quotes whatsoever, which I think answers your question. Take the first section, for example: First released in 2023, Tea's polarizing reception led it to go viral in July 2025 after it "became the subject of videos and conversations about dating and gender dynamics on social media."[4][5] In its marketing, Tea's makers described it as "more than an app; it's a sisterhood", and promise that it can "find verified green flag men".[6] A publicity release on the company's Instagram channel features a description of the app as "An app that's like Yelp, except for it's reviews of men."[7][8] On its website, the company describes the app as "the safest place to spill tea",[6] using a term that refers to spreading gossip or inside information.[9][10] As of July 2025, the app's developers claimed it has over 4.6 million users.[6] Most of the first sentence (as in, all but the first four words) doesn't belong in this article, the sisterhood and yelp quotes are sourced to its own website (as is the 4.6 million users statistic) and don't really add anything, and the 'gossip' clause is not cited to sources that mention the app.--Launchballer 10:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- I did read your edit summary. I don't see why this means (for example) that the article should repeat itself so often or be stuffed with undue quotes from random commentators (or even quote so heavily full stop).--Launchballer 18:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
August 2025
edit
Hello, I'm Tony Holkham. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Finland, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- No problem! Sources are incoming. SickNWristed (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- @SickNWristed this material is POV at best, and wholly encyclopedic at worst. Countries at-large do not have "values" in any factual sense. Countries have histories, governments, geography, demographics. It's wholly vacuous to discuss a political entity's (or an individual's!) values as if it was a matter of empirical reality. It's not wrong to make such statements in general, it's just what one does in an essay or opinion piece, not in an encyclopedia article. Remsense 🌈 论 21:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have particularly strong feelings on this, but Canada (a FA), Norway, Sweden, the United States, and most other "major" countries have their reported values listed. It's atypical that Spain and Finland didn't have listed values when there's much high-quality scholarship about both countries. The Constitution of Spain and the Government of Finland list all of the values on their websites/official documents. Perhaps we shouldn't be doing that, but it's unusual that they don't have listed values when FA's include them. SickNWristed (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I equally disagree with the inclusion framed as such on Canada, US et al., to be clear, but that is not a discussion I am likely to have site policy on my side for, given on Canada at least the citations are considerably more robust. Remsense 🌈 论 22:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this should be a higher-level Wikiproject discussion. Almost every FA or GA-listed country article (outside of Wales... which is complicated as it is part of the United Kingdom) has some discussion of values and it appears to be an unofficial criteria for promotion. I have higher quality/government sources for all
- Canada's claims are more controversial if anything. GA-listed side articles claim that Canadians have historically "no truck with" with religious fundamentalism, far-right poltics, or even conservatism, despite all of these things being relatively recent developments in its history. My listed additions are far more narrow in application and are sourced from the Spanish and Finnish Constitutions or government statements.
- What do you think? SickNWristed (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- In my experience, fallible as I am, this seems like something that would be arrived at on an article-to-article basis, depending on the quality of sourcing available. Remsense 🌈 论 23:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- I found textbook/academic works for Finland's values I don't think Spain's are good enough to include. And controversial. SickNWristed (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Why did you delete the mention of the Spain's Head of State, Felipe VI?
- Just curiousity. JaierRT (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I found textbook/academic works for Finland's values I don't think Spain's are good enough to include. And controversial. SickNWristed (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- In my experience, fallible as I am, this seems like something that would be arrived at on an article-to-article basis, depending on the quality of sourcing available. Remsense 🌈 论 23:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I equally disagree with the inclusion framed as such on Canada, US et al., to be clear, but that is not a discussion I am likely to have site policy on my side for, given on Canada at least the citations are considerably more robust. Remsense 🌈 论 22:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have particularly strong feelings on this, but Canada (a FA), Norway, Sweden, the United States, and most other "major" countries have their reported values listed. It's atypical that Spain and Finland didn't have listed values when there's much high-quality scholarship about both countries. The Constitution of Spain and the Government of Finland list all of the values on their websites/official documents. Perhaps we shouldn't be doing that, but it's unusual that they don't have listed values when FA's include them. SickNWristed (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- @SickNWristed this material is POV at best, and wholly encyclopedic at worst. Countries at-large do not have "values" in any factual sense. Countries have histories, governments, geography, demographics. It's wholly vacuous to discuss a political entity's (or an individual's!) values as if it was a matter of empirical reality. It's not wrong to make such statements in general, it's just what one does in an essay or opinion piece, not in an encyclopedia article. Remsense 🌈 论 21:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Alternative for Germany, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Ixocactus (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Alternative for Germany, you may be blocked from editing. See also WP:WAR and WP:CONSENSUS. Ixocactus (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to add national conservative or right-wing populist. SickNWristed (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I just responded on the RFC. SickNWristed (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Politics of air conditioning moved to draftspace
editThanks for your contributions to Politics of air conditioning. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 15:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's being actively edited. SickNWristed (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Which can be done in draftspace. The article is one line with no source, it’s a draft. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 15:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @SickNWristed, I encourage you to use draftspace next time, instead of slapping down the
{{In use}}template. Draftspace is for articles that aren’t ready for main space yet and are used by everyone on Wikipedia. The edit you made to the article still isn’t enough to warrant an article and should be transferred to the draft. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)