User talk:SalimJah: Difference between revisions

Line 71: Line 71:

Please see more information at [[Help:Unreviewed new page]].

When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 18:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

== Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Draft:Peter Schwarber|Peter Schwarber]] (October 2) ==

<div style=”border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: var(–background-color-warning-subtle, #fdf2d5); color: inherit; padding: 0.5em 1em; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;”> [[File:AFC-Logo_Decline.svg|50px|left]]Your recent article submission to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for Creation]] has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by Pegnawl was:

{{divbox|gray|3=This submission’s references do not show that the subject [[Wikipedia:Notability|qualifies for a Wikipedia article]]—that is, they do not show ”significant” coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in ”published”, [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|”reliable”]], [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Secondary|”secondary”]] sources that are ”[[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent]]” of the subject (see the [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|guidelines on the notability of people]]). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see [[Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference|technical help]] and learn about [[Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability)|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:

{{divbox|blue|3=Draft requires more sourcing WP:RS and more content WP:MOS}} 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:Peter Schwarber]] 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 [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions|may be deleted]].

* If you need any assistance, or have experienced any [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning|untoward behavior]] associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the <span class=”plainlinks” >[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Peter_Schwarber ”’Articles for creation help desk”’]</span>, on the <span class=”plainlinks” >[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pegnawl&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Peter_Schwarber ”’reviewer’s talk page”’]</span> or use [[Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer|Wikipedia’s real-time chat help from experienced editors]].

[[User:Pegnawl|Pegnawl]] ([[User talk:Pegnawl|talk]]) 20:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)</div><!–Template:AfC decline–>

{| style=”margin: 0.4em 2em;”

|- style=”vertical-align: top;”

| [[File:WP teahouse logo 2.png|alt=Teahouse logo]]

| <div style=”background-color:#e1e6db; color: #393D38; padding: 1em; font-size: 1.1em; border-radius:10px;box-shadow:-2px -2px 1px #8e8a78;”>Hello, ”’SalimJah”’!

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 ”'[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk|Articles for creation help desk]]”’. If you have any ”other” questions about your editing experience, we’d love to help you at the ”'[[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]]”’, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! [[User:Pegnawl|Pegnawl]] ([[User talk:Pegnawl|talk]]) 20:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)</div>

|}<!– Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation –>

[[Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC]]

I can’t be arsed to get involved in the usual kneejerk “No, this is bad” nonsense that has piled up in light of your request it’s a failing of Wikipedia; systemic inertia prevents changes ever being made). Feel free to contact me, I’d be happy to participate in the survey. → ROUX ₪ 21:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. We spam templates to people about things that they have nothing to do with all the time (like the AFD notices we used to do for users who reverted vandalism once 3 years ago). I don’t see what the big deal is. —nn123645 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per request from some folks on AN, I just wanted to drop a note here confirming that the study being conducted by this user is indeed done with the support of the Wikimedia Foundation. You can see a description of the project and other research projects on Meta at Research/Projects. Let me know if you have any questions, though I will say that per the discussion on AN, any study’s methods will need to be tweaked in order to not get in the way of normal, smooth functioning of the community. Steven Walling at work 01:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, the research is described at meta:Research:Dynamics of Online Interactions and Behavior. Right? Yaris678 (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. SalimJah (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed you to inquire about the privacy policy of your most recent research and what type of information is passed to the survey. Please respond in a timely fashion. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you on my talk page. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

—Csisc (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Berkman Center logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —B-bot (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Launebee (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sciences Po shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor’s work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don’t violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please make sure you don’t touch the article until the discussion is concluded. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your name appeared in some of the discussions about this. See WP:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment from XIIIfromTokyo in case you want to propose how to resolve this. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sciences Po should be renamed Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris according to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines on article titles.

The article will be discussed at the article Talk page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion. However, do not remove the merge notice from the top of the article. Mathglot (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SalimJah, in 2012 a special flag (researcher) was added to your account for a project. This flag is for accessing certain histories of deleted pages. Are you still working on this project and require this continuing access? Please reply here or on my talk page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey xaosflux! Thanks for reaching out. The project you’re talking about is in the publication pipeline. So I may not need those special rights anymore, at least in the foreseeable future. SalimJah (talk)

Thank you for confirmation, processing at meta:Special:Diff/19635672. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Peter Schwarber. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
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 the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draft requires more sourcing WP:RS and more content WP:MOS

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.

Pegnawl (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SalimJah!
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! Pegnawl (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply