User talk:SolxrgashiUnited

Your submission at Articles for creation: Movement for Direct Democracy (November 8)

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 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:Movement for Direct Democracy 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SolxrgashiUnited! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Movement for Direct Democracy (November 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Movement for Direct Democracy instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers.

If the article either is ready for the encyclopedia or appears to be ready for the encyclopedia, the draft will be redirected to the article. However, the article could have been moved into article space instead.

If the article does not appear to be ready for the encyclopedia, the article may be nominated for deletion, and the draft will be kept.

This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.

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:Movement for Direct Democracy 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kiaya Campbell moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Murder of Kiaya Campbell. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because This page addresses a sensitive topic, and I acknowledge and respect the intent behind its creation. However, the content infringes on copyright laws, with a 79.3% match to material from denver7.com/news/local-news/teen-who-pleaded-guilty-to-murdering-kiaya-campbell-10-sentenced-to-life-in-prison. Please revise the content to address these issues and then either resubmit it for review through AfC or move it directly back to the mainspace. . 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. Charlie (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Kiaya Campbell (November 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by PARAKANYAA 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 events). 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:

coverage too local to be helpful for passing NEVENT

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:Murder of Kiaya Campbell 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.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco de Santiago y Calderón

I’m suggesting that you search for sources in Google books, at least, before you nominate articles for deletion. Please see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! I will try to be more careful when nominating articles for deletion. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too many AFDs in a short time

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Geschichte (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How many articles am I allowed to nominate for deletion per day? SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need to mass nominate articles for deletion in the first place? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its relaxing, I love cleaning Wikipedia from bad articles! SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the desire to clean, and that it can be relaxing. But please note that the consequence is lots of work for other people to form opinions about your proposal, and it can be quite stressful for the main author of the page you're proposing to delete. Please make sure that you do all the work described at WP:BEFORE before putting work on others to respond. Thanks. Davemc0 (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that writing articles is hard. Nominating them for deletion is easy. Don't just nominate articles for deletion because you don't like them. Take time to look at why there is an article and what Wikipedia policies, guidelines and conventions say. And only nominate for deletion if they're really not notable. Nominating articles because you think it's "relaxing" is really not acceptable. And most of the articles you have nominated are clearly not "bad articles" in anyone's opinion except yours. Taking an article to AfD should be a last resort and should really only be done by experienced editors who know how things work. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SolxrgashiUnited,

Please stop nominating articles for AFD deletion discussions. You have only been editing for a month which is not enough time to understand all of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, standards for notability and sourcing. Every time you nominate an article for a deletion discussion, other editos spend their time evaluating an article, looking for sources, it takes minutes for you to nominate an article and editors can spend hours trying to find sources to support a Keep argument.

Please spend your time improving existing articles before getting involved in administrative matters on the project. Other editors will want to see that you know how to contribute and edit productively and not just tag pages for deletion discussions.

If you have questions about any of these comments, please bring them to the Teahouse. But stop tagging articles for deletion until you have a few more months of solid contribution history. The fact that it is "calming" to you is not important considering the cost it imposes on your fellow editors. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Im sorry for uncarefully nominating articles for deletion, it will not happen again. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Southern Operations Room.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Southern Operations Room.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abundant Life Christian School shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital fingerprint. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:JerónimoOsaOsaEcoroPhoto.png

Thanks for uploading File:JerónimoOsaOsaEcoroPhoto.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 10:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fuentes

Your edit has been removed as there is already a section Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]