This is an archive of past discussions with User:Xoak. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Draft:Mehzeb Chowdhury, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:
If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
An article you recently created, Kazi Azim Uddin College, is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. 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, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, click the Submit the draft for review! button atop the article. Silikonz💬17:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
If it's going to take more than a few minutes, then you shouldn't be working in main article space. You should instead work in draft or user space. - UtherSRG(talk)19:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Forensic Magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
PS: I've had a discussion on the subject with another reviewer, and they asserted their evaluation of the page, and stated that the notability of the subject is affirmative. (User talk:TheAafi - Wikipedia)
That draft is not submitted for review. Please submit if you wish to have me take a look. Also, if another reviewer already asserted notability, why would there be the need for me to look at it?--CNMall41 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
@CNMall41, hi thanks for your response. "That draft is not submitted for review. Please submit if you wish to have me take a look". I'm confused, the draft is submitted for AFC review. if another reviewer already asserted notability, why would there be the need for me to look at it. Actually, that reviewer gave their evaluation on the page. And unfortunately, they refused to accept the submission despite it being suitable for main space in their evaluation, because the page is out of their interest, and they don't move drafts to mainspace that don't interest them.
But hopefully you'd be kind enough to review the page. Thanks in advance.
You are correct. It is submitted for review. I apologize for the comment. I will pass on reviewing for a number of reasons but it is in queue so someone should be around to review it shortly. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Xkalponik!
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! CNMall41 (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG 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:
politicians must hold an elective office.
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:Haji Saifuddin Ahmed Milon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
states that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are notable". The draft's subject is a major politician, he's a presidium member of the main opposition and one of the biggest political parties of the nation. He's been subject to numerous press coverage throughout his career. Would you reconsider this? Thanks. X (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minhaj Chowdhury 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.
An article you recently created, Mufassil Islam, 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. UtherSRG(talk)16:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
So, I've had discussions with 3 reviewers on the page. One of them is an admin (User:Cullen328). And they advised me to move it to main space, and a new page patroller will review it. And an AFC reviewer evaluated the page and were affirmative on the subject's notability. You may see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Teahouse.
The page has received evaluation, and also as advised from another admin, I'm moving it to main space, and then a new page patroller will review it.
@UtherSRG, Hi as you're previously familiar with me and an admin, so I'll seek for your help on this. So, this user (@আফতাবুজ্জামান), has been arbitrarily tagging my pages stating that I have some sort of close connection to the subjects.
I've replied to them on their talk page as well and will also state here: I do not have any sort of connection with any of the subjects whatsoever. I've created article on Mufassil Islam, as it fell under my radar, and I discussed with admins before creating it. Please see these discussions, links are given in the Talk:Mufassil Islam - Wikipedia. I noticed Minhaj Chowdhury on the list of awarded people by the U.S. Secretary of State, while creating an article on Muhammad Nur Khan, noticed him from this source. I also do not have any connection with Mehzeb Chowdhury either but noticed him on media.
I'm requesting for a solution here over this dispute, and getting those tags removed as they are untrue. Thanks. X (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabela Noor 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.
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. LizRead!Talk!01:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Delwar Hossain Sayeedi. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Hey, read the edit summaries. I did not remove any sourced content per se, but these sources did not verify the claims. Just because there are a lot of links aligned, do not make the claims verified automatically, I invite you to check them yourself, which I did, and found the sources did not verify the claims. Then I partially removed those and rewrote some of those claims in other sections, that reflected objectivity. Please do not start an edit war. I'm a more experienced user than you. If you have complaints or would like to discuss or want me to further explain my actions, please say so. Thanks. X (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
If you have concerns, raise it in the talk page and reach a consensus. I don't see any valid reasons in your edit summaries to remove all those sourced contents which is why they have been restored. I have checked the sources and they look fine. If you really are experienced, I assume you are aware of the WP:BRD and WP:DE policies. What I'm seeing is you are trying to claim ownership of the article by reverting all the other editors which is quite disruptive. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware of those policies. I'm not trying to claim the page. And I have not reverted edits by all other users. Re-check the edit history, you'd notice there have been constructive edits by several users, which I did not revert, even I brought back constructive edits by other users myself, again, because they were "constructive." This is a fact, that you seemed to have altered, and I put your assertions and accuracy into question. I explicitly said, I did not remove those entirely, but I rewrote those in the latter sections in an objective manner. I even added new sources along with new lines that describe the claims better. And I removed and rewrote factual error claims. Those were comments by his supporters, and sources reported that saying, X and Y commented/opinionated "this and that." These do not constitute facts, but comments, which can be added in the controversy/reaction section. X (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Xkalponik! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Delwar Hossain Sayeedi several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
Your recent editing history at Delwar Hossain Sayeedi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White House debate competition hoax until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Georgiana, Lady De Tabley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Portrait Gallery. 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.)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Mohammad Nur Khan. 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 – Nur Khan Liton. 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 Nur Khan Liton. 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. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@Vinegarymass911, aah snap! Wasted efforts. Sighs. Although nice to see a more comprehensive version exist. By the way, shouldn't there be a redirect now? X (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I had a look at Ramzan Miah as requested. I have made a few minor changes, but overall it looks OK. However, you must provide a reliable source for his date of birth, or remove that info. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red - June 2023
Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273
The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th
Tip of the month:
Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dirinaria confluens requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://lichenportal.org/portal/taxa/index.php?tid=55033&taxauthid=1&clid=201. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. — Moriwen (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
Thanks for your contributions to Cristine Roux. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
@PoisonHK, Hold on for at least 30 mins. I'm an experienced editor and I directly create articles to mainspace, it hadn't even been 5 minutes. I was in the process of finishing it. It appears you're not a New Page Reviewer, hence you lack the knowledge regarding it. Next time, do not immediately move pages to mainspace, check the time, and how long it has been. X (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cristine Roux and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Xkalponik!
