User talk:Portugaltheo20
Welcome![edit]
Hi Portugaltheo20! 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:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Transfermarkt[edit]
Since much of its content is user-edited, Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source. Please do not cite the website in articles. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, I understand that you may think that TransferMarkt isn’t a reliable source to you but I can assure you that I’ve seen it on plenty of other footballer players Wikipedia pages. TransferMarkt has a reputation of being reliable, it wouldn’t include whatever nationality without a reference or source they’ve seen. They add all nationalities whether it’s by birth, through the parents or because of having lived in a country. So please let the edit, it’s very informative and if more sources comes up, let’s add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugaltheo20 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- According to its login page: Whether player info, coach info, club info, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user, you can edit and add to almost all data by yourself. This makes it a self-published source that does not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. Citing it without knowing better is one thing. Continuing to do so, despite knowing the problems with it is disruptive, and may result in a block. Please do not re-add the reference again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate welcome template
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, Sm8900 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Verifiability, sourcing, and citations[edit]
Hi, Portugaltheo20 ,and welcome to Wikipedia! I've noticed that you are adding content or making changes to articles that are unsourced or incompletely sourced. Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy says that:
Verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
I've had to undo a couple of your edits because of sourcing problems that did not adhere to our verifiability policy. For example:
- After I undid four previous revisions of yours about the status of French in North Africa at List of languages ...(long title) because they were unsourced, you added the material back in this edit with a source. Thank you! However, the 2015 Unicode consortium reference is not a very good source for what languages are official in Algeria or Morocco; and in any case, even that page makes no claim of French as official or co-official in those countries. I removed it again. In fact, French is a lingua franca and has no official status in Algeria (although Berber does), but if you believe I'm mistaken, then please find a reliable source to back it up, and cite it.
- In the article Tokyo, in the #Economy section, in this edit you added "Paris" to a list of cities that were in the top ten along with Tokyo, but this is unsourced. The pre-existing source for the list including New York, London, Shanghai, and Tokyo (ref name "GFCI2" in the article) does list those four cities as numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Table 1 on page 28, but in that table Paris is listed as #18. So, you can't alter the article to add Paris to the top-ten list along with Tokyo, unless you find some other source to support it.
- In this edit at Romance languages, you added a claim that "French is spoken by around 300 to 400 million people in 2022 according to Ethnologue and the OIF" and included two citations to reliable sources. However, neither of those sources support that claim. One of them says "321 million", but as a Wikipedia editor, we cannot assert "300 to 400 million" in Wikipedia's voice and cite sources that do not say that. In this case, I have not undone your edit, but you should adjust it yourself, so that the claim in the article matches what those sources say.
Wikipedia takes WP:Verifiability very seriously, so going forward, please make sure that every assertion of fact that you add to an article is verifiable, and backed up by a citation to a reliable source. If you have any questions, please feel free to reply below (click the [reply] link), or to contact me on my Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- you also keep adding French citizenship to football players using sources that either do not mention the player concerned, or where it does, it does not mention France in relation to the player. Spike 'em (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
May 2022[edit]
Hi Portugaltheo20! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Paris that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Greyjoy talk 11:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jeffrey Schlupp. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Spike 'em (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
WARNING: Transfermarkt redux, and a pattern of unreliable sourcing[edit]
Portugaltheo20, I am very concerned about your continuing pattern of using unreliable sources, sources that fail to verify the content you are adding, or no sourcing at all even after having been warned about this.
- In this edit, you added information to the Jeffrey Schlupp article, as noted in the section above, which was quickly removed by Spike 'em, with a friendly comment, along with "Transfrmkt is not reliable".
- At Steven Alzate, you added information about his supposed French citizenship citing globalcit.eu, but that page says nothing about Alzate, and your edit was soon removed by another editor. (Beyond that, the globalcit.eu page that you cited, clearly states that it was copied or sourced from Transfermarkt; but perhaps you missed that.)
