en.wikipedia.org

User talk:Significa liberdade - Wikipedia

User talk
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Welcome, welcome, welcome Significa liberdade! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:55, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Hi Significa Liberdade, Thanks so much for your feedback on the drafted article. I updated it with additional citations showing credibility—media interviews, publications. I'd appreciate your feedback. Have a great new year!

Hello Significa liberdade. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Michelle King (Commissioner of Social Security), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a copyvio as a source is puibliuc domain due to being a federal US govt web site. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update, Whpq! I wasn't certain about that particular website, which is why I opted not to delete it myself. I'll keep this in mind moving forward. :) Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's never a bad idea to have a second pair of eyes on something. And even public domain on US government sites aren't as straightforward as it may seem. For example, the US Department of Energy is an American Federal government organisation, but not everything from it is public domain. See Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE#NOTE ON THIS TEMPLATE. Copyright is a maze of twisty passages littered with devious traps. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Love that phrasing, Whpq. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I happened to see that you tagged Draft:Ahmed Reda Hashem as a potential copyvio. I was going to contest the nomination for speedy deletion, on the basis that the other page was about an entirely different footballer, Aliou Dieng, in a computer game, and it just happened to have the same sentence in it - doesn't help that it is very stubby, so that's pretty much the only thing there! But I see that the creating editor has moved it to draftspace themselves anyway. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, SunloungerFrog! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected information from Google and provided references. But it was disclaimed due to copyright because I took the reference from a website. Al Gattany (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, @Al Gattany! Can you tell me what article you're talking about? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
biography for musician Al Gattany (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Al Gattany: Which musician? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
her Al Gattany (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Al Gattany: Looking at your contributions, I am guessing you are referring to Draft:Mohammad Hossain, which I declined for having copyrighted material on 27 December 2024. I see that the article no longer contains copyrighted material. However, another user (DoubleGrazing) rejected the draft because they did not think the individual was notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Is there a specific question or concern you have about this article, or were you referencing a different article? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has concerns about this registration. I submitted whatever it takes to make the person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Al Gattany (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it can be frustrating to have your draft rejected. Can you tell me which three sources best establish Hossain's notability? As you do so, please review Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You have moved the page for Vikas Chandra, considering it to be a biography. I truly respect Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I assure you that this is not a biography written for myself. The person referred to as Vikas Chandra, the filmmaker, is a different individual, and the only similarity is the name. I kindly request that you undo the move and restore the page as originally intended. Thank you for your time and support. Vikashcv (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thank you for reaching out! I left you a message because I was concerned the article was a an autobiography. Another editor believed the article was too promotional and moved it to User:Vikashcv/sandbox 2, where you can continue to work on it. Please note that biographies of living people must meet certain standards, the least of which is establishing notability. This is done by ensuring articles include reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. I hope this helps! Let me know if you have further questions. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Significa liberdade,
Thank you for the clarification! I appreciate the guidance on meeting notability standards. I’ll take a look at the sandbox and continue working on improving it with more reliable sources. Vikashcv (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello Significa,

