Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.
Hello, 14 novembre, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.
Thanks for your contributions to Italy v North Macedonia (2022 FIFA World Cup Qualification). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hey man im josh was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Hello, 14 novembre!
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! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted your message since it's on the wrong noticeboard. ANI is for chronic behavioural problems. In the future, such general questions are best asked at the teahouse (which I see has been linked above).
@Novo Tape I would also like let you know that I have multiple accounts. However, I declare I will never use the ones currently active for any means. So, if possible, I would like them to be blocked all.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Thanks for your contributions to Il cielo è azzurro sopra Berlino. 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This 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:Marco Civoli 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.
Thanks for your contributions to Colpo grosso a Berlino. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hello,
Concerning your block on it.wiki, I noticed that you created later accounts in order to evade the initial block. This is against the rules on most wikis (Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, it:Wikipedia:Utenze multiple), and blocks should be appealed on your main account rather than evaded by using different accounts, which only worsens your case and makes a later unblock unlikely. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)16:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby Thank you very much for having analysed the situation and for your reply. You are right. However, in the beginning I thought that it had been a mistake. How could I have appealed the block on the main account. And anyway, I know SP guide lines, but the first block was in my opinion complete nonsense and I asked Administrators explanations but I received no satisfactory answer. I would like to know what I can do. Kind regards, 14 novembre (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14 novembre, you'll have to log in to your initial account (the first one blocked) on it.wp, and explain why the initial block was incorrect. If itwiki admins have already explained to you the rationale for the block, you'll have to accept that it was correct, and request an unblock by promising not to repeat whatever it was that caused the first block. You will also have to commit to using a single account from now on.Since Italian Wikipedia has no Arbitration Committee, if you are not able to convince administrators there, you will not be able to be unblocked. However, wikipedia admins of any project tend to look kindly on a history of constructive contributions to other Wikimedia projects, so if you can undertake to build up such a history of constructive contributions for six months or a year, with no socking on the Italian Wikipedia, a subsequent unblock request may be granted. Good luck. Folly Mox (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Folly Mox Thank you very much for your reply. I could not ask It-wiki Administrators logging in with the first account since it was totally blocked; I did it unlogged but they did not unblock me. So I think at the current state of things there is nothing to be done. However, I shall take into account your advice and stop creating sockpuppets while contributing constructively with the English Wikipedia. Maybe in future, as you said, if I build up a history of constructive contributions, Italian Wikipedia Administrators could reconsider my request. Excuse me if my English was not correct, thanks again for the reply and kind regards, 14 novembre (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
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:Colpo grosso a Berlino 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
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:Il cielo è azzurro sopra Berlino 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.
Informazioni date qua su en.wiki che, come ti abbiamo già detto su it.wiki, non ti servono a nulla perché i meccanismi che ha en.wiki su it.wiki non ci sono: solo una perdita di tempo; e non capisco nemmeno perché Meridiana ti abbia suggerito di leggere queste cose che ti creano solo inutili confusioni e soprattutto inutili illusioni. Anche se it.wiki avesse un ArbCom (e al momento non ce l'ha e non è nemmeno obbligata ad averlo), con il tuo comportamento hai già dimostrato di non essere in grado di rispettare nemmeno le regole più semplici e basilari: ti era stato dato un blocco non infinito, bastava aspettare e stare buoni poche settimane, invece di crearsi sock a raffica aumentando di volta in volta i tempi del blocco (mossa non esattamente furba). Anche se ti rivolgi a en.wiki, non ha giurisdizione su it.wiki quindi ti risponderebbero comunque picche, senza contare che in ogni caso un appello a un ArbCom non è affatto garanzia assoluta di sblocco. Anzi. Ricordati che l'unico responsabile di questa situazione non è l'admin che ti ha bloccato, ma tu col tuo comportamento. Superspritz (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 14 novembre. I saw that you moved some Supercoppa Italiana articles to different years, and in one move you noted "As agreed with talk consensus" in the edit summary. Could you please point me to where the talk consensus is located? I did not see it at Talk:2024 Supercoppa Italiana, Talk:2024 Supercoppa Italiana final, or Talk:2022-23 Supercoppa Italiana. I am not necessarily opposed to the moves, as the year used is a bit confusing, and there seem to be different year conventions between the Supercoppa Itialiana and the Supercopa de España, and it can be confusing; but as it stands, the current consensus you refer to is also confusing (at least to me). If we can link to the talk page consensus, that would help people for the future. Thank you, 2pou (talk) 20:07, 3 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 reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at 2006 FIFA World Cup final. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
The comment the reviewer left was:
I really don't think this has enough substance to justify a standalone article, and notability is also at best borderline (very borderline). I suggest merging it into the article on the 2006 final.