- At Leandro Trossard, in these edits you added information about his supposed French citizenship as well, again citing globalcit.eu, but that page says nothing about Trossard, either; so the citation you added is invalid as it does not support the content you added. Your edit was rapidly removed by yet another editor.
You are still new here, so you get a certain amount of slack while learning the ropes, but you have been warned about reliable sourcing more than once previously. In particular, you have been warned by Sir Sputnik in section #Transfermarkt above about not using the Transfermarkt source; you pushed back on that warning then, and are continuing to use it. Please stop.
I suspect that the edits mentioned in this section and elsewhere on this page are not the only edits of yours that have involved adding unsourced information, and I'm worried that many more of your edits may be tainted, and perhaps a mass-revert of your edits may be required. As of right now, please adhere strictly to WP:Verifiability requirements, and always use citations to reliable sources. If in doubt, ask for help. (You can add a request here on your talk page, along with the token {{Help me}}, and an experienced editor will come by to answer your question.)
I think you are already at risk for a block, and I expect that the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced information to an article, that your editing privileges will be suspended to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to contact me on my Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted your edit to Power projection as unsourced. You are skating on thin ice. Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted two of your edits (here and here) at List of countries with overseas military bases as unsourced, and false. As far as the French colonial empire expanding during WWII, it was precisely the reverse: the colonies were nominally under Vichy per the terms of the armistice with Germany, but started to lose them almost immediately; already by 1940 Chad, Congo, and Ubangi-Shari switched their allegiance to de Gaulle's FFF. Mathglot (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Despite the *four* citations you added at Overseas military bases of France to source your addition about Deyr Kifa (thanks for trying), I nevertheless had to undo your changes because two were dead links, one did not mention it at all, and the other mentioned it in passing without verifying your content. Even *one* citation to a reliable source will be enough, if, as per WP:Verfiability, it "directly supports[2] the material". This represents progress in the right direction, now just try and find a source that actually directly supports your added content. Mathglot (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your changes just now to GDP and other figures at Economy of France were reverted as unsourced. Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your four edits to Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States have been undone because you failed to provide a source. Mathglot (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Maintaining a neutral point of view, and francophile bias[edit]
Sorry if this feels like I'm piling on, right after adding the warning above, but this needed to be stated, to ensure you are aware of it and can act on it going forward: in delving into more of your edits, I see now that almost all of them betray some level of francophile bias. In most cases, this seems to be fairly minor, such as adding unsourced mentions of French citizenship to athletes who may have dual citizenship, or slightly inflating or exaggerating economic or population figures for French cities or regions, or specifying French as an official language in countries where it is not.
I have undone some such edits, but I suspect there are more, and from what I have seen, nearly all of your edits involve some sort of addition of content that may be seen in a positive light with respect to France, or French language or citizenship. Please note that as long as you have solid, reliable sourcing, that is all perfectly fine; just take care that you are maintaining a neutral point of view, and are not influenced by whatever positive sentiment you may have about the country or the language, and that it is all well-sourced. If you are not sure what I am talking about and need specific examples, just ask, and I will add some links to before-and-after images for you (we call them, "diffs").
To guide you, please read Wikipedia's policy on WP:Neutral point of view; it is one of Wikipedia's core policies and plays a central role in assuring that articles are not biased towards any particular point of view. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your edits at Power projection are a combination of the two issues I have been trying to discuss with you:
- In this edit (22:41, 9 May) you added material about the number of French military bases and troops deployed abroad, directly contrary to the given source. I reverted.
- In this edit (15:50, 10 May) you added the OIF to the table rows for France, Belgium, Canada and Egypt, saying: adding the OIF as Francophonie since France, Belgium, Canada and Egypt are full members of the OIF, same international organization as the Commonwealth. I reverted.
