User talk:Wexmoney: Difference between revisions

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

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:

Not enough 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 it after they have been resolved.

CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 16:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

my intent was not for the article to remain as is for long. the intent was for others to grow it. I don’t have capabilities to create a sufficient article. I do have capabilities to start an article small. Wexmoney (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted the article to stay as is and not receive scrutiny by me or other reviewers, you would be well-advised to not submit it for review. CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 17:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i didn’t want the article to stay as is though Wexmoney (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I misinterpreted the original comment. You should still only submit when you feel the draft is ready for publishing. CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 17:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i couldn’t figure out how to nominate an article for creation by someone else without creating it myself Wexmoney (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Muboshgu. Your recent edit to the page Michael Lorenzen appears to have included premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been undone for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. Please cite a reliable source confirming its completion or discuss your change on the article’s talk page. If you think there has been a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Exploding whale, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you propose Crocodile farm for deletion? It seems to be a reasonably well-sourced article, and there’s no reasoning in your PROD tag. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok Wexmoney (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why do you keep adding {{underlinked}} to articles that have sufficient links to other articles? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

a vast majority do not Wexmoney (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you think an article is short, then please use one of the {{stub}} templates. {{expand section}} is for when one part of a longer article needs to have more information in it. We don’t really have any other templates for “this article needs to be longer” outside the stub templates.

My main concern is your PRODding of exploding whale and your user page saying you don’t consider it an important article, which feels to me like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i did not say it is an unimportant article. I said that it is absurd how that has an article but Bernedoodle does not. Bernedoodle seems much more important than exploding whale. I highly apologize requesting deletion of crocodile farms and exploding whales. Wexmoney (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Please be careful with your edits. I don’t see any more words in Andrei Belyanin that could possibly be linked. Not every word needs to be linked every time. Same with the other articles you tagged as {{underlinked}} — I don’t see any more words that need links. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

there are several entire unlinked paragraphs Wexmoney (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the Agcheh Darband article I genuinely believe should be deleted Wexmoney (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]