I have found one reference for the temple to which I created the page. Please let me know how to attach screenshot. Rameshbattini (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Rameshbattini! Can you tell me which article you're referring to? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this comes across this way, but this is incorrect. JanaDemasure (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, JanaDemasure, and thank you for reaching out with your concern regarding Draft:Angelino F. Michels! Regardless of whether this article was written using AI, I recommend making sure Michels meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for cyclists. Notability guidelines are what we used to determine which topics deserve standalone articles. Notability is established using reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. Once you have those sources, make sure to write the article in a neutral point of view. As you do so, it may be useful to review Wikipedia's Referencing for Beginners guide. Let me know if you have any further questions. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time writing an article because it has little censorship. However, I am prepared to learn. I am doing my best, but it is not easy. That’s why my sentence structure is short.
Thank you, you are kind! 😊 JanaDemasure (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve checked your site, and indeed, there is one link ive earned: "https://hetarchief.be/zoeken/vrt/408cb043b8424899bf2b83f3bc6d42a64084ede13aa14a9b8bbb7ab26404847f8e9af35c2b374c898decafa1bd0102c7/talitha-vonnis?tab=metadata". However, this is due to the research, as I wouldn’t be able to access the link otherwise. Please feel free to check it yourself this is the link that the AI generates incorrectly.
Thank you for your understanding, Jana Demasure. JanaDemasure (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JanaDemasure: Creating articles is definitely a challenging task! If you haven't already, I recommend checking out Your First Article. I also suggest checking out some of our WikiProjects. These are groups of people dedicating toward improving articles related to certain subjects. Projects often have great information about that writing on that topic, and there may be people who can give you more concrete information about writing in that area. Additionally, they usually have task lists or article cleanup lists. This is where you can find existing articles that need to be improved, such as by expanding them or adding references. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Significa

Just received the message today that my article submission does not meet the guidelines on the notability of books, which is understandable. However, I am unclear regarding the guidelines where it states:

''The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.''

The items in bold being the subject of my query - as there are already several independent reviews published on the cited platforms (such as Goodreads and NetGalley). NetGalley is also an industry site for the media and members of the public to review books and champion literacy. They are also non-trivial sites.

The submission is Draft:Jeffrey Dahmer: Uncovering The Case For Innocence - Wikipedia

Thank you for your help and advice on this matter and I appreciate the efficient reply I received.

Best regards

Sarah 2A0E:CB01:C5:800:9852:97EE:2946:103D (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out, Sarah! Importantly, the sources that discuss the book must be reliable and independent. At present, the article contains three sources, one of which is the book itself. As you stated, the other two are NetGalley and Goodreads. These sites are for publishing general user reviews, which count as user-generated and self-published sources, neither of which Wikipedia consider reliable. In this case, "reviews" refers to reviews in publications, such as The New York Times or a scholarly journal. I hope that helps! Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Significa
Thank you for the clarification! It will probably need a bit more time then as the book has only recently been released, but I'll save my draft for now.
Just out of interest, the new U.S. president is now inviting independents such as bloggers, social media influencers and other content creators, as opposed to 'traditional' media to attend Whitehouse press briefings. How will this affect the rules around Wikipedia reliable sources? As these are the types of sources currently considered unreliable? Perhaps the rules need updating?
Best regards
Sarah SEEIT750 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SEEIT750! Those are interesting questions! We'll have to see what happens. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, meaning all "rules" are collaboratively developed, including what defines a reliable source. If any changes are made, they will be made as a community. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Significa
Thank you! Yes it's definitely something to consider giving the changing landscape, as it could have quite an impact on our citations. SEEIT750 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SEEIT750: In part because Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, this likely will not have broad-reaching effects on which sources are considered reliable. Rather, the individuals who attend Trump's press conferences might be considered reliable sources for what was stated at the press conference. However, bloggers in general would not likely become reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! It will be interesting to see what happens. SEEIT750 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Jonty Bidois. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because of its AfD. 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. CR (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind help. I have added the citations required. Please let me know if I need to add more or do anything else to improve the page. Thank you :-) Foodforyourbrain (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Foodforyourbrain! Can you tell me which article you're referring to? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article I was referring to is about Sandra Bordigoni, writer and first Italian female rock correspondent from California among other things. Thanks again for your time and suggestions. Foodforyourbrain (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Foodforyourbrain (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I would like to contribute to Wiki a number of pages on female writers and journalists from Southern Europe countries who have been totally neglected. Lots of space and attention is given to men, but women in the same profession are underpaied and often marginalised. Still now, but especially in the past. I hope I am not taking too much of your time in correcting my many mistakes and I just want you to know that I really appreciate your patience and help in learning to write for Wikipedia. Cheers. Foodforyourbrain (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Foodforyourbrain! I appreciate your enthusiasm. You might want to check out the Women in Red and Women Writers WikiProjects. There, you'll find other people interested in improving articles related to women and women writers. They have clean up lists (such as articles needing citations), as well as recommended articles for creation. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. Thank you! The article I was referring to is about Sandra Bordigoni, writer and first Italian female rock correspondent from California among other things. Thanks again for your time and suggestions. Foodforyourbrain (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your edit in 2024–25 European windstorm season for two reasons:

  1. bare url:
    • rather than resolving a bare_url into [bare_url text], which still give a... bare url (but then with a clickable link)
    • you should instead use the {{cite web}} template, to give full information about the link
    • moreover, you should embed this template in the <ref>...</ref> tags, to set the initial intended citation
  2. unreliable citation:
    • some citation are unreliable/irrelevant: the content of the given link is not permanent; as the content is updated daily!
    • I've tagged some of those with a {{failed verification}} template
    • I also seen a {{better source needed}} template, similar in the purpose
    • so, before resolving a bare url, please check that the citation/link is really appropriate

For your information, please have a look to Talk:2024–25_European_windstorm_season#Unreliable_/_irrelevant_citation. However, thank you for your involment! En rouge (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tag intended citations: https://www.met.ie/warnings/today/tipperary and https://www.met.ie/warnings/saturday/laois as {{failed verification}}.
thanks, En rouge (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright comparison linked formed the basis for your speedy tag on Draft:John D. Durand. Looking at the diff, can you give me different ways of paraphrasing these proper nouns?

  • of the Population Association of America (a group)
  • in Spruce Pine, North Carolina (a location)
  • Population Division of the United Nations (a group)
  • Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends (1953; revised edition, 1973) (a work)
  • organized, in collaboration with the (OK, this one is a single direct dupe)
  • Professor of Economics and Sociology (a title)
  • Director of the Population Studies Center at the University of Pennsylvania
  • The Labor Force in the United States, 1890 to 1960 (1948) (a work)
  • The Labor Force in Economic Development: A Comparison of International Census Data (1975) (a work)
  • The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends [1953] (a work)

I'm just listing them in order (and skipped a few dupes). There is no copyright violation I can find. Certainly nothing sufficient for tagging as a copyright violation (which is as serious a user allegation on Wikipedia as anything else except sock puppetry). I'm not trying to be improper here, but please inform my view which may vary from yours. Please, disagree with me so I may better understand this assessment. BusterD (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I temporarily undeleted the version the version you first reviewed and I do see some uncited quotation:
  • in Spruce Pine, North Carolina. He received his B.A. in economics
  • In 1947, he joined the newly-established Population Division of the United Nations
  • World Population Conference in Rome in 1954
  • left the UN in 1965 to
Okay, I knew I had some egg on my face when I had to copy and paste several more quote templates. I now see why this one caught your eye. Where you and I differ, I believe, is that I would have given the brand new editor some guidance, not nuked the draft from orbit. I would have pointed this out as a reviewer certainly. I would generally want the new editor to fix the problem themself. The draft was not a simple copy and paste. Ignoring the proper nouns lowers the copyvio% considerably. I'll concede that further review shows these examples are present, but are not by themselves totally disqualifying in a newcomer's very first AFC draft, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, BusterD, and thank you for reaching out! When I first saw the copyright issues, I had the same reaction as you. I went in to clean up the quoted material. As I did so, I read through the original source. To my understanding, the editor basically rewrote the paragraph from the source, removing some of the information and rephrasing small bits. However, I felt it was very similar. After trying to rephrase some of the material, I felt as though the article couldn't really be rewritten with the current sourcing without being a close paraphrase, which is why I thought G12 might be appropriate. However, I wasn't certain, which is why I didn't delete myself: I wanted a second pair of eyes. Thank you for providing that! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that summary. I agree that the speedy tag can be helpful for admins even when they think the case seems clear. I rarely delete something directly myself, except in the most obvious of cases. I see you are doing fine, btw. Not like I'm an expert. I have reason to believe this subject might be notable, but purely as a reviewer, I find it better to let the page creator move the draft forward. Been deleting a bunch of G13 tags lately. Amazing how well that six month system helps keep the trash emptied, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

