Contents

User talk:Tewapack

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Userboxes This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Tewapack,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is poor etiquete to revert an edit which was not vandilisation without an explaination. The dates I added were correct. Dorkinglad (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)an[reply]

The dates had nothing to do with the tournament and were therefor misleading. Tewapack (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. keep on truckin'. Next time an explanation. It's courtesy. Dorkinglad (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His age was showing up as 56 yesterday, on his birthday, until I changed the birth month from 4 to 04. Maybe that was just a coincidence? It was the afternoon, so it wasn't a time zone issue. The birth date and age template seems broken. Kstern (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source anywhere to suggest that his name is spelt Peña and not Pena? Have had a quick look and found nothing. Jimmymci234 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimmymci234: Peña was certainly used in many newspapers during the 1990s, e.g. [1]. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: Thanks, will go with that then. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know it doesn't really matter, but is there any difference in using these codes for flagicons, or is it just purely based on preference? Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using DEU requires 1 less template load than GER. As you said, doesn't really matter. Tewapack (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mess. Tried to correct without being aware of your correction. EEJB EEJB (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just wondering why the cat sorts were reverted. I don't doubt you have a good reason for doing it, but it would be helpful to know why it was done, for future reference. Thanks! Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes more sense to sort by year for these types of events (non-annual, or no pattern). Tewapack (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is sense to doing it that way, I agree. But I think in this case where we're collecting different kinds of events that happened in a city, sorting by year jumbles them in terms of the name/kind of event and may make it harder for the reader to find what they're looking for (in principle at least). That's why I was trying to sort by event name, with year as a secondary sort. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for not following what I see now is pretty common/the norm for golfers in terms of sections dealing with wins and thanks for reverting it. (Not sure why I hadn't noticed it before.) Is there a good thread/page that talks about the suggested layout for golfers? Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no. The style has evolved (and continues to evolve) over time. Tewapack (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know where to place my message, so I am using this section. Thank you for improving the article "Kokona Sakurai" that I wrote. I appreciate it very much. However, please do not change the date format. Since she will be participating in at least the Women's US Open this year, hopefully, also the Women's PGA Championship, and she plans to become an LPGA member next year, I would prefer the American-style date format. Thank you in advance. Pantherat2 (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For non-US and non-Canadian related articles,the day-month-year date format should be used per MOS:DATETIES. I'll revert the article to use mdy dates.Tewapack (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tewapack,

Please review Wikipedia:Rollback, especially the section that states Editors who misuse MediaWiki rollback (for example, by using it to make unexplained reversions of good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Do not use rollback to revert edits of longtime editors making good faith edits without leaving an explanation as you did when you emptied Category:Italian expatriate golfers in the United States out of process. If you persist in misusing this editing feature, you may have your privileges removed. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Yeap, I boo-booed on Chris Kirk, forgetting it was a golf-related article before saving. I'll try to pay better attention to these instances. Cheers! Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in sports, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springfield, New Jersey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You rolled back a recent edit I'd made to Ken Venturi's page. The sentence in question was: Venturi spent the next 35 years working as a color commentator and lead analyst for CBS Sports, the longest lead analyst stint in sports broadcasting history, made remarkable by the fact that he had a stutter. I added "even more" before "remarkable," and you changed it back. I wanted to not a couple of things: First, the saying is "even more remarkable," but aside from that, his stutter isn't what made his feat remarkable. His feat of being a the longest-serving color analyst in the sports broadcasting history was remarkable in its own right. It was made more so by the fact that he had a stutter. Jmg999 (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my edits to the Multiple winners section for the U.S. Amateur several times. Earlier this year I brought this up on the main talk page but no one responded. I then corresponded with User:Jimmymci234 about this as he works on a lot of tournament stuff. We came to the consensus that this section was extraneous as the amount of wins is already denoted in parentheses in the Winner column. What are your thoughts?

Regards,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it contains different info than other "Multiple winners" sections, info that isn't already in the winners section. Tewapack (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True but it still feels like trivia. I still feel like we should get rid of it.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Golf at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Scott.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost done with formatting for the 1919 U.S. Open and 1928 U.S. Amateur. However, I have a couple of little issues with citations in the infobox. For the 1919 event, I am using the same citation for The Brooklyn Daily Eagle in the infobox but when I publish it always denotes the source as two separate citations (#1 and #2). Do you know how to fix this?

In addition, there is a source for the infobox for the 1928 U.S. Amateur that is used in the text. It is The Springfield Daily Republican article here. It is currently citation #1 and #4. But they should be the same. If you could fix these or teach me how to fix these that would be great.

Regards,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. My guess, based on this and other questions you've had, is that you are using the visual editor which I don't use and am not familiar with. I use the wiki markup source editor - see Help:Introduction. Tewapack (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ben Griffin (golfer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hello, Tewapack! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Griffin (golfer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!