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! PoisonHKSapiens dominabitur astris (talk • contribs) 08:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
You should add the {{editing}} template on top then. By the way, I have introduced links to your article from related articles in order to remove the orphan tag. PoisonHKSapiens dominabitur astris (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dirinaria confusa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. Esculenta (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Esculenta, I'm not sure how it violates copyright (even the report shows it's clean), but I've made some adjustments furthermore. X (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Esculenta, The article is substantially rewritten IMO and I did not just copy-paste. When dealing with nomenclature articles, one can only rewrite too much, in lieu of mentioning/stating the facts and data. I can't just assert Original Research for the sake of uniqueness. The article drastically differs from the sources with headings, formats, etc, (I used multiple sources, and the facts are the same so it'd appear closely paraphrased to one or more particular sources). X (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Or rather, you gave the appearance of using multiple sources, when those sources weren't actually used. To wit: in the Dirinaria confusa article, the source Gasparyan et al. (doi:10.1017/S0024282917000226) is used as a "source" twice in the article. I checked this source, it does not even name the titled species anywhere in the article. So I suppose that example is more "citation fraud" then copyvio. Esculenta (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
No the source of the description you included from the webpage is Lichen Flora of the Greater Sonoran Desert Region; the source I mentioned has nothing to do with this species. You have claimed to use this source for the article, when it doesn't even mention the species in question (= citation fraud). Your final question is a non-sequitur, as I did not claim that the majority of the facts cannot come from one source. The fact that the Consortium of Lichen Herbaria website mistakenly links to a non-relevant publication suggests that WP:Competence is required for editing. Esculenta (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Esculenta Consortium of Lichen Herbaria is generally considered a reliable source so I did not suspect they'd have linked to unrelated citations. I copied and pasted it and it auto-links to that Cambridge source. You're appreciated for pointing that out. But first, you accuse of copyvio, then drift to "citation fraud". We both are trying to do build and contribute to the encyclopedia. The pointed issue is a human error and calling me citation "fraud" is unwarranted and offensive.Anyway, I'll now remove that source from this article along with 1-2 others I've used in. Take care. X (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Dcotos}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
@Dcotos, The article is now substantially rewritten. My bad, I should have processed it in a word processor beforehand directly publishing in Wiki. I was intending to rewrite and expand in real time, hence put a "being created" tag on it. But I understand there seemed to be some copyvio from a particular source. It's just when dealing with nomenclature items, there's not much room for "totally rephrasing", as facts tend to be the same in all the sources.I'd be more careful from now and will process offline before putting directly into wiki. If you feel a revision deletion is needed, please do so.Thank you for your help in the article as well. X (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Thelomma ocellatum. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. Dcotos (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Enchylium conglomeratum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sessile.
