User talk:Dege31

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Dege31! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! paul2520 (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2021 US Open Series[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:2021 US Open Series indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Murray. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2004–2021) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Firestar464 (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:October 2021 events in Thailand[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:October 2021 events in Thailand indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi Dege31! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 17:21, Sunday, August 29, 2021 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Disambiguation link notification for September 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paraconsistent logic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page If.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim roma people[edit]

1.) In case you haven't seen it, I only mentioned northern cyprus twice in the section in the article Muslim romani people, so I deleted one mention.

2.) Rom is not called man in romanes language, it means Husband. Man means Djeno. Roma in Coptic means human, you can read about it, on wikipedia coptic language and everywhere.

3.) Ottoman or Turkish culture is the same for the Muslim roma at the Balkans.

4.) That there was once a separate sandjak for muslim roma at the Ottoman empire, is actually a general knowledge, why do you need to source? ???

5.) The Romanlar in Turkey are Sunni Muslims of Hanafi Madhab, there are no christian roma group in Turkey. So why you always wrote today and mostly in the Article ??? today and mostly in which case? What you want to say with this phrases ? It is also known that the majority of Turkish-speaking roma, especially in bulgaria, describe themselves as turks and deny their roma origins. Please read the article of the roma in bulgaria on wikipedia.

Your non-roma makes no distinction between the various roma groups. You throw them all in one pot, the only example you non roma people use are the vlax roma from romania. However, the majority of the roma are not vlax roma from romania. There is no single origin theory that all diverse roma groups accept, almost every group has its own myth of origin. Especially based on the country where the roma live in since centurys and which religion they belong to.

I hope you are satisfied when I get banned. Anyway, it's no longer fun on wikipedia, there are so many self-proclaimed historians who just refuse to allow other opinions. As for sources, if self-proclaimed non-Roma historians are used as a source because they publish books, articles, etc., should that be considered the truth? Also the fabricated word romani in english, what is that supposed to be? The word Romani or Romanes, actually refers to the language, not the people. However, many Roma groups do not refer to themselves as Roma, but by other names.

--Nalanidil (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"That there was once a separate sandjak for muslim roma at the Ottoman empire, is actually a general knowledge, why do you need to source? ???"

You have to source even general knowledge on Wikipedia.

"Your non-roma makes no distinction between the various roma groups. You throw them all in one pot, the only example you non roma people use are the vlax roma from romania. However, the majority of the roma are not vlax roma from romania. There is no single origin theory that all diverse roma groups accept, almost every group has its own myth of origin. Especially based on the country where the roma live in since centurys and which religion they belong to."

I do not explicitly deny any of these things, I do not claim to be an expert; but if one person is allowed to add unreferenced statements, everyone is, and the encyclopedia falls apart.

"So why you always wrote today and mostly in the Article ???"

It's in the demographic section, but there is no census data etc, I assumed someone would add census data eventually. I wrote "today" because it's talking about today.

"There is no single origin theory that all diverse roma groups accept,"

Alright, but Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view, so both academic and folk origins have to be included, neither at the expense of the other.

"I hope you are satisfied when I get banned."

I don't want you to get banned, the problem is that it's a slippery slope, like I mentioned.

"Anyway, it's no longer fun on wikipedia, there are so many self-proclaimed historians who just refuse to allow other opinions."

Because Wikipedia has specific aims and goals, a lot of them for good reason. I understand your frustration, but Wikipedia is not the only Web site on the internet.

"As for sources, if self-proclaimed non-Roma historians are used as a source because they publish books, articles, etc., should that be considered the truth?"

Wikipedia is not truth in and of itself. I do not think that you are making things up. However, one cannot tell where you're getting it from- if it's oral history, I have nothing against it, but that doesn't fit here if it's not published, because almost no one can check if it's true. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as well.

Best wishes regardless,

Dege31 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I already mentioned, the knowledge of these sources is based on only one group, namely the Vlax Roma from Romania, their culture, religion, way of life, myths etc., are unfortunately transferred to all other non-Vlax Roma by self-appointed non-Roma historians. And that makes me angry.

