User talk:Xpander1/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Xpander1. 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.

Archive 1

Draft:Dominik Finkelde concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Dominik Finkelde, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Dominik Finkelde

Hello, Khashmashi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Dominik Finkelde".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl | talk 16:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Dominik Finkelde moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Dominik Finkelde, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) In addition, since it is a blp (bio of a living person), it needs significant footnoting to verify the assertions in the article. 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. Onel5969 ^TT me 14:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dominik Finkelde (March 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by QueerEcofeminist was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Dominik Finkelde 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:Dominik Finkelde, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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 will be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

QueerEcofeminist^"cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Khashmashi! 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! QueerEcofeminist^"cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dominik Finkelde has been accepted

Dominik Finkelde, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Todd McGowan moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Todd McGowan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. 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, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself. Onel5969 ^TT me 17:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969 why do you think that there is WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict? someones (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Because there are obvious indications that you are connected to the subject somehow. We don't give hints to editors on how we can spot UPE/COI editors. Onel5969 ^TT me 01:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, in that case, you are making baseless accusations, which is highly disrespectful. I will give you the hint, so your illusions may be cleared, I asked the author via email to send me a photo of themselves a while after creating the page, so it wouldn't have copyright issues. And they sent me a selfie, which I uploaded afterwards, that has probably triggered your detective intuitions, of how somebody else may have taken that photo? I will remove that photo accordingly since it doesn't count as my own work. Please stop making Wikipedia such a toxic place before making up your mind, and contact your superior, since I don't think asking for a photo constitutes WP:UPE or WP:COI. The author is pretty well known you can find citations to his work from other Wikis such as this one:

Psychoanalytic film theory

You can take a look across the internet as to see whether he's really well known, I've known this author via Slavoj Žižek who has recommended and reviewed many of his works.

I hope this finalizes your guesswork episode. someones (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Todd McGowan (March 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Todd McGowan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Todd McGowan moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Todd McGowan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^TT me 12:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969 I've added the AFC comments back to the page Draft:Todd McGowan, have you checked them already? there are at least three instances of sources for Wikipedia:GNG, including reviews from Cambridge University Press, which meet at least four of the important criteria 1. "Significant coverage" 2. "Reliable" 3. "Independent of the subject" 4. "Sources", and other publications and awards. Have you already assessed all of those? someones (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any reviews from Cambridge University Press. What #'s are those? Currently there are 13 sources, none of which are in-depth and non-primary. Onel5969 ^TT me 01:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969, I haven't mentioned the reviews in the primary article but in the AfC section on top, there's one review from Hegel Bulletin (Cambridge University Press) https://doi.org/10.1017/hgl.2020.10, and one from American Imago (Johns Hopkins University) https://www.jstor.org/stable/26305079. I can add those perhaps in a separate "Views" section if necessary. someones (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969, I think you keep forgetting to check on this, as a reminder would you mind taking another look? someones (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Todd McGowan has been accepted

Todd McGowan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

minor edits

Hey, just FYI, Wikipedia has a technical definition of "minor edits", which is basically restricted to typos. You can have a look here: Help:Minor edit. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Hi Khashmashi. I was wondering what was your rationale for removing spaces, from infobox templates, across multiple articles? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123. Mostly I was looking for removing unnecessary spaces (double, extra spaces etc.), some of them turned out to be inside infoboxes, frankly didn't see any rationale for keeping them either, so went for 1) lower real state (both visual and storage-wise), 2) more uniform spacing across the board (compared to variable length spacing). So I leaned towards removing, but do you think keeping them as is, is visually more pleasing? someones (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I find it easier to edit infobox templates if all the "=" symbols are aligned and all the data entries are left aligned. Removing the "unnecessary spaces" destroys this. But I realise this is just a personal preference. It makes no difference to the visual appearance of the article, of course. I'm really not sure we need to worry about saving storage space. You might want to get a wider view of this issue? Thanks for listening, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I agree, thanks for pointing that out, the alignment argument sounds more palpable. Best. someones (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop changing double spaces after periods to single spaces. It has no effect on the rendered page and it stirs up ill-feeling for no good reason. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Trovatore, I didn't know double-spaces after periods are pointless (pun intended). Otherwise they're annoying, hence the edits. someones (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

