User talk:Bananapiey

Kjelsås (station) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Kjelsås (station), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Ratnahastin^talk 15:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Stortinget station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stortinget station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Brothers1837 -- Brothers1837 (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks by reviewing Stortinget station. PedroC6586 (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Stortinget station

The article Stortinget station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stortinget station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Brothers1837 -- Brothers1837 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kjelsås (station) (September 30)

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. 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kjelsås (station) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kjelsås (station), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PedroC6586! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy GA reviews

Hi PedroC6586, you may have seen that you were mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Out_of_process_GANs_passed for rapidly opening and passing four good article reviews. It is highly unusual for a GA review to pass without any comment, and as observers who care about the process, we have no way of telling whether you (1) thought the article was excellent and merited immediate GA status, or (2) gave it a slapdash review without understanding the criteria. I appreciate your interest in participating in the GA project, but I'd recommend you get some more experience writing articles before you begin reviewing GAs or FAs. The experience will be helpful, and more importantly you'll build a record that will bring you the trust of your colleagues here. In the meantime, I've undone your recent reviews per the discussion I linked above. If you have questions or comments you can ask me here, or ask the broader group at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Out_of_process_GANs_passed. I wish you all the best, Ajpolino (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PedroC6586. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for two weeks for using a sockpuppet account to manipulate the good article review process. If this repeats, the next block will likely be indefinite. Let me know if you have any questions. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Kontraskjæret tram stop

Hello, PedroC6586,

Thank you for creating Kontraskjæret tram stop.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

hHis article has no references nor footnotes. These matters need to be rectified.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:PedroC6586/sandbox/PedroC6586

Hello, PedroC6586. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:PedroC6586/sandbox/PedroC6586, 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) 16:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Kjelsås (station)

Hello, PedroC6586. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kjelsås (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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Kjelsås (station)

Hello, PedroC6586. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kjelsås".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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!} 18:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]