Nalanidil (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nalanidil this may be hard for you to understand, but Wikipedia is not the right place to "right great wrongs". Please read this: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Because we are an encyclopedia, everything needs to be backed up with a reliable source, not by opinions. That is just how it works here. You might feel less frustrated by posting your opinions and experiences on a social media group about Roma. Just a thought... Netherzone (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

draft:bahara alavi[edit]

There are 18 reliable sources for the subject of Bahara alavi which are independent and have significant coverage for that. why are not Wikipedia's users able to see those sources? it is so confusing.Khabat4545 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General notability guideline

Obituaries usually do not count as significant coverage, because they often do not address the subject in detail. This can be seen in your draft: most of the article does not focus on the subject. There are two paragraphs total about the subject herself, most of the draft is commentary. So I advise you to add sources focusing on the subject's life and/or work. Or if there are secondary sources commenting on statements like "Her death provoked wide reactions among the human and women's rights activists", that would also be some significant coverage. As it stands, the subject is quite close to People notable for only one event, ie the main coverage is on the death. Thank you for your cooperation. Dege31 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declining of "List of roads in Brampton article"[edit]

You reviewed and rejected my submitted article. One thing you asked was to prove the name "Airport Road" was named due to the presence of an airport. Will this do (2nd link at end)?

"Airport Road is designated as Peel Road 7 and named for Toronto Pearson International Airport in Mississauga, near where it begins."

I have more to ask, but this for now.Transportfan70 (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask for proof, I asked for a source. I have little doubt it's named after the airport, but even for statements like that an article usually would need a source.

I'm happy to answer any further questions. Dege31 (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a policy regarding the obvious: Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.Transportfan70 (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best example, admittedly. I also mean a source verifying its existence in addition to Google Maps. Dege31 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I corrected two of the issues. But what do you mean that Google Maps is not reliable and uses copyright traps? Transportfan70 (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps is not the most reliable because it's not very open with its sources.

Copyright traps are fake entries in reference works designed to catch copyright infringement. Google Maps has included such entries multiple times.

Therefore, different sources are preferred. Dege31 (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But these link to satellite photos of major cities. How can they be fake? For one thing, they can't be fake "ghost areas" as I wouldn't even have a basis to write an article if they were, as I wouldn't even think of looking for them.

That's some tough review criteria! Transportfan70 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Errors are still possible and it's harder to verify it. The greater concern however is more about whether there are better sources available. If it's the best available source, I think that could be alright. But Google Maps should probably not be a habitual replacement for anything else. Dege31 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think there is anything else, as municipalities don't tend to put detailed maps online, and if they do you can't link to the zoomed-in area specifically. Transportfan70 (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you made a decision yet?Transportfan70 (talk)

You mean regarding Google Maps? It's fine if there are no other sources at hand, but ideally they will be replaced over time. I would not decline the article over it. As for linking to zoomed in areas- that's not necessary, only the map would be needed. Dege31 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article good to go? If so, when will you move it to the article space? Transportfan70 (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other issues I mentioned in my review. Dege31 (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of those. Transportfan70 (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are still unsourced sections like: Embleton Road, second half of Queen Road, Castlemore Road, Sandalwood Parkway, Countryside Drive, Mississauga Road, second half of Creditview Road, … Dege31 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC), Dege31 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on the draft by adding references. Will it be deleted soon if I don't resubmit it? It's been nearly 6 months. 01:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Transportfan70 (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Drafts are deleted after 6 months of no editing, regardless of AfC submission. An automated message warning you is also sent to your talk page after 5 months of no editing. Dege31 (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added all the references you asked for to the roads listed above.Transportfan70 (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in a better shape, good job regarding that, but there are still claims that should be either sourced or removed:

"Before the downloading the road only bore the name east of Main and Hurontario Streets (with the portion to the west simply being Highway 7), and thus was not divided into east-west sections."