Hi there, Xkalponik, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already written several interesting biographies of women and look forward to many more. If you have not already done so, you might like to look at some of our Essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Xkalponik. Thank you for your work on Moye moye. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@Ipigott, Hey! Thanks for the invite. Snap, I thought I was already officially registered. You left a message on my talk page previously 1 year ago. Since then I started creating articles from the Redlist. I've recently started to participate in #1day1woman and listed my articles there in daily section as well as the weekly section. I plan to continue this throughout the year. At least 1 bio per week. Btw I've now formally registered via the link you sent. And I'd also like to join the newsletters of the project. I'm open to any collaboration or anything I can help with. Also, feel free to share any of your suggestions or tips.Thank you. Have a great day. PS: (I admire your work a lot). X (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion. I had a feeling I had contacted you earlier. It looked to me you were not yet an official member as you had not added {{User WikiProject Women in Red}} to your user page. Thanks for registering under New members and welcome to the project. I've included you on the mailing list so you'll receive our monthly invitations. It's good to see you are participating in our contest. I see that your recent articles have been translations. While you have correctly attributed them in your first edit, it's also useful to include a translation template on the talk page. You may have noticed I've taken care of the last few. I hope to see many more of your biographies of historical women. If you feel like creating any from scratch, you might find it useful to look through our Primer. Please let me know if you run into any problems or need assistance. Happy editing.--Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Qwexcxewq, If you're unwilling/unable to review this please state so. It's been more than 12 days since you marked this under review. Regards. X (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey when attempting to review this article I realized that I was a bit out of my depth and I don't think that I could provide a good review to Wikipedia's standards. Is there any way the article could be reviewed by someone else? Qwexcxewq (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
According to WP:GAN/I#N4a, since the reviewer has not yet made any substantive comments on the review page, the reviewer can request a Wikipedia:G6 speedy deletion, then the nomination should reappear in the nominations page. Esculenta (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Qwexcxewq, Unfortunately, that's not the correct way to do it. Please edit the nomination page and insert this {{Db-g6|rationale=I do not want to review this page. Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xkalponik#DYK_nomination_of_Enchylium_limosum this discussion].}}. Copy and paste it. X (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Merciless Ones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline. 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.)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Here Comes Tomorrow (radio show), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NewsOne.
Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Moriwen}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello! Your DYK nomination is effectively good to go! As you requested, I've given my thoughts on the lead image but am left indecisive. You can choose which suits you best. Best wishes, ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me)11:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
On 13 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Buellia aethalea, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Buellia aethalea, a species of fungus, is also known as the "darkened button lichen" due to the small black spots on its crusty grey surface? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Buellia aethalea. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Buellia aethalea), 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.
Thank for your help with the Martha's Rule article. What you said made good sense and I've now made substantial changes along the lines you suggested. It would be terrific if you could take another look. Thank you.
@MPRabbity, You've headed in the right direction, by making those adjustments. However, the lead needs a rewrite. Please move out the quotes and supportive sentence to a latter section, you could create a sub-section such as Reception under Implemention. There you could insert those quotes supporting, as well as criticising the topic. X (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@MPRabbity, Moreover, although quotes are often helpful, but this article seems to be full of them. Trim down the direct quote unquote and rather try to paraphrase in your own words and portray people's opinions. Not all quotes should be trimmed down tho, but currently there's too many. X (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
My AfC Submission
I submitted the page Draft:American Ringtail as an article candidate and you rejected it because of a WP:GNG issue, you said after I fixed it I can resubmit it, which I have done. Let me know if any more issues with the article arise and I can fix those too. (PS: Sorry that the Cat mother died, I hope she rests in peace!) Thanks, GalaxyCat1 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2024 (CDT)
@WPGalaxyCat1, Thank you for your condolences. I've seen your edits to the draft right after you had made them. But usually, I do not re-review a draft I've declined before, hence I've left it for others to review. Still, I'd have reviewed it again, but unfortunately, I'm still doubtful of the draft's sourcing. The blog you added appears to be an unreliable source. And I made some little adjustments to the writing during my first review, but it still needs some rewriting. The behavior section especially, doesn't quite read like a formal encyclopedia-toned statement. For example, it incorporates the use of latex words such as "probably", this type of tone is not great here, it gives a notion that this statement might be dubious. You could also rewrite the earlier lines from that section, such as They have some habits that may be remnants of their genes, maybe even dating back to Solomon, these habits include hiding their food and once they have finished eating, they will sometimes attempt to bury their food. Instead like this They manifest certain behavioral patterns that are speculated to be evolutionary remnants, potentially tracing back to antiquity, including the tendency to conceal their food and engage in postprandial attempts at burying it.X (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@X, Okay, Thank you, I will either try to fix that or with auto-confirmed access transfer the page over as an article in mainspace (I will fix the behaviour section first). Would that be okay or is that not something I am supposed to do, it would be helpful to have it in mainspace as it would be more open for standard editing which would be helpful. - GalaxyCat1 (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2024 (CDT)
@WPGalaxyCat1, I'd advise you against it. Being in the draft space allows for the betterment of the content, with feedback from reviewers such as myself, potentially making it suitable for mainspace. Although you may technically be able to move it to mainspace yourself, that does not mean you should practice that. It is strongly discouraged, as it'd risk your article being deleted rapidly (I can also see that it was already deleted once). Instead of going that path, I'd suggest you reach for help from experienced editors at the Tea House. Also, you may consider following the suggestions I gave. The friendly editors at the Tea House will also help you out. Regards. X (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@X Okay, Will do. Thanks! - GalaxyCat1 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (CDT)
