This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Categorized Discussions

Articles for Creation

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

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 people). 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:Nathan Hale Arts Magnet School 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.

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Nathan Hale Arts Magnet School. Thanks! microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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.

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:Nathan Hale Arts Magnet School 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Significa liberdade was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: A deletion discussion for this school closed November 4, 2023. The outcome of the discussion was delete as notability could not be determine.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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 passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet 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.

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:Nathan Hale Arts Magnet School 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.

– Kilaseell - Message me! - 16:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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

.

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:José Antonio Joaquín Pérez Martínez y Robles
  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.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

José Antonio Joaquín Pérez Martínez y Robles, 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

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!

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The cited articles are very short and very local. I would like more in-depth sources to demonstrate notability.

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:Nelson County High School (Virginia)
  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.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

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

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

See

WP:BLP

. All statements, starting with the date of birth, need to be sourced or removed.

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:Eli Mosley 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.

Greenman (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, PaulGamerBoy360! 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! Greenman (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not my draft, the creater of the draft is User:Awoodfin. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who submitted it for review, here. Largoplazo (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Greenman, @Largoplazo: I submitted it because I felt it was ready for review, I have notified the draft creator about the decline, sorry if i end up ever confusing you guys at AFC. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The confusion is yours. You submitted it. Your submission failed. So you're the one who was notified that your submission failed. Why would the creator, and not the submitter, be notified of the failure of a submission that the creator may not even be aware of? Largoplazo (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No the confusion is not mine, i completely understand why I was notified about the decline, i was just letting you know I was not the creator of the draft & that the creator might wan't to be notified as well. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that nobody said that you were the creator, you're putting an awful lot of effort into explaining that you weren't. And then you put a message on the creator's page telling them that their submission that they didn't make and might not even know happened failed, which makes no sense. Largoplazo (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not blaming anyone or trying to argue, i am apologizing for any confusion on BOTH sides. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion Nominations

A tag has been placed on Cone (Console Newsreader And Emailer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello PaulGamerBoy360,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The site you listed literally says "source of article: Wikipedia" that means it is a wikipedia mirror and cannot be used to prove or claim a copyvio. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, PaulGamerBoy360,

You have repeatedly moved articles that are the subject of an AFD discussion despite admins and editors stating in other AFDs that this is disruptive. It makes closures much more complicated as the closing tool, XFDCloser, doesn't know what to do if the page has been moved from its original location. And changing the page title on the AFD listing doesn't help if the AFD page title is under the old name. If an AFD closes in a Keep decision, feel free to move the article but please, please, please, do not move an article to a different page title while the AFD is ongoing. It really makes closures more complicated for the closer. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that I literally said this exact statement to you at User talk:PaulGamerBoy360#AFDs but you failed to follow my request. If you continue this practice after being warned twice, it could be seen as disruptive editing with all of the consequences that carries. Please just stop doing moving articles during an AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I have followed policy when moving the page but have negleted to move the afd page aswell as the other page, doing so will cause no confusion as the article will have the same name as the afd page. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's still likely to confuse some bot or other process. Just don't move pages in the middle of AfDs (or

There is no deadline or hurry; if you think a page needs to move, the sky will not fall down if you wait a few days, like everyone else, until an ongoing process has closed. WP:Process is important; please stop defiantly looking for ways to avoid or get around process just out of seeming stubbornness. PS: You generally should not be unilaterally moving an article unless you are 100% certain that no one could object to the move. In most cases you should be using {{requested move}} on the article's talk page to establish a consensus to move the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  02:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I will no longer move articles in the AFD(or similar ongoing proccesses), The Last move I have done with those is Moving the afd page to match the afd title & article title. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Why did you move Sleepy Hollow High? It's a DAB page for two pages both with Sleepy Hollow High School in it, so dropping the "School" makes no sense here. Daniel (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I did that so that if someone re-creates the film page, there will be a proper disambiguation page, also people usualy drop the school when they search for schools. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop relisting and closing AfD's until you have a better understanding of policy and procedures.

Today you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azad Kashmir bus incident for a fourth time. This is out of step with current process (where debates are incredibly rarely relisted for a fourth time - quite simply, it just never really happens), and per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting_discussions, you were expected to write a short summary explaining why you did so (which you didn't do).

Secondly, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Zoltanski after only 24 hours and with only one input other than the nominator - no consensus existed here. Debates last 7 days unless in some exceptional circumstances, and this was not a situation where exceptional circumstances applied.

This is a follow-on from Liz's comment above, in that it again highlighted that you do not have the understanding required to be undertaking these actions in and around AfD.

Daniel (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The relist at

WP:INVOLVED and makes the decision to relist even more ill-judged. Daniel (talk

) 18:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have seen many AFD's that have been relisted by people who have participated in the discussion. And looking at the Relisting Policy it does not have a limit for # of relists. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Please show me these debates where a) a debate was relisted four times, especially those with no short summary as to why it was relisted and b) discussions which have been relisted by someone who had been involved in the discussion who was a non-administrator and offered a "keep" or "delete" opinion within that discussion. Daniel (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not true, PaulGamerBoy360, it's recommended not to relist more than twice although we do relist three times if there has not been much (or any) participation or there has been a LOT of participation but the consensus is hopelessly deadlocked. And I have mistakenly relisted a discussion a fourth time twice but I have always gone back and apologized to the participants for doing so. Relisting 4 times is very rare, should only occur because of editor error and not intentionally. I'm glad to read that you are taking a break from relisting or closing AFDs. I'll just add that I've been working in the AFD area for almost 2 years now and I've seen other inexperienced but eager editors bite off more than they can choose and get in trouble. I can acknowledge your attempts to help but suggest that you find other areas of the project to work in. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, i did not see that part, my mind has been skipping over things when i read lately.(This will hopefully stop happening soon when my mid gets used to my new meds.(not an excuse)) --- I am not going to close, relist, or move any AFD pages. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I came to @PaulGamerBoy360's page for this same reason. Thank you for bringing it up @Daniel. I've reverted their close of the Monica Zoltanski AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