readded
removed Euryalus

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed

Technical news

  • Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
  • A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia   
This award is given in recognition to Significa liberdade for accumulating at least 500 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if Zionism in Iraq should be protected, Zionism in Morocco should too. I don't think I'm able to do it myself. إيان (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, إيان! I have gone ahead and protected this page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You created a redirect to that book’s author, which seems to have indirectly deleted that book’s article. Did you mean to do that? Sir Rhosis (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sir Rhosis! Thank you for reaching out with your concern. I blanked and redirected the article because it lacked sources. This action is considered an alternative to deletion. Before doing so, I searched for reliable, independent sources across multiple platforms and only found a single source, which is not enough to establish notability. If you can provide additional sources, you may restore the article by going to the article history and reverting to an earlier version. I hope that makes sense! Let me know if you have any further questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and the user I'm writing about is far more experienced. Recently user Johnj1995 has made edits to the Morehouse school Frensham page. He has removed some text that was not disruptive. He has also changed a date, I go to this school unless I am incorrect which I could be the date he has put it incorrect. He has put that the school was established in 1961 when I think it was.established in 1939 MrsFire06 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because, well, you've already seen what I've been doing. The sources exist and are pretty straightforward to find, especially with Newspapers.com access. Since you'd expect coverage of decades old books to be from the time period they were published. SilverserenC 00:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was just writing a message to thank you for finding sources for Sir Green Hat and the Wizard and Mr. Bass's Planetoid. I've been going through the unsourced stubs in the Children's Lit WikiProject, many of which have been tagged for 5+ years. For every book, I searched across maybe 8+ websites/platforms (e.g., NYT, ProQuest, Google Scholar) without finding anything, so I'm glad you were able to find sources on TWL and Newspapers.com. I often have trouble finding using on these due to search errors or the pages crashing, so they're often left out of my search. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I really appreciate you finding sources for books I BLARed earlier today! Have you been able to find more than one review for each book? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's others. I'm just adding one ref for now. Whether the books are independently notable is an entirely separate question that would require a much deeper dive. SilverserenC 00:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Hermux Tantamoq Adventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Sands of Time.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


HI. I'm helping my uncle close his website and move everything to wikipedia. He's Edward T. Imparato Jr. He's in his 80s and he owns the copyright to the website and all the books and photos which he's released to the public domain so he can have a memory of his father's great work up. That's why it's copy and pasted from the website. The website is going to be shut down as he can't afford it anymore and didn't want to lose the memory of his dad. What do you need from me to get this approved?