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:Il cielo è azzurro sopra Berlino 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.
Please do not make any unproductive or incomplete or inaccurate comments at the Teahouse. If you are not able to provide an accurate and informative answer, then say nothing and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I watch the Move log and I was noticing that you were moving your User pages around a lot today, probably unnecessarily. That drew my attention to them and they seem like personal pages that have nothing to do with your work on Wikipedia or creating articles. I will not tag them for speedy deletion, CSD G5. but if another editor like a page patroller spots them, they could easily be deleted. I tell you this so that you can make a copy of the content, if you wish to keep it, somewhere else like on your home computer or a blog or website you might use. We have had lots of newer editors (and even some longtime editors) who primarily just edit their own User pages and use Wikipedia as a web-host for charts of their fantasy football league or a fictitious country they invented or statistics about a reality show they watch. When these pages are tagged for speedy deletion G5 they are almost immediately deleted so here's a head's up that if you want to preserve a copy of any personal content, I'd copy it sooner rather than later.
Thank you very much for your advice. I copied. Although the information contained was not "fantasy", I see what you mean. Thanks again and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that you should keep WP:UPNOT in mind: "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project." Pages such as:
are not useful to the project and you should think about requesting their deletion. That first one especially—in what world is the number 1 repeated 1.8 million times useful? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Fossano Calcio S.S.D.. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Joseph Altschul for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.
If you don't want Joseph Altschul 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.
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Platinum Moon for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.
If you don't want Platinum Moon 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.
Not to pick on you, your edits just keep popping up on my various watchlist filters. Please don't welcome editors who have not yet made any contributions. There are many reasons why we don't do this, and it's specifically advised against at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee.-- Ponyobons mots00:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help at AFC/R. Please make sure you are properly closing requests, which can be done if you use a tool such as afcrc-helper. There are many things you aren't doing, such as marking a section as closed, adding talk banners, etc., and such tools will automate that for you. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eejit43 Apparently an error notice appeared, so I immediately blanked it. I am not very practical with commons.js so I wanted to avoid damage. However, if you think I added the right content, I will restore. Thank you so much. 14 novembre (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you have a handle on it now! Just so you know, you can handle multiple requests in one run, you don't have to submit each time. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Your edit to that new user's page was against WP-EN practice (see [1]). I have reverted it and welcomed the user (as you might have done). We do not assume bad faith about a new user's intentions. As with everything - evidence is the key. If, as a new user your very first edit is deleted, with no reason given, that is a strong indicator that the user will not feel welcomed and will not stay. You are relatively new here, and have been treated with courtesy despite several notable errors based on lack of familiarity with the policies and working practices on this particular WP. Please try to consider the implications and correctness or your actions. Consider looking for a relevant page of guidance, for example. This is especially important in dealing with new user's initial contributions. We all make mistakes :). Leaky caldron (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just declined 4 speedy deletion requests that you made. Please read and understand the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging any more pages for speedy deletion. Neither Draft:Chiaretto Calò, nor Draft:Emmanuel Chami qualify as promotional. G11 applies only if the article would need a complete rewrite. Neither Draft:Chak 14 Gd Tehsildar, nor Draft:Meru Khavas qualify as patent nonsense. G1 is really only for gibberish. In the first case, it's very poor English, but poor writing is not gibberish. In the second case, you tagged it for speedy deletion 2 minutes after the last edit. It was a work in progress and the single bit of text at the time of tagging was the name of a person which you could have easily seen by looking at the provided reference.
