Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Estonia–Syria relations, 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.

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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

- Ratnahastin (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm here to talk about an edit of mine that you reverted in Pooh's Heffalump Movie due to lack of a source. It was about the sentence, "Featuring characters from A. A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh stories, the film is the fourth theatrical animated film in Disney's Winnie the Pooh franchise and Disneytoon Studios' sixth adaptation of Winnie the Pooh stories, following Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search for Christopher Robin (1997), Seasons of Giving (1999), The Tigger Movie (2000), A Very Merry Pooh Year (2002), Piglet's Big Movie (2003), and Springtime with Roo (2004)". I changed the word 'sixth' to 'seventh' in my edit. I didn't think a source was needed for this change because the number of Winnie the Pooh movies by DisneyToon Studios listed was six; first is Pooh's Grand Adventure, second is Seasons of Giving, third is The Tigger Movie, fourth is A Very Merry Pooh Year, fifth is Piglet's Big Movie, and sixth is Springtime with Roo. After that, we have Pooh's Heffalump Movie, making a total of seven, so a source isn't needed in this case, just some observation. Anyway, I just wanted to clear this up and I assure you that I bear no ill will to any misunderstanding. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:F9D5:A67:D333:4618 (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry about my misunderstanding. I'll revert it now, thanks for reminding me. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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:

Only source is a link to the events website.

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:Nauvoo Pageant 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Freedoxm! 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! Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktkvtsh: I already know that as three submissions I requested were accepted, but thanks for reminding me! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for reviewing my edits I made to John Scott page. I have familiarized myself with the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines regarding contributing as well as the Neutral point of view guidelines. That's why I made the edits.

The edit I made was to remove the dramatic language and replace it for a more neutral and factual tone. It simply indicates that something is receiving more focus or interest from people, without implying too much about the nature of the attention or its impact. Using the phrase "taking the ice hockey world by storm" is a hyperbolic expression which doesn’t fit with Wikipedia’s Neutral point of view guidelines.

Can you please approve my changes or at least explain more about why you feel the hyperbolic expression is necessary in this particular case? JazzyOxygen (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JazzyOxygen, thank you for your section over here. I reverted your edit because I don't think that taking the ice hockey world by storm is not neutral, and that replacing it with gaining attention also makes the article a little bit less-tuned. However, you are correct- what you did was also neutral. As a result, I have re-reviewed your edit, and it is now accepted. Please keep in mind that I have a policy here at my talk page that if I have started a discussion on your talk page, don't move it here for organizing reasons (so that it's more easily readable & in one place. If you want to feel free to familiarize yourself at the notice at the top of the talk page). Feel free to reply at your talk page where I notified you about your edit. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thank you! JazzyOxygen (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 00:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Freedoxm, good day in America. I've noticed your contributions regarding the direction of the Syrian Hawk of Quraish, particularly your preference for the right-facing version over the left-facing one.

I understand that some official documents and institutions have used the left-facing hawk, while you've referred to it as the 'popular version.' From the view of mine, along with another user, Moester101, the primary sources that support the right-facing hawk appear to come from a government website that hasn't been updated since the fall of the Bashar regime. In contrast, there are more recent institutions and official websites that display the left-facing hawk. Additionally, physical documents and papers, including one signed by the transitional Prime Minister of Syria, also show the left-facing hawk too.

I'm genuinely curious about your perspective on this. Could you please explain why you consider the right-facing hawk to be the official one, despite the presence of the left-facing hawk in various contexts? Additionally, how do you personnally interpret the historical or governmental decisions behind these variations?

Thank you for your time and insights Kaliper1 (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kaliper1, I consider the right-facing quraishi hawk to be the correct one because of the file's name: The right-facing hawk file shows the correct name, and the left-facing hawk's file shows that it is a variation found in media. That's why I still consider it as the primary de facto CoA (though it might change). I'm also sorry for responding pretty late as I went out-of-town today. Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Freedoxm,

Thanks for responding. I must admit I’m a bit confused by the rationale you've provided. If I understand correctly, you're basing the legitimacy of the right-facing hawk primarily on the file name, which identifies the left-facing hawk as a media variation. However, my concern now is that file name alone isn't typically a strong basis for determining the official status of a coat of arms, especially when more recent official documents and institutions present a different version.

Could you clarify if there's any alternate or legal documentation beyond the file name that supports the right-facing hawk as the official version? I’m genuinely trying to understand your perspective better.

Thanks again for your time.

Ps: Know that I am the uploader to said file. I used the wording under the assumption of common usage than that of the left. Under that assumption, I stand wronged. File names can change, and such is a trivial matter as easy as a message or request for change to an Admin. Kaliper1 (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is uncalled for to move the page to draft space given the unsourced content, you could have simply removed the content (a la User:BoyTheKingCanDance or User:RangersRus) or sourced it. Similar to Sameer Dattani, he has a distinguishable career in both Hindi and Telugu cinema in both lead and supporting roles. You can double check this with @Shshshsh:, @Jayanthkumar123: @L5boat:. As per Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draftspace, articles older than 90 days can't be redirected to draftspace. I don't think this article satisfies WP:BOLD since it is not a non controversial move. @Mushy Yank: @Kailash29792: @Ravensfire: Sorry for all the pings, I wish I had this discussion at the Indian cinema task force, but I first would have had to make a message at the relevant user's talk page. Just seems uncalled for given the actors' notability. DareshMohan (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't agree with such undiscussed, unilateral moves. There should have been consensus. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is an established actor with notable credits. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to do that, I'm still getting used to the community. OPP124 (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Next time, respond in your talk page. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]