Index

Archive
› 2011 - 2020 › 2021 › 2022 › 2023 › 2024

Talk
› Click to leave a new message

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors 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 per page for pages within this topic. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, added fresh news from Estonian and Moldovan major information portals and TV. I did not use any advertising, but wrote an article based on facts and for each fact I indicated a link to news sites. Now a lot is written about the group in Moldova and Estonia, before that they regularly take part in the programs of Estonian Radio 4 and their tracks are played there. I wrote the article neutrally, since I write a lot of articles on Russian Wikipedia and always adhere to the rule of neutrality. Perhaps my English is bad, I will be grateful if you correct the text and approve the article. Please help me fix everything according to the rules and publish the article. added news from different countries about the band and singer Bacho, as well as a message that they were favorites. Is this enough for the criterion of significance and media coverage?Kodru (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You recently added a notability tag to an article that was "under construction" and it had three reliable sources. Surely either of these would mean that a notability tag was superfluous? I guess it was an error so I removed it. Victuallers (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers: Well, it is not implied: it could be under construction and notable at the same time, which is not the case here: sourced doesn't mean notable. Besides trivial mentions, refs at Tusayiwe Mkhondya don't even appear to have significant coverage. In the end, the article subject does not appear to pass WP:BIO, which is required. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well we disagree. I believe that sourcing to reliable sources is de facto proof of notability. What else is there? NPP patrollers are asked to respect "under construction". If you would like to prove your point then nominating it for deletion should find out where the consensus lies. Usually however most nominators believe that "it could be under construction and notable at the same time" until they have done at least a few hour's research. Victuallers (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I want you to redirect the article Kazakh-Nogai War (1535—1537), since this is not a war, but rather a series of small campaigns against each other. It so happened that they all fought against the Kazakhs. Онеми (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Category:Wikipedians that poop recreated after being speedy deleted? I have tagged it for speedy deletion again, seeing no overturn decision at deletion review or anywhere else. If I missed the discussion, please let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: No discussion needed. Deleted user categories can be freely recreated as redirects for Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, as you can check on the target page. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for a link to a guideline or policy that supported editing in contravention of WP:G4, which is a policy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians that poop requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_23#Category:Wikipedians_that_poop. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Category:Wikipedians that poop has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 19 § Category:Wikipedians that poop until a consensus is reached. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]