Prvatedancer (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Prvatedancer, and thank you for reaching out! I appreciate you taking the time to preserve your uncle’s work and memories on Wikipedia. However, there are a few important things to keep in mind regarding Wikipedia’s content policies:
  1. One of Wikipedia's foundational pillars is that it is an encyclopedia (WP:5P1), not a webhost. This means that Wikipedia cannot be used merely to store content. All articles on Wikipedia must be encyclopedic and all topics should meet our notability guidelines, meaning you must provide reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject.
  2. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles for which they have a conflict of interest, such as creating an article for your uncle. This is, in part, because people tend to have a harder time writing content in a neutral point of view, which is another one of Wikipedia's foundational pillars (WP:5P2).
  3. Your uncle's website does not state that it is in the public domain. As such, if you wanted to include the information on Wikipedia, you would need to donate the copyrighted material.
I hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more about this, I wanted to point out that you can archive your uncle's website using the Wayback Machine. This way, even if the website shuts down, you can still return to it through the archived link. Additionally, you might want to check out ways to keep the website up through something like Weebly or Wix. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minassian, Anahide Ter (2006). 1918–1920, la République d'Arménie (in French). Editions Complexe. ISBN 978-2-8048-0092-5. The page will be updated now. Frenchman1953 (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Frenchman1953! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page should be done now. Frenchman1953 (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Significa liberdade. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Let's Come Together, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I don’t think G14 applies here as the disambiguation in question does link to multiple articles. Thank you. BangJan1999 06:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BangJan1999! Please place your contestation on the article's talk page. This way, the administrator who reviews the nomination can see it. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t create the disambiguation in question though. I assumed that anyone other than the creator of the page could decline a speedy deletion regardless of whether they were an admin or not. BangJan1999 06:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BangJan1999: You're correct! I should have made sure to look at the Page History before replying. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm trying to login wikimedia my account got blocked by autoblock pls resolve my issue... V39G3 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, V39G3! I'm not seeing any blocks on your account, so it appears to be a block on your IP address. This could be a range block. Additionally, you could face issues if you're using a VPN or open proxy. You'll either have to request unblock or an IP block exemption. Can you tell me what message you're seeing when you try to log in? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to login wikimedia please check it V39G3 (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
V39G3: Unfortunately, I cannot check this for you as I do not have access to the information required. What happens when you try to log in? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your user name or IP address has been blocked. Editing and uploading was disabled by ‪Krd‬ for the following reason: Vandalism: ongoing socking This block (ID #480672) is set to expire: 14:09, 5 December 2025. V39G3 (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
on https://commons.m.wikimedia.org V39G3 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
V39G3: Thank you! Because I am not an administrator on Commons, I can't provide too much information, but I would recommend reviewing information about appealing a block. In this case, your IP address is blocked. To request an unblock, do the following:
  1. Go to the desktop version of Wikimedia Commons (here).
  2. Click on the three dots next to "Log in" in the top right corner.
  3. Click "talk". This will bring you to the talk page for your IP address.
  4. Click "create".
  5. Paste the following message into the text box: {{unblock|reason for the request}}.
  6. Remove "reason for the request" and replace with your unblock request, such as by stating that you have an en.wiki account (V39G3) but have been unable to log in to commons due to an IP block.
  7. Publish the page.
After you publish, you should see your unblock request. You'll then have to wait for an administrator to review your request. They may also ask for additional information. I hope that helps! Good luck! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i am unable to login so how can I create V39G3 (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't have to log in. You can create a talk page without logging in. Click the three dots in the upper right, then click "talk". Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to formally request the restoration of the Shimul Garden article, which was recently deleted. The deletion may have been based on concerns regarding notability, reliable sources, or content quality. However, I believe this topic meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (GNG) and should be reconsidered for inclusion.

Reasons for Restoration

[edit]

  1. Cultural and Ecological Significance
    • Shimul Garden is a well-known tourist attraction in Bangladesh, drawing thousands of visitors annually.
    • It plays a crucial role in local biodiversity, providing habitat for various species of flora and fauna.
  2. Media Coverage & Reliable Sources
    • Multiple reliable news outlets (national and international) have covered Shimul Garden, emphasizing its touristic, environmental, and cultural importance.
    • I can provide credible secondary sources, including publications from reputable newspapers, travel blogs, and government reports.
  3. Alignment with Wikipedia Notability Guidelines
    • The subject meets Wikipedia’s geographic place notability as a recognized landmark and ecotourism site.
    • Other similar parks and gardens with comparable coverage exist as standalone Wikipedia articles.
    • There is significant public interest, as reflected in visitor statistics and recurring media attention.

Proposed Improvements

[edit]

To ensure that the article meets Wikipedia’s quality standards, I am willing to:

  • Provide additional reliable sources to verify claims.
  • Improve neutrality and encyclopedic tone in the article.
  • Expand on historical, cultural, and ecological aspects to establish its significance.