PaulGamerBoy360, when several admins come to you and tell you that you are 1) doing things incorrectly and 2) making admin jobs harder, then the response should be to stop those activities until you have a better understanding of how things work. I am specifically requesting that you cease any clerking-type activities related to AfD until you have a better understanding of the process.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I stopped moving pages as was told to me in AFD#2, and since AFD#3 I have not closed or relisted any more AFDs. So my response was to "stop those activities". 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Discussions

Hi Paul. You got it right the first time. Per

I'll be requesting a

Unlike your "attempt to resolve", I'll actually put a human response in here. You are not an administrator, and thus are not permitted to remove copyright violation templates. Your opinion as to whether the content is infringing is irrelevant. If it is not a violation, an administrator will remove the tag when they review it, but you should not unilaterally remove the tag, as you are the page creator. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, PaulGamerBoy360,

Thank you for creating CEWIT (Stony Brook University).

Please shorten and/or remove the quote by summarizing it.

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|ARandomName123}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

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

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I Have shortened it but decided to keep it the way it currently is because is is a good introduction to have before listing the Research Areas. If you have a suggestion for what it should be instead i would be willing to take suggestions. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi PaulGamerBoy360, sorry to bother you, but I read the edit summary you left when you reverted my manual of style edit in the

The official style for headings as refered to in the:

Gregg Reference Manual Paperback – 1 Dec. 1991, The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law 2015 Library Binding – 14 July 2015, The Chicago Manual of Style Paperback – 8 Mar. 2007, & MLA style, All State the following:

1) Capitalize the first word of the title or heading.

2) Capitalize the last word of the title or heading.

3) All other words are capitalized unless they are conjunctions (and, or, but, nor, yet, so, for), articles (a, an, the), or prepositions (in, to, of, at, by, up, for, off, on). 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own manual of style; we don't follow what other publications say. Per

MOS:HEAD

:

Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles (above), and should be presented in sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects in developing countries), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects in Developing Countries).

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia MOS is extremely outdated, and needs to be changed, for now i will follow it but I am going the start a discussion on the talk page, because this is ridiculous. Ever since Elementary School We have been taught that Headings & Titles follow the Title case (capital case, headline style) style. I have written Quite a few short stories, & they don't get accepted unless Heading & Titles Follow Title Case Style. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not unusual for major publications to have their own in house style guides. For example, BBC. As a newer editor here, you may want to focus on learning our ways for awhile rather than trying to change our ways. Hope this helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not a "new editor", i have been editing wikipedia for 3 years, 5 months and 15 days. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. Could I ask why you are drafting an essay in your userspace for a school course? Wikipedia is not a place to draft your homework. All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 23:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I made that a few years ago because it was easier for me to keep track of all the references I used, i added that essay tag today & deleted the pages for info to use in it, but i remember there being more text in the unfilled sections, I just don't remember what it was. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You badly need to familiarize yourself with our

You say above "I am not a 'new editor', i have been editing wikipedia for 3 years, 5 months and 15 days". That is way more than enough time to have absorbed the bare basics of our style manual. Just going over a couple of days of your mainspace input, I've found it to be near-constantly wrongly formatted. You are creating a fast-flowing river of cleanup work for other editors to do after you. This is not okay.

PS: Since your proposed change to

I only recently learned about the WP:Manual of Style, I am going to fix all the headers I have made that i can find. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Why? Where in the MOS does it say to put <big></big>? Where have you seen this done in any other mainspace article? Your continual failure to follow community norms and style guidelines is verging into

lack of competence areas. Daniel (talk

) 19:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Another one - lots of the issues SMcCandlish raised above again cropping up here. Running parentheticals up against preceding and misappling italics on "Spanish", in this case. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Did some cleanup on those, but this is getting tedious quickly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Spanish is not spoken only in South America, which you probably know. So kindly stop identifying it in the short description at Spanish language as though it is. Largoplazo (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't be defined as "RomanceLanguage". 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:: it is not a "Romance Language" as the article states. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, "Romance Language" is a nickname for "Latin Languages". 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact, languages are not described as "Latin languages". Languages that descended from Latin are called Romance. It isn't a nickname, that's what they're called. Largoplazo (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it is a nickname, in school they never refer to them as "Romance Languages", they refer to them as 'Latin Languages". 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Do the teachers and students a favor. Donate this to your school library: Martin Maiden & Adam Ledgeway, eds. The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned this, too. If you're especially interested in Spanish, by all means devour this: Roger Wright. 1982. Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: F. Cairns. Enjoy! Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hi, in the article Ice hockey you re-used content from Ice hockey but did not provide attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for guidance on re-using content from other articles. I have provided the attribution in an edit-summary (see here) but in ftre you mst make sure you do this yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe you ment in the article History of ice hockey I transfered the history section from Ice hockey. I am sorry for forgetting to put that in the edit summary, it just completely slipped my mind. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I did mean that! DuncanHill (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)