"As of 2021, most of the area along the road corridor as far east as The Gore Road are under are either development or recently developed, but remains rural east of there to Highway 50."

"Rural until 2000s, the road's corridor is seeing rapid development as residential expansion encroaches from the south, mostly concentrated along the central section; mostly on the Brampton side, but also, to a lesser degree, on the Caledon (north) side."

"Later, the Brampton section was linked with an extension of Meadowvale Boulevard"

"which is (as of 2021) seeing rapid residential construction in the areas to the east."

" It is typically much busier and wider in Brampton"

"To preserve the river valley and the hamlet of Churchville it has been retained as a minor rural road"

"James Potter Road is a modern-built"

"Mavis was built in the late 1990's as a bypass of Chinguacousy (former Second Line, and still designated as such in Mississauga) in both Brampton south of Steeles and Mississauga to avoid the latter city's historic Meadowvale Village."

"omken Road, like Kennedy Road, is named for Thomas Laird Kennedy, with "Tomken" being a

portmanteau

:

T

h

om

as

Ken

nedy.."

"The southernmost stretch was originally part of Heart Lake, while the northernmost section is a later-built extension that veers east to tie into West Drive"

"It has its own unique address numbering anomaly with a numbering sequence distinct from both the main grid and north-south systems for the section between Steeles Avenue and Queen Street"

Dege31 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The article is in a better shape, good job regarding that, but there are still claims that should be either sourced or removed"

*sigh* Why didn't you bring all this stuff up before getting my hopes up?? Sheesh! You're asking for the impossible now. Information for a lot of these completed projects is likely impossible to find, but omitting will mean it won't make sense. :( I used to live in the areas and have followed the history of its roads for decades. Have some good faith.

Transportfan70 (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have good faith, but I bring it up because it will make the article less likely to be challenged. It's how this project works:Verifiability, not truth. Sometimes obvious stuff is excluded nonetheless, if a source cannot be found. Dege31 (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of North Kosovo crisis (2021)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Kosovo crisis (2021) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of North Kosovo crisis (2021)[edit]

The article North Kosovo crisis (2021) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:North Kosovo crisis (2021) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2021 North Kosovo crisis[edit]

The article 2021 North Kosovo crisis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2021 North Kosovo crisis for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2021 North Kosovo crisis[edit]

The article 2021 North Kosovo crisis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2021 North Kosovo crisis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. eviolite (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Journal of Horticultural Sciences has been accepted[edit]

Journal of Horticultural Sciences, 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.

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!

DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2021 North Kosovo crisis[edit]

On 14 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 North Kosovo crisis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the series of protests that led to the 2021 North Kosovo crisis was caused by a ban on Serbian license plates from the Kosovan Government? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 North Kosovo crisis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 North Kosovo crisis), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Influenza A virus subtype H5N6, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CDC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take the Lead contest 2021[edit]

Thank you for participating in the Take the Lead contest. You are one of the winners and to sort out the prize could you email me at [email protected] to coordinate. Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Favorite (Vampire[edit]

Hi, I hope I'm not bothering you, I saw that you approved my AfC submission for Favorite (Vampire but the title of the page in the mainspace doesn't have the final bracket and I can't move it to its actual name. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I wanted to ask if there was a reason for it or if it's just an error. Thank you! Poirot09 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a reason. It's because there is a redirect with that name. I'm sorry to inform that I don't know how to fix this either, that's why I made do. Dege31 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you so much for responding Poirot09 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thank you for your work. Dege31 (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News[edit]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting draft of Tajine Zitoun[edit]

Hello @Dege31:. I don't get why you onesidedly accepted the draft for Tajine Zitoun as it is, when several comments highlighted the flaws with the article, namely the improper use of sources. I also think you didn't properly follow the guidelines for Publishing drafts. The article as it is, while certainly notable, has poor quality and significant bias. I recommend putting it back into the draft namespace for further improvement. --Ideophagous (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of how a draft can be accepted or rejected otherwise. What guideline did I not follow?

