User talk:Josep a11

Hi Josep a11! 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! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

• words to watch
• speculative statements
  extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read

reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models

.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cryptpad 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.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Josep a11! 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! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth
  (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent
  of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of web content). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cryptpad 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.

BuySomeApples (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please note I have started a discussion in the talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weizmann_Institute_of_Science#Was_the_Iranian_attack_in_retaliation_for_the_killing_of_nuclear_scientists?

Your added source in my view does not meet WP:POV and WP:RELIABLE criteria, while the other sources (which I also read) either say nothing about the specific motive or similarly spectulate on them without evidence. The added source states:

"That connection, said analyst Yoel Guzansky, may have factored into its selection as a target.

"The institute symbolises Israeli scientific progress," he said.

"And Iran is sending a message: 'You target our scientists, we'll target yours.'""

So, a single (Israeli) analyst says it -may- have been the cause, and also the article conflates the retaliation motive with the Elbit Systems motive. Can you find better sources that show this more directly? For example, something like this:

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/06/20/verifying-conflicting-narratives-about-irans-strike-on-an-israeli-hospital

"Tehran's top diplomat has claimed that the strike "eliminated" two Israeli military targets.

"Our powerful Armed Forces accurately eliminated an Israeli Military Command, Control & Intelligence HQ and another vital target," Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said on X, adding that the blast "caused superficial damage to a small section" of the hospital."

When they hit the hospital, they explicitly stated that they targeted (rightly or wrongly) a nearby command center. This is a reliable source that directly shows intent. Is there any such statement about the strike on Weizmann?

Thanks, and I hope we can solve this amicably, 37.142.39.223 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I responded to you on the talk page, let's continue there. Best, 37.142.39.223 (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to you again. Best, Michaelas10 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]