I kindly request that the article be restored in Draft space so that necessary improvements can be made before resubmitting it for review.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response. ~~~~ DelwarHossain (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DelwarHossain:  Done Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade I have submitted it from draft for reconsideration. Thanks for your response. DelwarHossain (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the whole reason the category Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages exists? If not, then why wouldn't all of the other subcategories in said category be deleted as well? Booyahhayoob (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Booyahhayoob, and thank you for reaching out with your concern! I deleted the category because a discussion occurred in 2016 where the community decided it should be deleted (see here). As such, deleting the recreation of the category is abiding by community decisions.
As for your first concern, the category of Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages exists precisely because some Wikipedians keep categories on their userpage that have been deleted. If the Wikipedians that poop category is recreated, it is no longer a deleted category and thus, users who have it on their userpage wouldn't count under the category Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages (unless they have a different deleted category). Does that make sense? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m aware of the CfD, my point was more along the lines of “every other subcategory in the retainer category was previously deleted as well, yet they were recreated as hard redirects to the retainer category”. I’m not arguing it isn’t a worthy category on its own, but it was still in the subcategory of the retainer category, which should imply the other subcategories should be deleted as well if only Wikipedians that poop was deleted, since (to the best of my knowledge) it was created as a hard redirect at or around the same time as the other subcategories. I’m pretty indifferent anyway, since I mostly added it for the gag along with some of the other categories, just wanted a more clear explanation on why it was deleted and the others weren’t. Booyahhayoob (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point now. I'm not as familiar with how these categories are used, so I might recommend bringing this to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Significa liberdade. I noticed that you added a notability tag to the Didier Cossin article. I appreciate your diligence in maintaining Wikipedia’s content standards. Since the tag was placed, I have added a new reference from Outlook Business, which I believe strengthens the case for notability. Additionally, I initially created the page as a stub with the expectation that more references and content would be added over time. Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks. Sergiomarcus (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that source, Sergiomarcus! On Wikipedia, we use notability to determine which topics deserve their own articles. This is typically done through the general notability criteria, which state that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Because Cossin is an academic, the notability guidelines for academics may also apply.
Looking at the article again, I still have notability concerns based on the sources provided:
  1. The Business Times article might be usable for establishing notability as it discusses his ideas at length.
  2. The Outlook Business does not contribute to notability because, as an interview, it is a primary source.
  3. The Forbes article does not contribute to notability because it doesn't have significant coverage of Cossin; the only information provided is a quote from him, which also makes it a primary source.
  4. The Le Temps article does not contribute to notability because, as an interview, it is a primary source.
  5. The IOD source does not contribute to notability because it does not have significant coverage, and as basically an advertisement for a speaking event, it is not an independent source.
  6. The ORCiD profile does not contribute to notability because it is a primary source.
  7. The Research Gate source does not contribute to notability because it is a primary source.
  8. The Center for Governance profile does not contribute to notability because it is a primary source.
I hope this makes sense! Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comprehensive response, @Significa liberdade. I'll search for more reliable source online and add them accordingly. Sergiomarcus (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I am right, but I believe you deleted Toxic (2025 film), which was recently recreated after the deletion discussion as a redirect with 6–8 revisions, but later restored it with 116 revisions that had been previously deleted via the same deletion discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Jeraxmoira! Cryptic has now fixed the issue. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Amazon Alexa: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Qrstw talk contribs 18:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Qrstw! Thank you for reaching out regarding this issue! In most cases, I am in favour of notifying editors about errors they've made. In this case, the user had made several disruptive edits and was momentarily blocked (31 hours). The link provided on Amazon Alexa was not only a cross-namespace link, but it was promotional, non-encyclopedic material (basically a newsfeed). At that point, they had made several similar draft articles and submitted for review through AfC, with each one being declined and ultimately speedy deleted. The block made after the reverted has ended, but the user continued editing disruptively and has been blocked for two weeks. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I revised my draft. Could you review it again? Thank you in advance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tucson_Scorch DeepFriedUranium (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explained why you declined CSD at L.Siddhesh? The only thing there is a link to a commons file. That seems like WP:A3 to me. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was just writing a message to you. I declined the A3 speedy deletion for now because you nominated it less than one minute after the article was created. Unless an article has serious content issues (e.g., copyright violations or personal attacks), they shouldn't be nominated for deletion while they are actively being edited. In practice, this means articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion if they have been meaningfully edited in the past hour.
I understand and sympathize with wanting remove incomplete articles, especially one that only contains an external link, but we also need to recognize that it can come across as bitey to nominate an article for deletion too quickly -- especially considering that articles in mainspace do not need to be complete, and editors are allowed to develop articles in the mainspace.
I hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll note though that based on the page creator's talk page and other edits that it appears to be a pretty clear promotion-only account. I have reported them as such both here and on the Commons. As it is, I was under the impression that a page should at least be held in draft space or a sandbox until it is suitable for mainspace, even if it is newly created. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! Editors are not required to create their articles in draftspace, though it is recommended. Many editors start their new articles in the mainspace. They don't get indexed until they've been reviewed by a New Page Reviewer. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean new mainspace articles eventually get looked at by a new page reviewer and CSD'd or draftified if needed? I had seen the practice of people immediately draftifying or A7'ing new articles created without sources, usually from new editors who don't realize sources are necessary. It's been a while since I created anything in mainspace other than a redirect or disambiguation page. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! All new articles and redirects (including articles created from redirects or redirects created through BLAR) are reviewed through NPP unless the person who has created them is autopatrolled. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a relief. I was kinda worried that it was basically the wild west in terms of article creation once someone got autoconfirmed. Which is one reason I felt some urgency in tagging or draftifying such articles quickly. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! Even articles created by many administrators still get checked by NPP! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But as a followup question, if it is still in its current state after a while (just a name and some pictures at the moment) can I re-nominate it? TornadoLGS (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TornadoLGS: If the article meets a speedy deletion criteria, you may re-nominate it after it has been dormant for at least an hour. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to perform a redirect vandal cleanup, using a smart phone, and I got in over my head.