There are flaws in the article, but nothing fundamental. Articles for Creation exists to keep out articles that blatantly violate policies. It's not a repository for imperfect articles. It will be further improved in mainspace. In fact, you can add that it's present in Moroccan cuisine yourself. As for "stronger associations", that's best left for the talk page. Dege31 (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only biased person here is you, Ideophagous.

One look at your page and you can see that you have received multiple warnings for engaging in edit wars.

Tagine zitoune, an ancestral Algerian dish that translates to "Olive tajine." It can be made with chicken, beef, lamb, or minced meat, and always includes mushrooms and carrots.

It should not be confused with the Moroccan dish Djadj b'zitoune, which translates to "Chicken with Olives," and contains no carrots nor mushrooms, and is also cooked differently with different spices. perhaps you should create a Wikipedia page on that, with citations referencing Morocco given that all of the references I chose were directly mentioning Algeria and the Algerian way of making this ancient dish.

Regarding the references, I'm not sure how they aren't credible given there are over a dozen of them, all of which are peer-reviewed, published books, some of them dating back to the 1970s, so I'd want more clarification on that. I'm also curious as to which of the references did not include a section on Olive Tagine. Slothtysloth (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Submission at Articles for Creation (Vict0ny)[edit]

Good day! Thank you reviewing Draft:Vict0ny earlier. I saw your comment and went to work to sourcing the part you mentioned. I did that already, if you have some time, I'd appreciate if you can check it out again. Super grateful as this is an important learning opportunity for me. Thanks again --Olakunle Rufai (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Dege31 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hristo Iliev Iliev has been accepted[edit]

Hristo Iliev Iliev, 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!

Slywriter (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Dege31

Thank you for creating Krvavac II.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start. I marked as reviewed. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

North8000 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Dege31

Thank you for creating Krvavac.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start. I marked as reviewed. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

North8000 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your refusal to publish the article[edit]

Actually the previous mentions were addressed. The article has now more than Nokia sources. It absolutely shows notability (one of the biggest batteries).

I really wonder why all the shitty Samsung budget smartphone articles become approved, which are way worse than the article I've written.

Wikipedia clearly measures with double standards. 46.114.104.141 (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined thereafter. One source is a simple specification listing and one source is an announcement. These do not contribute to notability. The Know Your Mobile source is used for an article calculation which does not contribute to notability whatsoever, as it is apparently not covered in another source. Calculations which are not obvious and simple are also discouraged on the project. One source is a review and that is not enough. At least two independent, in-depth, reliable sources are needed to establish the notability of an article subject, per the general notability guideline. The "…Samsung budget smartphone articles" may indeed be worse than Draft:Nokia C30, but articles are accepted or allowed to stay in mainspace based on their compliance with the policies and guidelines. If you believe that any of them cannot be brought in line, you may propose or nominate one for deletion. Dege31 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Oval, Bethnal Green (July 1)[edit]

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

Nine months in the making, and not a single source that would come even close to meeting the WP:GNG criteria. Probably should reject this, but giving it one more chance. --

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:The Oval, Bethnal Green and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Oval, Bethnal Green, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dege31! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2022 Angolan general election[edit]

On 31 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Angolan general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 06:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Arnold Strongman Classic[edit]

Hello, with refer to your deletion of the subjected article on 25 July 2022, could please review its re-submission? It was deleted due to lack of references and now adequate references (nine in number) are added. Thank you. Nir007H (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please, I believe that this page now meets all the requirements to be featured on Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BJ_Sam

Though It was rejected before because some of the sources used wasn't independent, reputable nor reliable but now all the cited sources mentioned in the draft are from independent, reputable, authoritative and widely read sources.

Please kindly review and approve this draft?