OK you're allowed to be annoyed but please stop removing them. That is much more annoying. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
233		Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (talk)	Add sources
10		Gotthard Günther (talk)	Add sources
4		Artibus et Historiae (talk)	Add sources
118		Point system (driving) (talk)	Add sources
48		Naturphilosophie (talk)	Add sources
35		Heidegger Gesamtausgabe (talk)	Add sources
184		Hans-Georg Gadamer (talk)	Cleanup
8		Danielle Cohen-Levinas (talk)	Cleanup
44		Károly Kerényi (talk)	Cleanup
117		Neo-Kantianism (talk)	Expand
164		Young Hegelians (talk)	Expand
3		Wolfgang Müller-Lauter (talk)	Expand
1,382		Martin Heidegger (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
26		Hans Albert (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
531		Trance music (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
140		Doctor of Law (talk)	Merge
16		Dutch Research Council (talk)	Merge
57		Ta'wiz (talk)	Merge
56		Vittorio Hösle (talk)	Wikify
53		DJ Quik production discography (talk)	Wikify
5		Markus Michael Fischer (talk)	Wikify
2		Emmanuel Cattin (talk)	Orphan
2		Claude Debru (talk)	Orphan
2		Janine Chanteur (talk)	Orphan
4		Georg Lasson (talk)	Stub
8		Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand Solger (talk)	Stub
18		International Journal of the Sociology of Language (talk)	Stub
4		Lawrence Stepelevich (talk)	Stub
7		Language Problems and Language Planning (talk)	Stub
5		Espen Hammer (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Xpander1! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Made an article in place of an redirect, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

 voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Overpunishment block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xpander1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is over-punishment for editing an article I created. I have described my rationale and no one responded to my rationale, except that I'm an egotist? which I think it counts as a personal attack (WP:Personal Attack), and it's sad that this language comes from an Admin. My suggestions were directed towards, fair-user-attribution. Okey I edit-warred on one article, and I agree that it wasn't the right way towards that goal. but that doesn't justify psychological attributions. Blocking me from editing those articles alone was perhaps justified, but not the whole Wikipedia. This is the Slippery Slope fallacy. (See: WP:Ignore all rules and WP:NOTBURO).

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring. Why you were edit warring is not relevant. Don't edit war, and you won't get blocked for edit warring. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Xpander (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

3RR is pretty clear ... violating it almost always results in a sitewide block, and you made a lot more than just four reverts in far less than 24 hours. Your disingenuous arguments at ANEW indicated you are aware of 3RRNO, so there is no need to link to it here. Daniel Case (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case It's sad to see an admin behave like this. Given all the privileges and experiences, I am mystified—no make it stunned. Xpander (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing you have written here is doing anything that would make me reconsider my decision (for which I have been thanked by a few of the other editors involved). Quite the opposite, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox I hope you had in mind this admin's behavior. Xpander (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. The message you are supposed to be getting here is "don't edit war, ever." The vast majority of WP editors are able to understand and abide by this simple rule. If you cannot or will not, you will just end up being blocked again, for longer than this time. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox I've been a Wikipedian for more than 7-years, and this is the first time this is happening, you think I did not know how to abide by this "simple rule"? As I explained I thought I was self-reverting. Now you might justifiably argue that I am wrong, i.e. self-revert does not apply here. Mistakes happen, that's it. You block me for 24-hours as per WP:EW#Administrator_guidance for the first offense. End of discussion. Not for 72 hours, and then call me "disingenuous", "egotist" as User:Daniel Case is doing above. This is an obvious overreach. Simple enough? Xpander (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Your explanation that you thought you were self reverting is a reasonable explanation of why you did so once. it does not explain or excuse the other seven times you did so.

There are only two ways to get a block for edit warring lifted:

1. Convince reviewing admins you were not edit warring. I very much doubt you will be able to convince any admin of this but you are welcome to file another appeal and see how that goes.
2. Acknowledge your error and express your understanding of the edit warring policy and why it is not tolerated. You haven't tried this approach, but it is the only one likely to succeed at this point.

