Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to Downtown Magnets High School, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)21:34, 22 March 2020 (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 John from Idegon were:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Metro Charter Elementary School. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
The comment the reviewer left was:
This can be covered adequately in the school district article. Main source is a neighborhood paper. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and most likely will continue to. Elementary schools are seldom notable. It's highly doubtful this one is different.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Metro Charter Elementary School 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:Metro Charter Elementary School, 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 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Reppop!
Having an article 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! John from Idegon (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2020 (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 Sulfurboy were:
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michael Badal 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:Michael Badal, 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 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy 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.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Wikipedia is not the news. Someones death being covered by multiple outlets isn't much of an indication of notability. We would need to see that this subject has sustained coverage. Particularly, we need to see significant coverage of the subject in reliable, secondary sources before the accident.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Corey La Barrie 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:Corey La Barrie, 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 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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 when they have been resolved.
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:Orthopaedic Hospital Medical Magnet High School, 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 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Speedy deletion nomination of Navigator (1986 Omega Tribe album)
Hello Reppop,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Navigator (1986 Omega Tribe album) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia, and the artist doesn't have an article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Otr500 were:
"Multiple issues" (a quick scan and not exhaustive): 1)- Far too many unsourced sections and content (appears as WP:original research) with reliance on one source (Billboard) being almost 41% of the total sources making it more about the songs than the group. Quotes need sourcing such as the "Notes" (a) that also fall under the sourcing guidelines. 2)- Anytime living people are mentioned it invokes BLP standards requiring the use of high-quality sources. 3)- the use of such a large amount of templates and graphs (exempli gratia : timeline) in lieu of prose may look impressive but is actually not so much encyclopedic and discouraged. This becomes more of an issue when unsourced or under-sourced such as the "Band members", "Discography", and "Tours" sections. This information is either original research or came from somewhere. 4)-The use of all capital letters is inappropriate as well as foreign languages such as the "Best-of albums" section, especially in song titles, See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Naming), as to how things like "愛さなくていいから" (English: "I Don't Have To Love")" should appear.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Omega Tribe (Japanese band) 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:Omega Tribe (Japanese band), 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 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That We're Human until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eostrix (🦉 hoothoot🦉])07:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~ Amkgp💬04:53, 2 July 2020 (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 CNMall41 were:
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Night Tempo 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:Night Tempo, 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 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Reppop!
Having an article 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! CNMall41 (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shinichiro Yokota, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.W. Miller until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Template:Omega Tribe, 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 Template-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. 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.
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.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Geary until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:
I see no claim of notability. Self-published sources like Facebook, Twitter, etc. aren't allowed. I'm not sure about most of these sources. Newspapers and magazines are fine but much of this looks like random Japanese websites.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Night Tempo 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:Night Tempo, 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 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Reppop!
Having an article 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! Chris Troutman (talk)23:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keizoh Kawano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keyboard. 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.)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eternal Shadow was:
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Single low peak (170th) on minor music chart does not do enough for 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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Night Tempo 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:Night Tempo, 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 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Tamingimpala 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.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Night Tempo 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:Night Tempo, 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 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
@Reppop, I saw what you did there on the draft, but have you ever really read what I (on my talk page) or other editors wrote? What's the point of adding a bunch of refs in the draft? As if I take that you only think that we asked for more references? No. I addressed several points on my talk page including highlighting sentences that needed to be rewritten. And one user said, "Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Single low peak (170th) on minor music chart does not do enough for notability.". But you never seem to address any of these, but only the refs. As after my detailed response to you on my talk page, you just replied: So, I need more references? Cause he got viral cause of his remixes and not cause of TikTok cause that really wasn't a thing., avoiding all the other factors.
The subject does not produce his own music (not saying that the subject has to produce his own music, his remixes just currently do not make him notable enough), just a bunch of remixes that don't seem to have any major outlet coverage (I already acknowledged on my talk page about refs from Billboard website, also you now added an NME ref, but then again they do not establish WP:MUSICBIO. Quantity of references is not the only thing. The kind of coverage that those refs do is also important.)
I could point out many drafts to you that we declined even tho they had much more reliable references than yours. It's just even tho there are refs from reliable and independent sources, the coverage within those sources does not establish notability.
We review a draft based on what's in it. So, just adding a bunch of refs after the draft is declined ain't gonna do anything. When I declined the draft there were a lot of Japanese random websites, and now you removed them? Only kept the good ones? Why didn't you do that in the first place? Even checking back on, I noticed Twitter and other social medias were used as source? You should have only used the good sources, but you used as many sources as your could. That's why I previously pointed you out to WP:THREE. As a reviewer, we don't seek for many refs, it's just the few good ones.