Dege31 Mcmatter Vukky Yapperbot David_Tornheim Rubiesar (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dotts Media House[edit]

Heyyy!!! I wanted to see if you can help take a look at this draft I submitted for review Draft:Dotts Media House. I'm still looking at ways to make it better. However, I really believe it is ready to be published. Kindly help take a look if you can as this will also improve my editing as well. Thank you very much. Olakunle Rufai (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I left a comment. Dege31 (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time out to look through. I'm going to read through again when I can to weed out anything that sounds promotional. With regards to sources, I specifically went with Wiki's list of general notable Nigerian sources here Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. So I think major newspapers like "The Punch", "The Guardian", "Vanguard Nigeria", "Business Day Nigeria", "Independent Nigeria" all meet the threshold. The lead actually mentioned the company being a Public relations and digital marketing firm but I'll take your advise and flesh it out more, then call your attention to look through again. Thanks again for your help! Olakunle Rufai (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those sources are major, but I mean references used in the article. You're welcome. Dege31 (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I understand now. Look at references 2, 5, 9, 15, 28,31. These represent coverage from major sources. Also, some of these platforms have multiple coverage on the subject, I only used the ones relevant to what was added to the article. I removed a couple thing that I thought sounded promotional, maybe you can help point other ones that I didn't see. Thanks a lot Olakunle Rufai (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to check if you've had time to look at Draft:Dotts Media House again. Cheers! Olakunle Rufai (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a look, and I believe that it does not pass the standards of NCORP. A few sources put together could count as significant coverage (those that go into more detail about the marketing landscape, but also mention other organisations). However, in the case of NCORP, multiple sources all need to independently meet the criteria. Most of the sources are trivial coverage per NCORP: non-notable awards, announcements, statistics without analysis. I would suggest a partial merge with Tiwalola Olanubi. Dege31 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you and thank you very much. Could you please share a link to standards of NCORP. I would love to see if its possible to use that to make the article better. Thanks Olakunle Rufai (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Found the link! Olakunle Rufai (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of spurious inventions moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, List of spurious inventions, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the list meets the informational purpose of LISTN, as it is an offshoot of List of lost inventions to separate the two topics, as there has been an overlap in editorship and readership that has been solved in such a way that what goes into the list of spurious inventions has been deleted from the list of lost inventions. Dege31 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:People of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of spurious inventions moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, List of spurious inventions, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the list meets the informational purpose of LISTN, as it is an offshoot of List of lost inventions to separate the two topics, as there has been an overlap in editorship and readership that has been solved in such a way that what goes into the list of spurious inventions has been deleted from the list of lost inventions. Dege31 (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Articles for creation backlog drive[edit]

Hello Dege31:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2500 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghan people by period has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Afghan people by period has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Branimir Nestorović moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Branimir Nestorović. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. 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 your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 05:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interest in Joining Wiki Writing Team[edit]

Hi, I'm discussing with another wiki person about how many POC and its allies pages are being systematically deleted by other wikipedians. We were discussing it off wiki on reddit. If you'd be interested in joining our team to help Wikipedia properly maintain articles that are linked to diverse voices and stories, message me on reddit here: https://www.reddit.com/user/Jujucabana25/ Juju (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in AfC November 2023 Backlog Drive[edit]

		Here's a brownie for your efforts
		Thank you for your participation in the Articles for Creation's November 2023 Backlog Drive! You made a total of 6 reviews, for a total of 8.5 points. – robertsky (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays![edit]

– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

– robertsky (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review my articles?[edit]

Hello, Dege31, recently you've reviewed my articles and left a message how to fix it. I'm not sure if I did it correctly, so can you please look at the articles and say if the problems are fixed.

Draft:Dora (Russian singer) (Here I deleted references to interview and added the link to last.fm website)

Draft:All - Russian Olympiad of schoolchildren (here I added English sourses that I can find and that are relevant to the topic) Кокушев Сергей (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Dege31. Thank you for your work on List of spurious inventions. Klbrain, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I had wondered whether 'spurious inventions' was quite the right term, as most of these seems to be hoaxes. However, the less pejorative 'spurious' is slightly broader and less contentious - an appropriate choice. It's likely that this list could be significantly expanded. When referencing, consider a formatting style that reduces the duplication you had in the reference list (I've done this using template:rp

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]