Any assistance world be appreciated.

Thanks in advance, Augmented Seventh (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was just writing a message to you. :) Thank you so much for trying to handle these! I noticed you first tried to revert the page move vandalism. Unfortunately, reverting the edits only changes the page edits, not the page moves. I've made this mistake before, too! Because you're not a page-mover, you can't overwrite redirects. However, if you find a newly moved page, you should be able to undo the move by simply moving the page back to the correct title the same way you would normally move a page. Otherwise, the move might be a bit more complicated (see WP:UNDOMOVE). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I have made the changes you suggested to the Draft:Derwin John Pereira page. Do you have time to review again and possibly approve it? Thanks. Absent.Editor (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Absent.Editor, and thank you for updating your article! I will allow another editor to review the article to get a second opinion. That said, at a quick glance, I noticed a lot of primary sources, which do not work toward establishing notability. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would please welcome your further guidance on what needs to be done to move this my first article (Draft: Society for Equity Neuroscience) forward? Thank you. Las-Giddy 1995 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | March 2025, Vol 11, Issue 3, Nos. 326, 327, 332, 333, 334


Online events:

Announcements from other communities:

Tip of the month:

  • You can access the Wikipedia Library if you have made 500+ edits, and 6+ months editing,
    and 10+ edits in the last 30 days, and No active blocks

Moving the needle:[1]

  • 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women)
  • 23 Dec 2024: 20.009% (2,041,741 bios, 408,531 women)

Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,669 articles during this period!

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.

Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes requested in your review, thank you: arranged in more encyclopaedic sections, sharpened notes, added notes and several book reviews from newspapers and magazines for Critical Reception. Resubmitted, though you may yet rule as not sufficiently notable. Thank you for your attention. PwyllDafydd (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provided more information for the sources. Thanks! BagLuke (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]