User talk:Tettelin Bart

Welcome!

Hi Tettelin Bart! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:BCEF:7EB8:1765:7CA6 (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I am an Dutch Wikiwriter and from time to time I write in English.Tettelin Bart (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Rod Stephen

Hello, Tettelin Bart,

Thank you for creating Rod Stephen.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi. Please remove all unreliable sources and sources to social media. For more information please see WP:Cite.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kudpung}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung, Thanks for letting me know. I worked a lot on the page. Can you letting me know wich numbers are not realiable, then I will delete them. Many Regards, Tettelin Bart (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Wich references are not reliable ? I already asked this question, but got no answer. Only a replace of the notation.Tettelin Bart (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Yes, you have encouraged me to read more on WP:cite and visit the Teahouse.( I have put already a lot of time in this Rod Stephen page. I don't want to become a moderator.) However, Rod Stephen and Björn Again are about entertainment, not science. References are not readily available in The New York Times, BBC, and The Washington Post. I added some, but a paywall is not easy to use.Tettelin Bart (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kudpung,

At the top of the article “Rod Stephen” it says that it is not reliable and that more citations for verification sources need to be added. I understand that Wikipedia pages must be reliable. But I can tell you that I do not lightly start a page about a living person without contacting the person themselves. The first thing I let him or her know is that the page must be objective and substantiated by sources. In fact, I also ask for help with the references. If they provide me with those, I can create the article and send it to them for approval (so that there are no errors). Of course, some people will want to add overly personal details, but I thought those had already been removed. Then I would like to talk about the sources or references. If I understand correctly (there are so many pages to read about how to create a page), only the BBC, Washington Post and The New York Times are reliable. According to your “bots”, the Daily Mail is not. (It's not about politics, but about entertainment and music.) But as I did, I interviewed Rod Stephen, as I have been a fan since 1999, when they came to play in Lokeren, and I wanted to create a page for Rod Stephen. He didn't have one yet, but Björn Again did. Maddy Fletcher from the Daily Mail also interviewed Rod Stephen and wrote an article about him, which contains a lot of information about his founding of Björn Again. But as you know, many newspapers are behind a paywall. So it's not easy to find other reliable newspapers such as The Washington Post. I myself have a subscription to De Standaard in Belgium, which also gives me access to ‘Het Nieuwsblad’ and ‘De Gazet Van Antwerpen’. Apparently, these are reliable newspapers. Sometimes I find the “bots” a bit ambiguous. They ask for more references, but if you add more references, you say they are not reliable. Of course. That's an never ending story. I hope you understand that it is not easy for a novice writer, who would rather not be demotivated by all those reports or actions by moderators who ban photos etc, to read all the pages about all the rules. My philosophy of Wikipedia is that it must be reliable. It must be accurate, and I adhere to this by contacting living persons myself. I cannot always consult the sources on paper in English, as that would cost me a fortune, which cannot be the intention. Kind regards Tettelin Bart (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand, but now that you have read all about the rules of providing sources, you will have noticed that there are two kinds of sources: Those that prove notability according to WP:BLPN, and ones that prove the statements and claims in the articles. Both kinds of sources must be reliable and verifiable and the policies are the same for all articles whether they be about science or entertainment. The English Wikipedia is much stricter than the Dutch, French, or German Wikipedias. We do not use social media, YouTube, or interviews as reliable sources, and even some national newspapers such as the Daily Mail are disallowed because they trade in sensationalist and celebrity gossip, a lot of which is not fact checked. You must remove any content that cannot be reliably sourced, and sources just list or mention concerts don't do anything for notability. Many sources are behind paywalls, but to be able to use them, the article creator must find a way to read them. The last section of the article 'Personal life' must be removed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the English Wikipedia is tricter and I can remove unreliably sources. But I hope the text wich is correct and reliable can stay, behalve the Peronal life section. Many Regards. Tettelin Bart (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Byl

