Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in
Avicii. There is a
Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. MOS:DUPLINK second notice.TylerBurden (
talk) 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a
Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in
Grimlock, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please also refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. akidfrombethany! (talk|contribs) 02:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry for my misbehavior. Can you check this copy of the Grimlock article (sandbox) and let me know if this follows the manual of style and is eligible to do the same to the original article? I've noticed that the Grimlock article mostly contains the plot of the stories; I've reduced it and made the article shorter. Moreover, I removed the "Toys" section as it has unnecessary content and only a very few people would find it interesting.
Thanks for your contributions to
Crypto Browser. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at
Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk) 21:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your feedback. I've added two sources, and I think that it is ready to be published as the topic is new and there are only a few research books and articles about this particular topic, so should I leave it as a draft or should I submit it for review?
Tomlovesfar (
talk) 03:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I would suggest submitting it for review. If it still needs extra work to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, the reviewer should let you know what you can do to improve it. :)
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk) 14:41, 20 February 2024 (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 KylieTastic were:
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:Crypto Browser 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, Tomlovesfar!
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!
KylieTastic (
talk) 15:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for pointing that out to me. Can you tell me how to handle certain articles that are either ads or contain original research? Of course I can flag it, but as you can see, a few posts like these have been flagged over the past year, and still nothing has changed. So is there anyway to remove a page like that?. Thank you once again
Tomlovesfar (
talk) 01:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
There's also
Speedy Deletion (CSD) which has very narrow and strict requirements for immediate deletion. If an article is tagged with issues, that is good indication it does not meet the speedy criteria or it would been deleted rather than tagged. I suggest installing the
WP:Twinkle gadget which makes all these processes easier but go slow to get a feel for what is appropriate. I also suggest looking through some of the current ones to get a feel: PRODs (
Category:Proposed deletion), CSD's (
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, though tricky because they get deleted or declined quickly) and AfD's (
WP:AFD#Current and past articles for deletion (AfD) discussions).
S0091 (
talk) 15:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Your recent edits
Hi again, I reverted you edits to
Twitter, Inc. because you removed the merge tag though there is an active merge discussion on the talk page. You also changed quoted material. Quotes should not be changed, even if they have grammatical errors (see
MOS:TYPOFIX for how handle) and you also introduced some grammatical errors. I also reverted your last change to
Qiagen which removed citations to their website.
Primary sources can be used for very basic facts such as name, location(s), executive leadership, etc.
S0091 (
talk) 16:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your corrections. However, regarding Twitter, I think there should not be a discussion in the first place since Twitter officially stated that it is "owned" by a company named X Corp., and that is the end of the discussion. Moreover, Twitter got re-branded as "X" Hence, I think that the page title should be renamed from Twitter, Inc. to X (Social Network company).
Tomlovesfar (
talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not up to you if a discussion should happen or if it should or should not be merged. Please do read
consensus which is how decisions are made on Wikipedia. You are welcome to join the current discussion on the talk page,
Talk:Twitter, Inc..
S0091 (
talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Dates
At
ReadCube,
Indian Penal Code, and
Feleti Teo you're breaking date formats, like changing "2 December 2014" to "December 2 December 2014". You also need to be aware that many articles use a DMY format for dates and are tagged as such; randomly changing the formats to your preferred version is disruptive. You seem to be indicating that you're using an "AI" to make grammar corrections - it's a really bad idea to do that blindly. Please carefully review those edits and ensure they are correct before submitting.Sam Kuru(talk) 12:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
See
WP:DATEVAR and
WP:VAR for the relevant guidelines on national varieties of English.
S0091 (
talk) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Tomlovesfar: Why did you remove this to draft, considering it spam, when it most prestigious medal awarded for outstanding scientific research over a lifetime in Germany? scope_creepTalk 06:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Your not even an article reviewer, dude. What are doing? Are you looking to get indef blocked off of Wikipedia. If you keep up this behaviour, you will get blocked for disruptive editing. scope_creepTalk 06:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Do not move any more articles to AFC or its a visit to
WP:ANI. You don't know what your doing. scope_creepTalk 06:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
You could have added it to the same page of the
Cothenius_Medal. It is Unnecessary that you create a separate page for awardees between certain years
Tomlovesfar (
talk) 06:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Upon reflection, I recognize that my decision to draftify the article about the Cothenius Medal lacked the thorough consideration it deserved, especially regarding its significance within the scientific community. I now understand that my actions may have seemed hasty and disrespectful to experienced editors like yourself. I genuinely regret any disruption or upset my actions may have caused and want to emphasize that it was never my intention to undermine the importance of the Cothenius Medal or the efforts of dedicated editors. I apologize for any distress or frustration I may have caused and appreciate your patience and understanding. I am committed to learning from this experience and approaching future editing tasks with greater care and consideration.
Tomlovesfar (
talk) 07:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Tomlovesfar,
You are a new editor. You have been editing for a few weeks. That is not enough experience to know when it is appropriate to move an article from main space to Draft space. It also can anger experienced editors who have been working on this project for decades to have article draftified as you can see in the discussion above this message. You're a newbie, please take things slowly when it comes to administrative tasks.
@
Tomlovesfar: How goes it. I wouldn't worry about it to much. I appreciated the help although it was the wrong direction. Next time. I'll look out for you. scope_creepTalk 10:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
03:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
abdolreza razmjoo
Hello, dear friend, I have corrected the sources of the article, if you please check it, thank you
Abarz54 (
talk) 17:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, I'm
AKS. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Jagadish Chandra Bose have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
AKS (
talk) 17:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Why did you think
this and
this are improvements?
S0091 (
talk) 20:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
After the revert, I've fixed grammar for Ciudad de las Ideas, and I have more work to do on the Jagadish Chandra Bose page.
And No, I don't think those are improvements, Sorry for my mistake.
Tom Joe James 💬 04:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Your signature
@
Tomlovesfar: Please note
WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, and make whatever change is needed to ensure your username is easily identifiable from your current signature. Thanks. Bazza 7 (
talk) 09:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. LizRead!Talk! 07:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Fimbristylis dura, 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.
Thanks for your contributions to
Mar Sebastian Pozholiparampil. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at
Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ratnahastin (
talk) 05:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
and about COI - I am a member of the Catholic Church under that particular dioceses, That is the only relation I have with that person. I am not paid by anyone to make that article.
The sources I have linked to the references are reliable and they hold a certain level of authority in the catholic community. If you are clarified with your doubts, please revert your changes. if not, please let me know why.
TomLovesFar 💬 09:35, 3 May 2024 (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 DoubleGrazing 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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
Draft:Mar Sebastian Pozholiparampil 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.