I see you've received notices now from multiple editors about a variety of tasks that you are trying to do. IT's great that you want to help out in some of the nuts and bolts areas of Wikipedia, but it might be a good idea to focus on content work for now so you getter a better understanding of how and why those areas fit into developing an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Marco Civoli. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Thanks for reaching out. The page you created Draft: Marco Civoli seems not to have reached notability as there were poor referencing and little or no context to establish notability. I should have go through AFD but haven't even gotten the context of the subject. Much research seems there were just mentions of him on news sources. Please see checking notability status of a sportsperson or for a news commentator perhaps sports journalist. Please click on the resubmit button as it was declined. From the page history also, check the different reasons why it was declined at AFC and make sure to meet those criteria. All the best, Otuọcha (talk)21:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert this obviously good faith edit to another user's talk page? The editor had to go to the Help Desk to find out what was going on. I see you were pinged to that discussion but didn't respond. You only time you should revert an editor on a user talk page that is not your own, is for obvious vandalism. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree Yes you're right. I did a mistake. I always try to do my best, but sometimes I do mistakes. Hopefully they will be less in some time if I gain some more experience. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@14 novembre: You thanked me for advice, but apparently, have not actually taken the advice. I'm going to be a bit more blunt. Edits like the one you are being warned for here are disruptive. I believe you are doing this to try to help, but you are getting it wrong very often. Well meaning disruptive edits are still disruptive edits. This must stop. If you continue like this, you may find yourself blocked from editing. -- Whpq (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I honestly don't exactly remember. Anyway nothing serious, just 2 edits. It was only once that I did a number of dummy edits on my user page. Anyway I will not do such edits anymore, if you think it's better I will delete the hidden text 14 novembre (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Far more than "2 edits". Your user page has 90+ edits in total, the majority of which could probably be described as 'dummy'. This hidden text alone is the result of 30+ edits: cjdjdjdjdjdjddhshsjjsksndjhhshsusdhshsjsjshsjbjkkbjbkjhbzbdhdjkdndjjdjddkdjdkdkdhzbshshsjshdbdbdhhdjddiddddjjddjdjznsbsdjdjdkddjdkdkdkddidhshjsjsjshdhdjd!. But okay, if you can't remember why you do these things, you can't remember. Thank you for responding. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Il Divin Codino
Hi. As pointed out in Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included. Hence, yes, the content can be used, it's not fair on their side not having acknowledged the work of Wikipedia contributors. Maybe, the author of the article is not aware of that. On the second point of your message, I have no idea on when it will be in place, the discussion is still ongoing. Atlante (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit on this page, as it broke the link to the article. I am not an Italian speaker and I don't know if "di" is more correct than "del". I did however check google links to see which is the more common name, and Circuito del Montenero returned over 5 million hits with Circuito di Montenero about 75,000 hits. I also checked the Italian Wikipedia article, which uses "di" in the title but then continues with "del". At any rate, our article here is called Circuito del Montenero. If you feel this should be different, I suggest you start there.--Atlan (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1700, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creation. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
You have been previously told about taking care with speedy deletion. You have applied incorrect speedy deletion tags to Draft:City Slicker twice. Drafts are note articles so speedy deletions that apply to articles do not apply to drafts. Please read and understand the criteria for speedy deletion. I suggest when you think you want to tag something for speedy deletion, stop and then ready the actual pol[icy page for that criterion and determine if it really applies. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Whpq Yes, you're right, the criterion I suggested actually applies only to namespace articles, so the draft can be kept. I shall be more careful in the future, making sure articles i tag for speedy deletion actually correspond to the criteria. Anyway thanks for your notification and kind regards. 14 novembre (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying articles
Hello, 14 novembre,
Please review Wikipedia:DRAFTOBJECT. Editors have a right to object to an article being moved from main space to Draft space and can move it back. Do not draftify an article more than once, whether it is by you or another editor. Find other ways of dealing with the article such as a) improving the article yourself, b) tagging it to indicate problems with the article (but do not overtag it) or c) pursuing a form of deletion if the content is truly unacceptable. But you can not insist that an article remain in Draft space.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Strada statale 1 Via Aurelia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Due and Rosignano.
This is one of many, picked at random, that you've declined to move to mainspace without, I would think by the time you spend on each one, checking all the sources. This page has many sources. Please remember that every article that is declined that should have been accepted into mainspace is the work of a fellow Wikipedian, and if incorrectly declined then the editor may never come back or anyone ever look at the page again, thus Wikipedia loses the knowledge within. In this particular case you also point to a deletion of the page in 2017 as part of your reasoning when that has little relevance to the sources added since (this individuals obvious notability as an actor occurred after the 2017 AfD). Please be much more careful and check all the sources before declining pages, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for an honest appraisal. Maybe you have other similar declines of pages (I did pick this one at random on your history list) that you can check, thanks. Not your declining, but a few days ago another editor and I "saved" an article from the decliners which was obviously notable (the United States House of Representatives official painting of Abraham Lincoln!), so yes, the decline/acceptance of new pages by Wikipedians should be tread carefully and I have a nagging feeling that maybe thousands of mainspaceable pages haven't been mainspaced and have been lost somewhere in the draft-universe. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For an AfD that long ago, a fresh look is warranted. If the AfD is in the past year, I look at the AfD to see if was well-attended and if it is clear editors searched for/reviewed sources. If so, I generally put more weight on sources since the AfD (depends on what was said in the AfD) and if not, I give it fresh look.
