User talk:Dreimouse in an nutshell

Welcome

Hello, Dreimouse in an nutshell, and Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page McDonnell Douglas DC-10 did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help ask a question on your talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, an IP editor has raised concerns about your editing at 2023 Spanish protests, with these two edits raising reasonable concerns. Are you able to provide a reliable source that shows the protests are ongoing? Thanks. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 20:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Rosbif73. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2024 in aviation, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2023 Spanish protests, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please refrain from stating that the protests are ongoing without providing a source. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 22:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreimouse in an nutshell, I'm unable to reply on Talk:2023 Spanish protests for whatever reason. I'll post what I was going to say here, if it works:

"After looking at the corresponding article on the Spanish Wikipedia, I've located this potential source (in Spanish). Searching "Spain protests" and "Spanish protests" for me yielded this article from two days ago by the Agence France-Presse, a generally reliable source."

I hope this helps with reliable sourcing. While your claims do match up with what I can machine translate from the Spanish article, we do still need it to be sourced and cited. Thank you! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 07:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Saxdor

Hello, Dreimouse in an nutshell. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Saxdor, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Saxdor

Hello, Dreimouse in an nutshell. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Saxdor".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saxdor (December 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Beachweak were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
Essay-like writing
Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
Close paraphrasing

Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

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:Saxdor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Beachweak (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dreimouse in an nutshell! 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! Beachweak (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saxdor (December 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spiderone 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:Saxdor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello Dreimouse in an nutshell. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Saxdor, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Dreimouse in an nutshell. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Dreimouse in an nutshell|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Dreimouse in an nutshell, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Dreimouse in an nutshell|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saxdor (December 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Qcne were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Saxdor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

qcne (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saxdor (December 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spiderone 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:Saxdor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Saxdor has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Saxdor. Thanks! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saxdor (December 28)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Spiderone was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: None of the 4 references even work. As this is the 5th decline in a short space of time with no meaningful improvements, this is now rejected and will not be considered further.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]