Attacking the blocking admin is the least likely path to an early unblock. I agree with What Daniel has said about this, your behavior, both before and after the block, is childish and your explanations for it are not believable.If you honestly believed you were self-reverting all eight times and it was no big deal, you should probably be indefinitely blocked for CIR reasons, but as I said I don't actually believe you there.

Please do not ping me about this again, File another unblock request if you want this situation reviewed by another admin. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox. I didn't say I was not edit-warring, I said I thought I didn't, there's a difference. I acknowledged this in my first appeal which you kindly rejected. Plus, Daniel is the one who did the attacking, not me. See his response here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Xpander1_reported_by_User:MimirIsSmart_(Result:_Blocked_72_hours). Being an admin doesn't allow you to say whatever you want to say, that's another required competence. The end. Xpander (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Was there some part of Please do not ping me about this again you failed to understand? File another unblock requests, or don't, I don't care, just stop pinging me. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you're being reasonable. I promise it's the last time, just wanted to thank u for your explanations. Best. @Beeblebrox Xpander (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this how you intend to prove you aren't acting like a child? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical. Congratulations on being one of a very small number of editors who have acted so obnoxious I have felt the need to mute them. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

It's required to post this notification, even if you can't reply there.

I've just asked for some other admin to revoke your talk page access for the duration of the block as you're being deliberately obnoxious. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Xpander1 reported by User:MimirIsSmart (Result: ). Thank you. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

Your recent editing history at Tübingen School 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. MimirIsSmart (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School. 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 – Tübingen School. 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 Tübingen School. 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. Wikishovel (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

Hi Xpander1! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Tübingen School 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.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Tübingen School, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tübingen School, you may be blocked from editing. Wikishovel (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Tübingen School. Wikishovel (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Dina Emundts moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Dina Emundts. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and English Wikioedia has stricter sourcing requirements for BLP than or Wikipedias. Article must comply with WP:NPROF and WP:V policies. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thanks for your suggestions. After adding a few resources, I moved the article back to the main space, I think it does meet the criterion for WP:NPROF and WP:V now. Xpander (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Armen Miran

Hello Xpander1,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Armen Miran for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Armen Miran to be deleted, 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.

JJP_Master (she/they) 22:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JJPMaster that was before I created the page, can you take a look at the page now? Xpander (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

AfD as review

Hello Xpander1 -- While it's not outright forbidden, I don't think repeatedly using AfD for review of articles you have created is a good use of everyone's time. If you start an article and then immediately change your mind as to notability, you can request deletion using WP:G7, as long as no-one else has contributed significantly (minor copy edits would not count, and probably not addition of categories, but addition of other material/references would). I usually action these if the article has only been around for a few weeks or months. If you are unsure of the notability, you can create the article via WP:Articles for creation, although the review there for academics is not always accurate. I hope this is helpful; you can also get advice at the Teahouse. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Espresso Addict, Thanks for your elaborations. You're absolutely right. I didn't have a good feeling about this either, especially about adding newly created articles to AfD. But I experiment as I go, hoping others, would point things out if things go wrong (so guilty as charged). I just wanna add one more thing, my rationale was not just to get reviews, it was so that articles get improved and noted by others.

So to sum up thanks for bringing this up. Best. Xpander (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Xpander1. Thank you for your work on Ludwig Siep. Another editor, Rosiestep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Hi there. I enjoyed reading the article about this German philosopher. Thanks for creating it. I noticed that you included 2 photos that appear to have been taken during the same photoshoot. I think only one is needed to depict this person so perhaps you'd consider removing one of them? No rush. Just a suggestion.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Rosiestep}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Rosiestep (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you @Rosiestep. It's my pleasure. Yes, you are right, thanks for the suggestion. Actually I plan on adding an infobox to that page. Hope it sorts things out a bit. Best. Xpander (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

AfD

Hey! You might want to provide a rationale for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehrdad Vahabi before your signature. A lack of an opening statement may risk a speedy keep closure (Wikipedia:Speedy keep#1). ObserveOwl (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait nevermind, you are the author of the page. Feel free to tag the page with {{db-g7}} at the top of the page. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I've done it for you. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ObserveOwl, Thanks, I don't want the page to be speedy deleted. I just want it to be properly reviewed. Xpander (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, alright, self-reverted. You may want to clarify that in the AfD nomination. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see thanks. Xpander (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)