Hello S0091, and yes, not only a fresh look for Derek Webster but his notability occurred after the AfD. Perhaps you or 14 novembre can mainspace it (I don't do draft reviews and not sure of the procedures), thanks. Will take a look at the links you mention. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resubmitting, but this one deserves a quick move to mainspace after two incorrect reviews. 14 novembre, maybe you can handle this, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got a phone call right after I resubmitted it. This is a reasonable accept and a reasonable AfD. I did look but can't find any SIGCOV sources so it is dependent on WP:NACTOR. Will see what the community decides. S0091 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ! Please explain what's wrong? I explained the reason of edit . Reconsider my edit, and if all this is good, then please return it. I think you are wrong. 46.166.61.173 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources showing Östra Ånneröd is known as Ånneröd
Hello, @14 novembre. I was trying to create the redirect Ånneröd to go to Östra Ånneröd, and it was declined saying there aren't sources for it. I'm not sure what counts as a source, but on the Swedish wikipedia it is known just as Ånneröd with Östra Ånneröd being the long form of the name. I know that in 2010 the town was renamed as Östra Ånneröd, but it's hard to find an English source for it. Tack! Casablanca 🪨(T)14:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 14 novembre. Is it normal for editors to make a series of edits to an article instead of making all the edits in a single revision? --Mypetmiacid (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Mypetmiacid. Users usually can decide if doing many edits or doing a single edit together. So it I'd quite normal, as you said, for editors to make a series of edits to an article instead of making all the edits in a single revision. Feel free to do as you prefer. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 08:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, how can I edit an article and publish it as a draft? For example, I want to expand this article with new content, but I don't want to directly edit the main article in case something is incorrect. --Arcosenautic (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arcosenautic If you want to create a new article, you can create it as a draft (see WP:DRAFTS) and then submit it for review. However, if you want to edit an existing article, you can't do so. You can write on your Sandbox where you can try freely, or you can try to edit directly the article and look at the preview before publishing so you make sure you haven't done mistakes. Hope I was helpful.
Thank you for tagging User talk:Mannlowe Information Services for G11. I've removed the tag because admins usually leave a block notice on talk pages when they block users. So, deleting and recreating the talk page doesn't make much sense. The best approach is to remove the promotional material and report them. Thanks once again for your contributions! – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 14 novembre. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Fastily20:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you are blocked for socking on another project, and that an account you were alleged to have used improperly there has also been briefly active on this project. Without suggesting that you have acted improperly here, if the other account is indeed yours, I urge you to mark it as an alternative of this one, lest you also be blocked here. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate uses and especially the templates mentioned in its final paragraph. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14 novembre, in your cleanup you accidentally removed Arco di Travertino as a previous account so I suggest you add that one back. S0091 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@14 novembre: To be blunt, you shouldn't have socked on any Wiki to begin with. You were initially blocked, from what I can understand using Google translation, for competency concerns. For the time being, it'd be ideal to at least make it past 6 months without evading a block on another Wiki (a number of those accounts were blocked in January). At which point perhaps another admin may be comfortable granting you NPR (I will not be comfortable doing so given the history). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mentor I’m lucky to have u in my editing journey! Anyways so I accidentally made a edit in the wrong article and I got 4 warnings and my delete button doesn’t work so I couldn’t stop so now I’m just sad --Dannoscriteria (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there @14 novembre I stumbled across your page, I hope you're doing well. Kudos to your wikibreak, it's always nice to wind down and reset from online activities. I was working almost daily on Draft:T-Money (rapper) and I realized I needed to take a breather as well. When you are back and rested from your break, would you be willing to review my draft? I'd appreciate your feedback. Cheers, Taevchoi (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Twinkle1990 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Please don't use Instagram posts as a source. Instaed, find some WP:RS as sourcing to the claims. Please see WP:SPS.
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:Loghman Madayen (activist) 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ToadetteEdit was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rosignano railway station 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! I am new to using Wikipedia. I started a draft in Sandbox last week, but I cannot find it now. Is there a specific way to access drafts that I might be missing? It was so close to done! --Arnold-Goldman-MonsterMakers (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Hope all is well.