Hi there, and thank you for expanding the Nelly Byl article. I have done some cleanup there... please make sure your contributions here are always in English. In addition, song titles go in quotation marks (see MOS:POPMUSIC). I've fixed the titles in the body of the article, but would appreciate it if you would deal with the long list. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. And I can always learn from other writers. I will look at the long list.Tettelin Bart (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - and if there's anything I can help with, just let me know, Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Together we can make Wikipedia better.Tettelin Bart (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jessica Pierce, I have an issue with the page Rod Stephen. Suddenly they make it a draft. I am a fan of Bjorn Again en now the singer Rod Stephen as a fan. I communicated with him, lik an interview, but suddenly someone aded no date of birth, wich is not true and now al the article (wich is also at the Dutch Wikipedapage) is made as a draft. I discussed it already with Kudpung, and now it has disappeared complety. Can you help me with this? Many regards, Bart Tettelin (see above and under my talk page) Tettelin Bart (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Stephen moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Rod Stephen. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and many of the sentences and paragraphs in the article are unsourced: our policy for biographies of living people requires that every individual statement should be attributed clearly to a reliable source. 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. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. Somone aded no date of birth. But the date of birth is in the article and I made it now more like Wikipedia. I am not a beginner (I worked already a lot in the Dutch page of Wikipedia). I discussed this article already wit Kudpung. And now it is a draft!? I changed it a lot. The discussion always revolves around whether there are enough sources or references. But they don't want to accept certain references on the English page. I understand that you want sources or references other than unreliable ones. But if I add extra references, you get the message “not reliable”. That's a vicious circle. I thought Kudpung agreed with the current text and references. I even had to leave out certain text. I did that. And now it's suddenly a “draft”. A working article. When I post about living persons on Wikipedia, I have already been in contact with those persons to ensure that the information is correct. No, it does not always come from The New York Times, because entertainment is not always discussed there. I can only use the sources and references that are available and that you accept. I understand that you are stricter on the English Wikipedia page than on the Dutch page, but it has to remain somewhat serious. Incidentally, the date is not present, which seems incorrect to me. But if I add a reference to it, it will probably not be reliable. And so we continue to discuss this text. When will this end? Or do you just want to discourage writers from translating pages from Dutch into English? Kind regards, Bart Tettelin Tettelin Bart (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tettelin Bart. If someone tags an article with "unreliable sources", that doesn't mean you should just remove the sources and leave information unsourced. Having unsourced information in an article is much worse than having unreliably sourced information. It's one of the main priorities for new page patrollers to make sure we don't have unsourced information in biographies of living people: unreliable sources might lead to the article being tagged, but unsourced information is likely to lead to an article being draftified or nominated for deletion.

So it would be good if you could go back through and make sure there are sources for all the information provided, and then move the article back into mainspace. If information cannot be reliably sourced, you may wish to consider not including that information. But sources must never be removed in such a way that this leaves information that has actually come from these sources unattributed.

It is possible that the article may be tagged again once it's moved back to mainspace. If that happens, you don't necessarily have to go through and reconfigure all the sourcing; it's perfectly fine just to leave the tag there and let someone else deal with the issue. Dionysodorus (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dionysodorus, thank you for your reply. The information about how to find references in Google Books and similar sources was certainly interesting. The date was on the page, I believe. Of course, I'm never too old to learn something new. If it is acceptable to you, I will restore the page and see whether the references have been added correctly or whether additional references can be added. With kind regards, Bart Tettelin Tettelin Bart (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can move the page back to mainspace whenever you like, but I would recommend making sure everything is properly sourced in draftspace, and then moving it back afterwards. If you do that, it's less likely that the article will be tagged or objected to in some way by another patroller. Dionysodorus (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dionysodorus, do you mean by drafspace the sandbox I use for creating a page? Many Regards, Bart Tettelin Tettelin Bart (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I turned your article into a draft, it is now here: Draft:Rod Stephen. You can modify this draft to add sources. Then, once you've done that, you can either press the "Submit for review" button (if you would like the draft to be reviewed through the "Articles for Creation" process), or you can move the page back to its title "Rod Stephen" using the "Move" function. Dionysodorus (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dionysodorus, I think I acted fast and asked for a review after I aded some new references. Many Regards, Bart TettelinTettelin Bart (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But there are still unsourced statements in the article, so the draft is unlikely to be approved by the reviewer, I would say. As I said before, every single statement in a biography of a living person needs to be correctly attributed to a specific source. Dionysodorus (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dionysodorus to let me know. RegardsTettelin Bart (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]