User talk:Xpander1

Draft:Dominik Finkelde concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Dominik Finkelde, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Dominik Finkelde

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

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. » Shadowowl | talk 16:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Finkelde moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Dominik Finkelde, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) In addition, since it is a blp (bio of a living person), it needs significant footnoting to verify the assertions in the article. 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dominik Finkelde (March 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 QueerEcofeminist 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 for academics). 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:

* Need more reliable references to establish the notability of the subject of this article, please write the article from a neutral point of view and not in praise of the subject.

Use references which are reviewing Dominik's works to expand this article. once you are done with the changes you can resubmit this article. thanks

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:Dominik Finkelde 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:Dominik Finkelde, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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 will be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 18:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Khashmashi! 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! QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 18:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dominik Finkelde has been accepted

Dominik Finkelde, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Todd McGowan moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Todd McGowan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. 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, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969 why do you think that there is WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict? someones (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are obvious indications that you are connected to the subject somehow. We don't give hints to editors on how we can spot UPE/COI editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, you are making baseless accusations, which is highly disrespectful. I will give you the hint, so your illusions may be cleared, I asked the author via email to send me a photo of themselves a while after creating the page, so it wouldn't have copyright issues. And they sent me a selfie, which I uploaded afterwards, that has probably triggered your detective intuitions, of how somebody else may have taken that photo? I will remove that photo accordingly since it doesn't count as my own work. Please stop making Wikipedia such a toxic place before making up your mind, and contact your superior, since I don't think asking for a photo constitutes WP:UPE or WP:COI. The author is pretty well known you can find citations to his work from other Wikis such as this one:

Psychoanalytic film theory

You can take a look across the internet as to see whether he's really well known, I've known this author via Slavoj Žižek who has recommended and reviewed many of his works.

I hope this finalizes your guesswork episode. someones (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Todd McGowan (March 7)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:

This is also not adequately sourced; some of the sources are superfluous, most are incorrectly presented, and the SoundCloud and YouTube links to his podcast and his YouTube channel shouldn't be used as sources at all. There is some advice on sourcing at User:Bonadea/Draft submission checklist – see in particular the "Relevance" and "Formatting / presentation" sections.

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:Todd McGowan 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.

bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Todd McGowan moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Todd McGowan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969 I've added the AFC comments back to the page Draft:Todd McGowan, have you checked them already? there are at least three instances of sources for Wikipedia:GNG, including reviews from Cambridge University Press, which meet at least four of the important criteria 1. "Significant coverage" 2. "Reliable" 3. "Independent of the subject" 4. "Sources", and other publications and awards. Have you already assessed all of those? someones (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see any reviews from Cambridge University Press. What #'s are those? Currently there are 13 sources, none of which are in-depth and non-primary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969, I haven't mentioned the reviews in the primary article but in the AfC section on top, there's one review from Hegel Bulletin (Cambridge University Press) https://doi.org/10.1017/hgl.2020.10, and one from American Imago (Johns Hopkins University) https://www.jstor.org/stable/26305079. I can add those perhaps in a separate "Views" section if necessary. someones (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969, I think you keep forgetting to check on this, as a reminder would you mind taking another look? someones (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Todd McGowan has been accepted

Todd McGowan, 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!

asilvering (talk) 03:21, 16 June 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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

minor edits

Hey, just FYI, Wikipedia has a technical definition of "minor edits", which is basically restricted to typos. You can have a look here: Help:Minor edit. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hi Khashmashi. I was wondering what was your rationale for removing spaces, from infobox templates, across multiple articles? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martinevans123. Mostly I was looking for removing unnecessary spaces (double, extra spaces etc.), some of them turned out to be inside infoboxes, frankly didn't see any rationale for keeping them either, so went for 1) lower real state (both visual and storage-wise), 2) more uniform spacing across the board (compared to variable length spacing). So I leaned towards removing, but do you think keeping them as is, is visually more pleasing? someones (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it easier to edit infobox templates if all the "=" symbols are aligned and all the data entries are left aligned. Removing the "unnecessary spaces" destroys this. But I realise this is just a personal preference. It makes no difference to the visual appearance of the article, of course. I'm really not sure we need to worry about saving storage space. You might want to get a wider view of this issue? Thanks for listening, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I agree, thanks for pointing that out, the alignment argument sounds more palpable. Best. someones (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop changing double spaces after periods to single spaces. It has no effect on the rendered page and it stirs up ill-feeling for no good reason. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Trovatore, I didn't know double-spaces after periods are pointless (pun intended). Otherwise they're annoying, hence the edits. someones (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK you're allowed to be annoyed but please stop removing them. That is much more annoying. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]