I recently submitted a draft, however it was instantly rejected and I'm not sure why.
I’m very new to this you see so any help would be greatly appreciate.
Take care,
Martyn --Martynlukeact (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Martynlukeact: First off, please read WP:AUTOB; writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. Second, it was declined, not rejected. Rejection means there is no chance in reviving the draft and making it viable. Decline just means the draft needs more work but may be possible to bring it into compliance with our policies and become an article. You should better familiarize yourself with our policies if you are going to continue. WP:ANYBIO is a good place to start, and WP:SIRS is helpful as well. After that, the essay WP:BACKWARDS may help propel you forwards with this draft. - UtherSRG(talk)16:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 14 novembre. You used the {{Help me}} template, but you wanted an answer from a specific editor. If you still need help, please add your question to that editor's talk page instead, or reply to them here using the {{Reply to}} template. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.
Hi there, I found a redirection page that redirects to the wrong article, but there is no article it should redirect to as well. Since I can't just delete the redirection article, I don't know what to do with it. Thank you in advance :) --Rajix4 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
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).
Declining. User is unwilling to address the reason for the block. The claim, "I have never used alternative accounts here", is not relevant if the problem is WP:LOUTSOCK and in any case, is not truthful. User has already previously disclosed they have used alternate accounts here. Yamla (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I think it's very likely that you personally are responsible for Draft:ENCRYPTED MESSAGE based solely on your comments over at User talk:Bbb23 and have therefore been editing inappropriately while signed out, violating WP:LOUTSOCK. I want to reiterate, I have not looked at the WP:CHECKUSER data in this case, but so far you have gone out of your way to refuse to address the reason for your block. You must do so. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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).
I haven't used alternative accounts here. However, I possibly sometimes edited as unlogged whereas I shouldn't had, but I recognise that has been a mistake; in particular, I can ensure it won't happen again as those edits were made in a particular situation,, when I needed to reflect deeplyon my Wikipedia activity; the same situation that caused me to declare the Wikibreak. However, now things are normal again, and in fact I had restarted to contribute constructively, as I always did and will hopefully do. 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 17:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have already reviewed your unblock request. Another admin will review your open one. You may want to correct your continued false statement about your use of alternate accounts and you may want to specifically address the inappropriate edits at Draft:ENCRYPTED MESSAGE. That is, you'll want to state clearly whether or not this was you. Regardless, there's nothing more I can do for you. --Yamla (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Context, I possibly sometimes edited as unlogged whereas I shouldn't had, in particular on Draft:ENCRYPTED MESSAGE. That was a encrypted message, the message was referred to my block on itwiki and read (translated in English) as followas: "I am Calicanto [main account on itwiki] and I declare that I will try by any means possible to evade the injust block, as I was not given the chance to appeal the block [a block appeal procedure was introduced on itwiki only recently]. Moreover, I have already created an active account, the identity of which I will not reveal, instead I will do anything possible for it not to be recognised [the account was Vuqual, active at the time of the message but now blocked as a sockpuppet] and I will do anything to continue to edit constructively [Italian] Wikipedia". I recognise that has been a mistake; in particular, I can ensure it won't happen again as those edits were made in a particular situation, when I needed to reflect deeply on my Wikipedia activity, and I was trying desperately to convince Italian admins to unblock be there; the same situation that caused me to declare the Wikibreak. However, now things are normal again, and in fact I had restarted to contribute constructively, as I always did and will hopefully do, and I have stopped the disruptive activity. See also message below 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 18:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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.
First, take a deep breath. Slow down. Know that you can't post an infinite number of unblock request or your User talk page privileges will be removed. You have opened three unblock requests and most blocked editors are typically allowed to have four before their ability to edit their talk page is removed.