Anyway, if you're so keen to believe that this draft should be accepted, then you should address the other issues (not just the refs), and resubmit. Let's see if other reviewers accepts it or not next time. If not, then I really recommend posting at WP:TEAHOUSE, it really helped one of the previous users whose draft I declined, and good people from teahouse pointed out the problem and helped him, and he got it approved next time. Tame (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I restarted the draft cause I realized that I didn't fully understand what the reviewers meant, cause I just thought that there weren't enough refs to show it. I don't think the draft I wrote about a year ago would do any good now as the draft you guys rejected was that with more stuff so I deleted the text/refs so I could do a rewrite. reppoptalk21:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi, I've posted a comment on Draft:List of LAUSD superintendents -- essentially, I think it would be good for mainspace if there were references for the list itself, and that it might work better as a prose article rather than a list. I'm commenting on your talk page since it seems technically someone else submitted it so the notification went to their talk page. Thanks, eviolite(talk)17:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Reppop. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Night Tempo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Los Angeles City Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Stevenson.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Washington until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yucco Miller until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Umar Johnson, 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.
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.
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 22:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adin Ross until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
hi reppop So all California elections are nonpartisan including governor there can be 2 candidate with the same political party's also when you add colors people will confuse it with political parties and will add political party's as a good deed so there no need to add colors or party's we don't want to re add political party's if you have questions please reply back thank you 2603:8001:2902:64F4:1983:15C9:68D4:88BC (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eunisses Hernandez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franklin High School.
Hugo Soto-Martinez, 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.
@74.62.14.54: Probably not, but if you want to try to make an argument for it, you should probably take it to the talk page first and get consensus first before trying to add/remove stuff. I probably wouldn't as we don't know all the acting presidents. I'm also not quite sure why you're fixated on these things. reppoptalk18:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Where the caption is sufficiently descriptive or evocative of the image, or where it makes clear what the function of the image is, one option is to write |alt=refer to caption. Where nearby text in the article performs the same function, it can be |alt=refer to adjacent text.
I just wanted to write this to tell my deepest apology for a two-week gap within both AfDs involving Speaker Knockerz (noms. #2 and 3). It was just that the second nomination was ineligible due to a speedy delete without consensus. It seems why I have to nominate it again for the third time without reviewing the last votes. I hope you understand. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox)03:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, all you really need to know is that just because an article was deleted back then doesn't mean you can't recreate it ever. If it was a "prohibited article," then the article wouldn't be a thing. The first nominator even says "No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can pony up a properly written and properly sourced article," which Célestin clearly did. If you look at the article that was deleted back in 2014 and the current version, you can see a clear difference. reppoptalk03:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadeca until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Diane Papan, 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.
Hey, I added the redirect because I couldn't find any significant coverage of the album itself, even if it did chart high. I did the same for all of the other albums as most don't have a lot of coverage in reliable sources, if at all. The only ones I could find was from a announcement of a remaster a week ago. reppoptalk21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed your recent edit on the Konstantine Anthony page and your contributions to several other political figures' articles. While I appreciate your efforts in contributing to Wikipedia, I have some concerns that I would like to address in the spirit of maintaining the integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia.
Your recent edit, which involved restoring a specific portrait of Konstantine Anthony, has prompted me to examine the pattern of your contributions. I see that you've created and edited articles on several political figures, predominantly from the Democratic Party. This observation leads me to wonder about the potential for an unintentional bias in your contributions, especially regarding the choice of images and content in these biographies.
I would like to understand more about the reasoning behind your specific choice of the portrait for Konstantine Anthony. Are there specific guidelines or criteria you are following that might help clarify your decision? This is important to ensure that we adhere to Wikipedia's principles of neutral point of view and verifiability.
I am not accusing you of wrongdoing, but I believe it is beneficial for both of us, and for the Wikipedia community, to discuss these concerns openly. It's essential to ensure that our contributions are free from potential conflicts of interest and maintain the objective standards that Wikipedia upholds.
Looking forward to your response and a constructive dialogue on this matter.