- Although the latter edit was unsourced, I have no reason to doubt that these countries actually are members of the OIF, a cultural and scientific association of French-speaking countries. However, the Power projection article, as defined in its title and in its first sentence, is "the capacity of a state to deploy and sustain forces outside its territory". By no stretch of the imagination is the OIF a military or paramilitary international force-projection organization, any more than is the Alliance Française, or the Goethe-Institut; that's why I removed it. (Although the British Commonwealth of Nations no longer has a military function, historically it did, so that's quite a different situation; one could make an argument on the Talk page for removing it, but the OIF never was, and without any question does not belong there.)
- By itself, the addition of irrelevant material such as the OIF on the Power projection page is a minor lapse of judgment, which has already been corrected. However, since virtually all of your edits represent a "tilt" towards adding flattering information about France or French language and culture (often unsourced, irrelevant, or false) this represents one more example of your consistent and continuing pattern of francophile bias, and is contrary to Wikipedia's core policy of Neutral point of view. It is okay to edit here, even if you have a personal bias about a given topic, pro or con, but in that case you must take extra special care to strictly observe all Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines, especially WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. (Ideally, someone observing your edits would not be able to determine if you were biased in favor, or against a particular topic.)
- I continue to invite you to discuss this with me, either here, or on my Talk page. If you are not comfortable with your level of English, you may write to me in French. I feel you are not taking these warnings seriously, and that you may lose your editing privileges; please don't let that happen: talk to me. Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit at List of official languages. This was impeccably sourced to the Washington Post, but is another example of your "tilt", or francophile bias. In fact, your list of ten most widely spoken languages would be welcome on an article about "most widely spoken languages", but according to the title "List of official languages", your list of widely spoken languages that are non-official is out of scope for this article. Mathglot (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your edit at American Century added a mention of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF) in this edit, which was not supported by the existing source; the entire book is available and the organization does not appear once in its 420 pages. This edit was preoperly removed by User:BilCat as an unsouced addition to cited content. You have added the OIF to numerous articles now, and I have not seen one case so far where it was supported by the existing reference. Please stop adding the OIF to articles immediately, unless it is cited by a reliable source. Mathglot (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your edit at Eurocopter EC135 was reverted by another editor. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- In this egregious edit at List of countries by number of millionaires, you fabricated figures apparently sourced to the ""Global Wealth Databook 2021", in order to place the number of millionaires in France higher than the number in the UK, in order to move France up to 5th place, above the UK. The figures were correct before; your edit has been reverted. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
How to mention converted dollar values in articles giving original figures in Euros[edit]
I've noticed that you have frequently added dollar values to articles about France that touch on economic aspects and provide values in Euros. Thank you for that; that is helpful to readers who may be less familiar with the Euro. However, it isn't clear where you are getting the dollar value from, so that would be considered WP:Original research. In theory, you would have to source all the dollar figures, or the conversion factor, to a reliable source. However, there is a much easier way to do this. Wikipedia has a template (well, several of them) that will convert Euro figures to dollars, according to official exchange rates, for the year of your choice.
So, for example, let's say you want to add a sentence about Paris's GDP in 2018; you could code this:
The Paris GDP in 2018 was €738 billion (US ${{To USD round|738|France|2018}} billion)..
and it would come out like this in the article:
- The Paris GDP in 2018 was €738 billion (US $826 billion).
That US dollar equivalent uses accurate, sourced conversion tables for 2018, and since the conversion tables are sourced, if you use the template, you don't have to add a citation to a source for the converted value as the sources are in the template. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 10[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
- Imperialism
- added a link pointing to Britain
- List of modern great powers
- added a link pointing to Britain
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Administrator's noticeboard discussion concerning your edits[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
May 2022[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Hi, I blocked per that discussion, and per Mathglot's comments above. I can't summon the good faith, in the context of your other edits, to see this as other than falsification of the source. That's simply unacceptable on Wikipedia - we need to be able to trust that you are representing sources correctly, to allow you to edit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)