If you have used alternative accounts, the best thing is to declare them right now. Editors can come back from having sock accounts, eventually, if they are honest about them. There must be some checkuser data that connects you to other accounts or you wouldn't be blocked now so sticking with a flat denial will only decrease the chances of eventually being allowed to return. Also know that because this is a checkuser block, ordinary administrators like Josh or I can not unblock you, you must convince an a checkuser that you will no longer edit logged out or with other accounts. Also, repeatedly "pinging" editors/admins just annoys people and makes them likely to start ignoring you. I know this seems urgent to you now because it just happened today but think things through, read the Guide to Appealing Blocks, which has a lot of helpful information. Most editors don't pay attention to advice they ar given and it just ends up hurting their chances of getting unblocked. And, above all, do not create any new accounts. That will greatly lessen the chances of ever getting unblockd. LizRead!Talk!19:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I declared my alternative accounts active here on my User page. For a complete list, see on itwiki, but I haven't ever used most of them here. And, in my most recent unblock request, I declared that I was the author of Draft:ENCRYPTED MESSAGE; declaring also the decrypted message. I have dine no other significant edit as unlogged, and, if unblocked, I will make sure I won't do it anymore. By the way, I declare that my future activity will categorically exclude deliberately unlogged editing; and will concentrate on the constructive activity similar to the one I was doing till today, such as patrolling new pages (see 20/20 accuracy in CSD Log). Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 19:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few questions. I couldn't find a complete list of your socks on it.wiki. Could you provide a link to it, please? Why did you come to my Talk page challenging the deletion of the draft? I don't see the upside for you. All it demonstrates is a significant amount of deceit on your part. Finally, where (link, please) did you "desperately" try to get yourself unblocked at it.wiki, and why do you think you failed? --Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: There was a it.wiki CU who reached out on my talk page at one point about this user. The two of them went back and forth a bit, that could be what they're referring to maybe? Hey man im josh (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 @Hey man im josh @Liz A list of sockpuppets can be found here. I tried to convince desperately Italian Administrators to get unblocked here 12 and with a message at the Teahouse here. I came to Bbb23 challenging the draft deletion because I knew it wasn't nonsense. I posted it during the "desperate unblock attempt" period hoping that some itwiki admin could have seen it. However, I declare that I have now given up getting unblocked on itwiki, and that that period is now over, as proved by my return to activity in the latest few days, a type of activity which I would continue to do if I get unblocked; whereas, as I said before, I will avoid any type of deliberately unlogged editing, or messages trying to convince Italian Administrators to unblock me, because that was a consequence of an exceptional moment, which is now over, and which won't happen again. Instead I will concentrate in constructive editing, such as revision of drafts and patrolling of new pages, eventually listing them for speedy deletion (see my CSD log). 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of socks. Although most of them have never edited at en.wiki, you registered quite a few here, including a couple as recently as this month, e.g., Calycanto2024 (April 25) and Quoval (April 29). Your unblock attempts are disruptive in and of themselves. I can well understand why the Italian administrators either removed them or dismissed them out of hand. The two you link to were made by IPs, not by your master account or even any other named account. According to the machine translation of one of them, your tone was arrogant and defiant. For example, in the one made to Elwood on April 23, you said in part: "given that there is no possibility of unblocking even if I had become administrator of English Wikipedia, of course I will continue to escape, block by block at least I contribute from IP" and "if you want it that way, take it that way. However, you can forget about me abandoning wikipedia for a questionable block (to put it mildly)". Your post was (correctly) removed by another Italian admin, Titore, with the edit summary "block evasion". You were also linking to encrypted messages, just as here, rather than just spelling out what was going on. I don't have the authority to unblock. This is a CheckUser block and can only be undone by a CU or with the permission of a CU. But if someone were to ask for my opinion, based on what I know - and there is probably information that is known only by CUs - I would strongly recommend against unblocking you. I suspect the best you can hope for is the WP:SO, where you would have to wait six months without socking (by named accounts or by IPs) and then make another unblock request. It would not automatically be granted, just considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 Thanks for your answer. I have an urgent question: is there any chance that the reviewing admin may unblock me, and if so, how much time could it take. And secondly, I think that I could be unblocked, because the disruptive activity you before described was limited to it.wiki, so they are right not unblocking me there, but here I've done nothing wrong, apart the encrypted messages, which, as I said, were consequent of a particular period, in which I was desperately trying to get unblocked on itwiki. But now this period is over, I have given up, instead I really want to continue doing the type of constructive contributions I was doing here until the block, which came to me as a bad surprise. What do you think? Please answer, it is very important for me, thanks 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 11:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already told you that you can be unblocked only by a CheckUser. I've also told you my opinion of whether you should be unblocked. Please don't waste my time asking questions to which you already know the answers.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, 14 novembre. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Grattacielo di Piazza Matteotti, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, 14 novembre. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Marco Civoli, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, 14 novembre. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ardenza, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, 14 novembre. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rosignano railway station, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, 14 novembre. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Italy v Germany (2006 FIFA World Cup), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, 14 novembre. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Ardenza".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