My reason is simple: they have an official portrait which can be uploaded to Commons because of California law. I don't have a particular care about Konstantine Anthony except that I knew he had an article and that I could even upload an image since it would be way better, in my opinion, than the other one of him during the actors strike, since it's an official image. I'm actually astounded that my choice to upload an official, California city image for an officeholder in California prompted you to take a look at all of my edits, it's an damn portrait image. reppoptalk05:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the time to reflect on your perspective regarding the image placement on the Konstantine Anthony page. It's commonplace, especially on political figures' pages, to review edit histories and contributions to ensure content neutrality and verifiability, per Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. In doing so, I couldn't help but notice a pattern in your contributions that is often indicative of paid political editing. I'm sure you can understand why this might raise questions in the context of maintaining a neutral editorial stance.
I am not insinuating any policy violation; however, I am curious whether providing images or content for political candidates is a service you offer, as this may be relevant to the discussion. The image of Konstantine Anthony protesting aligns with his public persona as a "man of the people," and its replacement with an official city portrait may not reflect the same message. Given that cities typically do not upload their images to Wikimedia Commons, the source of the official portrait also needs to be considered for compliance with Wikipedia's copyright policies.
I suggest moving the city portrait to the body of the article and retaining the original image in the infobox, which seems more appropriate. This compromise respects the article's narrative flow and Mr. Anthony's public image.
If we cannot come to an agreement, we may need to explore further steps in the dispute resolution process to seek broader community input. I hope we can resolve this amicably and keep the focus on enhancing the article in a balanced and informative way.
Looking forward to your understanding and cooperation.
What "service" dude? Why are you thinking that just because I have a particular interest in some politicians indicates paid editing? I can't have any interest in them whatsoever? Nobody else has done this except for you, you're the first person to tell me that me editing an image in this way isn't neutral, so no I don't understand why it could raise questions.
To answer "Given that cities typically do not upload their images to Wikimedia Commons, the source of the official portrait also needs to be considered for compliance with Wikipedia's copyright policies", I point you to c:Template:PD-CAGov, which is the template I used to justify the upload. TLDR, California governments can't enforce copyright on government photos so they're public domain (as stated in the template).
And no, I don't agree on putting the other photo would be better, especially when that exact photo is literally in the body + the official portrait is literally just better since its professional. Also, I don't get why the portrait would need to align with his "public persona" or his "public image" in the first place. reppoptalk05:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response and the clarification regarding the use of the Template:PD-CAGov. However, I maintain my concerns about the neutrality of the image choice. Wikipedia's guidelines are clear about representing subjects in a balanced and neutral way, which extends beyond the professional quality of the images.
While I understand your perspective, I must disagree with the notion that an official portrait is inherently superior for an infobox, especially when it may not fully represent the public persona of a political figure like Konstantine Anthony. Wikipedia is not a platform for official portraits but a place for neutral and balanced representation. The choice of images should reflect this ethos.
Given our continued disagreement and the nature of this issue, I suggest we move towards a Request for Comments (RfC). This process will allow broader community input, ensuring a more balanced and community-driven resolution.
This process will help ensure that the decision regarding the image is made democratically and in line with Wikipedia's standards.
Looking forward to resolving this matter with the wider community's input.
I'm not sure how in any way the image is not "neutral" and I'm not sure why the infobox image represent to fit his "public persona" in the first place. He's a mayor for a city, I feel like the current image represents that part anyways. Why would you settle for a lesser image? Why are you trying to help his "public persona" as well?
"Wikipedia is not a platform for official portraits but a place for neutral and balanced representation"? He's a politician, dude. Most other California politicians have their official portraits for the most part.
If you actually looked at my contributions to politicians for images you'd see that most of them is finding free and good images that I could find and adding them to the infobox. California is a state where official portraits taken for governments are public domain, so I add those to California politicians where they don't have one or replace other, lower quality images with higher quality ones. reppoptalk05:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns Regarding Image Upload and Article Edits on Konstantine Anthony
Dear User:Reppop,
I've observed your recent activities on the Konstantine Anthony Wikipedia article and the related image upload titled "Konstantine Anthony, 2022.jpg" to Wikimedia Commons. I'm concerned about the copyright status of this image, which appears to be a work of the City of Burbank and was sourced from their official website. As you may be aware, images produced by municipal governments may not be in the public domain like those by federal agencies, raising questions about whether the image was uploaded and used without proper consent or release of copyright by the City.
Furthermore, there seems to be a rapid series of edits on the Konstantine Anthony page, which might indicate a potential bias, possibly aligning with a political campaign. As Wikipedia editors, we strive to maintain neutrality and avoid any conflicts of interest.
In light of these concerns, I've initiated a Request for Comments (RfC) on the article's Talk page to seek broader community input on these issues. Your participation in this discussion would be valuable to ensure a fair and balanced resolution.
