User talk:Vespro Latuna

Welcome!

Hello, Vespro Latuna, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your pseudoscientific stuff will be deleted. Don't waste your time in wikipedia. There is enough gullible people elsewhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are we talking about? What contributes are you speaking of? I appreciate the tone, particularly User:Vespro Latuna 17 December 2015 15:06 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marco Antonio Attisani (June 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 DrStrauss was:

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Heavy underlying promotional tone: please copyedit.

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:Marco Antonio Attisani and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DrStrauss talk 12:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Vespro Latuna, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! DrStrauss talk 12:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marco Antonio Attisani (December 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Winged Blades of Godric was:

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marco Antonio Attisani and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Winged Blades^Godric 14:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marco Antonio Attisani (March 5)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:42

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:Marco Antonio Attisani 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:Marco Antonio Attisani, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Spin–charge separation into Electron. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Diannaa I will do it asap. User:Vespro Latuna (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks

Please do not insert wikilinks in mainspace articles to draftspace articles. You can add a redlink to the title the article will be at when published to mainspace, but not a direct link to the draft. I've removed the two you recently added to articles. Thanks, Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Time-traveller UFO Hypothesis (November 2)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

"Although, arguably the time-traveler hypothesis isn't more far-fetched than other more popular UFO hypothesis such as the extraterrestrial or the interdimensional hypotheses, it remains somehwat "periferal" even in the ufology community, and is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community." is editorialising and too informal. Other statements like this throughout need rewording.

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:Time-traveller UFO Hypothesis 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.

GraziePrego (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Time-traveler UFO Hypothesis has been accepted

Time-traveller UFO Hypothesis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Doric Loon (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Vespro Latuna! I wanted to stop by to thank you for this article! We have needed an article on that topic or a long time now! I wanted you to know I added a link to you article in the UFO footer template, so the article is now linked to from a a variety of articles. Thank you for your hard work, it's very appreciated! Feoffer (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis (November 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces 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)
reliable
secondary
independent of 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Remove the external links on prose throughout the article and also, some sections paragraphs in some sections are not sourced at all. Please cite your sources.

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:Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis 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.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comment Robert McClenon, very useful. The previous version of the article about this topic was just a stab, a couple of sentences I believe. Hopefully the issue with the present draft will be fixed and this new version will be a renewed contribution to the subject. Vespro Latuna (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis (December 7)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The sourcing problems still need to be fixed.

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:Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis 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.

BuySomeApples (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion BuySomeApples. Could you kindly be more specific? At present, there are 47 sources in this article and growing. Would it be possible for you to elaborate on what is the issue with the sources? Thanks. Vespro Latuna (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The main issue is that there are still paragraphs of unsourced information and there are WP:EXTERNAL links in the prose. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources

I removed a paragraph that you added to Victor Vescovo because you cited a blog and two deprecated sources. Please see WP:RSPS to see the status on wikipedia of the sources that you cited. When you add a source to an article, it's a good idea to double-check it against that table. Keep in mind that not being listed on the table does not mean a source is necessarily reliable. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Schazjmd (talk · contribs) Timothy Gallaudet is very outspoken about his interest and involvement in the UAP topic, including government disclosure, so to me the fact that Vescovo publicly supporting him in this endeavour makes their unorthodox collaboration worth to mention. What would you suggest as the best practice for referencing a significant event like this one: two prominent public figures collaborating on a specific project that isn't covered by mainstream press? Vespro Latuna (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of any collaboration is in your personal judgement if reliable sources haven't covered it. Please see WP:BLPRS, which states: The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. (Also, please use template:reply to mention other users on a talk page; don't copy and paste their signature. I've fixed that in your comment above.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unidentified flying object, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis (March 24)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis 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.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was very helpful!

Hey Vespro Latuna. Thank you again for your work on Draft:Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis. That's a tough topic, and it's easy to bite off more than you can chew: a LOT of different ideas are called "cryptoterrestial". In the draft, we're sort of all over the place: "Breakaway human civilizations" like Atlantis-Lemuria-Tibet, secret humanoid civilizations (like Shaver's deros), superhuman entities like Keel's Ultraterrestrials, Mac Tonnies's humanoids, and even classic cryptids like Mothman. It's winding up as a big jumble without sufficient sources, which is why others have rejected the draft. Reading over your draft and some of the excellent sources you tracked down, it was clear to me that one of the narrowest subtopics merited its own well-sourced article: the space animal hypothesis. I'm not particularly familiar with Tonnies's work or other 21st century authors, so I'd encourate yo to improve the section on his bio. My interest/expertise is mostly limited to 1947-52. Thanks again for your draft and your work on Time-traveler UFO hypothesis. Don't get discouraged by your draft not being accepted, topics like this are the brain surgery or rocket science of wikipedia editing -- it's hard to get right, but we need all the good-faith help we can get. Feoffer (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind feedback and words of encouragement, Feoffer! I just resubmitted the draft after cutting down some of sections with weaker sources. I appreciate you creating the space animal hypothesis article, well done on that one and great additions to the topic! I am slightly concerned that this will somehow slow down the review process for the cryptoterrestrial page since the 'space critters' theory is actually a subcategory of the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis but only the former has its own article, but I'm hoping it won't be a problem and that, on the contrary, it will give more solid ground for the draft to be accepted. I just linked your space animals article into the draft. You may have seen that a recent paper about the cryptoterrestrials from Harvard and Montana University professors made it on the news: they divide the hypothesis in 4 main categories. Would you suggest to do something similar for the article for clarity's sake? I will also look into expanding the specific section on Tonnies' bio. Thank you for your help. Vespro Latuna (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis has been accepted

Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]