Thanks for not reading my comments and the undeletion request that shows that it's public domain. Oh, and also, thanks for saying I've undergone rapid edits with a total of four spaced throughout a total of seven months, and all four only adding the images. reppoptalk21:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Furthermore, there seems to be a rapid series of edits on the Konstantine Anthony page, which might indicate a potential bias, possibly aligning with a political campaign."
I never made any accusation towards any specific editor.
I have a very keen interest in copyright law and opinions on the un-deletion request are not legal in nature unless the individual editor has disclosed they are a licensed attorney. A licensed attorney had weighed in and clarified in his opinion the portrait is very likely not in the public domain. Eric Allen Kelly is not my "purported attorney" as per the comment of @Isaidnoway on the Talk:Konstantine Anthony page. I had never met this attorney before, not communicated with him prior to asking him the question, he is a volunteer on Avvo and it was my first communication with him. Feel free to reach out to him yourself.
Unless there is a reason to discuss this further on your Talk Page, I have moved to the next phase in dispute resolution which was to discuss this on the Talk:Konstantine Anthony page.
In light of the very compelling legal implications in the use of the portrait and others on this site, I am going to continue to investigate this and review the third party comments. This may also involve Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee if appropriate. I am done here for the moment. Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinion.
The quote in bold is something that you literally said yourself, why are you trying to say that you didn't call me a "meat puppet" in the edits where you removed the image and in the edit that tried to delete the image. The attorney that you said did not say anything about California, or anything about California government works that are subject to the California Public Records Act. Also, I didn't say anything about you and the attorney's relationship in the first place except for saying that that's just a general statement for most local governments in most states, which as I said in my reply on the talk page, are copyrighted, but nothing was said on the California stuff or the California Public Records Act.
Also, why are you still trying to put it on the English Wikipedia??? The other editor and I have said to make a statement on Commons, where the image is actually hosted, instead of here since the image isn't even being hosted on this site. reppoptalk02:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sleeplessmason, since you mentioned my name here, I will respond here (hope you don't mind Reppop).
You claim you are following dispute resolution procedures, but the dispute about the copyright status of the image is on Wikimedia Commons. That's where the original discussion/dispute started, and where it should be resolved. You nominated the file for deletion at Commons as seen here, casting aspersions about Reppop (suspected to be uploaded by a political party meat puppet for Anthony), without providing any evidence for that allegation - which is viewed as a personal attack. And instead of appealing the decision made at Commons about the copyright status of the image, like instructed to, you are now basically engaged in forum shopping, by opening an RfC on the talk page of Anthony, instead of following the dispute resolution procedures at Commons where this dispute originated.
And then in the RfC opening statement, you cast aspersions about editors motives for editing the article, accusing them of potential bias ... and the presence of a politically motivated campaign influencing the article's content (possibly portraying a politically positive spin), without providing any evidence for that allegation. And then when I actually take a closer look at the article, and do a deep dive into the sources being used (and mis-used), it's the exact opposite of a "politically positive spin". I find Fox News, a blog, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and Rolling Stone, all shitty and/or questionable sources for a BLP/politicians article, per WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, and WP:ENDORSED. So considering that Reppop (or myself for the record), did not add any of that content with questionable sourcing, one really has to wonder who is engaged in a politically motivated campaign influencing the article's content.
Furthermore, you are the one who reached out to an attorney, and then posted a purported opinion from that said attorney to the talk page of Anthony. For what reason? Are you trying to influence the discussion by portraying their opinion as being authoritative or decisive? If you have genuine/legitimate concerns about the legality/copyright status of the photograph being used, then you need to get on over to Wikimedia Commons and present your case there, where this dispute originated.Isaidnoway(talk)07:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
On 24 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Detroit Sign, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an AI rendering of the Detroit Sign misled people into thinking that it would be larger than it actually is? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Detroit Sign. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Detroit Sign), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Userr:Reppop/omt. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – One More Time (Daft Punk song). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at One More Time (Daft Punk song). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁05:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Gmac Cash
On 9 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gmac Cash, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that rapper Gmac Cash attempted to gift a pair of Cartier glasses to Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gmac Cash. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gmac Cash), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Damn I wasn't even finished with that lol. @Stanloona2020:, since you moved it, could you start to work on finishing the article so it won't have any blank sections? I can probably start to update it afterwards. reppoptalk08:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello. When you removed a named reference, as you did here for the AmaLee quote box, AnomieBOT had to recover the citation data that was being used elsewhere in the article with the "CornerVTuber" ref name. If you plan to remove a citation that uses the <ref name="label"> tag, make sure you relocate the citation. Thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
