Hi N1TH Music! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Mjroots ( talk) 07:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Mulinetti moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Mulinetti, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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.
Victor Schmidt (
talk)
11:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Mulinetti (August 25)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mulinetti 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:Mulinetti, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" 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 may 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.
|
Hello, N1TH Music!
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!
Theroadislong (
talk)
13:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Mulinetti (August 25)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mulinetti 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:Mulinetti, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" 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 may 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.
Mulinetti railway station moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Mulinetti railway station, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed ( verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia).
Wikipedia may not be used as a reference. See the policy against circular references. References to Wikipedia may and should be converted to in-line links. Although links do not take the place of references, which are required, links will facilitate the evaluation of this draft by providing context.
This draft should be revised and resubmitted with valid references and without using Wikipedia as a reference. You may ask for advice about references and/or links at the Teahouse.
The draft also has tone issues. The last sentence has a breezy informal tone that is not encyclopedic.
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.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
15:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Your draft article, Draft:Nozarego
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Nozarego".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Bricherhaff
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Bricherhaff".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Kréintgeshaff
Hello, N1TH Music. I just wanted to let you know that
Draft:Kréintgeshaff, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for
article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 ( talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Kréintgeshaff
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Kréintgeshaff".
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 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CommanderWaterford ( talk) 20:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Mulinetti
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Mulinetti".
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 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian ( talk) 18:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Mulinetti railway station
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Mulinetti railway station".
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 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian ( talk) 21:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Leslie Railway moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Leslie Railway, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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. ...
discospinster
talk
15:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Leslie Railway (April 13)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Leslie Railway 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:Leslie Railway, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" 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 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.
Very short, unsourced. Please continue. Xx236 ( talk) 08:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The article Bricherhaff has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable. Additionally, Google Maps is not a meaningful source, and vdl.lu contains no useful information to verify the article contents.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
12:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The article Welcome Beach, British Columbia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
12:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Leslie Railway (May 4)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Leslie Railway 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:Leslie Railway, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" 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 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.
Railscot is a reliable source, more that half of all railway based articles on this site cute railscot N1TH Music ( talk) 10:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
English Corner Nova Scotia moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
English Corner Nova Scotia, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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. ...
discospinster
talk
18:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Bricherhaff moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Bricherhaff, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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.
Mccapra (
talk)
12:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of N1TH
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on N1TH, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
- It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
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. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Slenderman7676. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
British Rail Class 442, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Slender (
talk)
14:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, please avoid using Google search results as a reference, as that is not a WP:RELIABLE source. It may be used to find sources as per WP:GOOGLE, but is not a source in itself in that context. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- N1TH Music, I just noticed that Kj cheetham had called your attention to using Google search results as references. Thanks for all you do but be more specific. I have removed your reference in Railway Driving Motor Car with hopes that you will consider what we are trying to say. Danidamiobi ( talk) 01:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The article London Underground Driving Motor 3706 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability. Not everything that's kept in a museum is by default notable, it needs independent reliable sourcing to establish notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article London Underground Driving Motor 3701 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article London Underground Driving Motor 3690 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article British Rail Locomotive 02 004 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article British rail Locomotive 02 001 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article British Rail Locomotive 02 003 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article London Underground Driving Motor 3370 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
no evidence of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Black Kite (talk)
10:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Underground Driving Motor 3209, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Island Line. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of London Underground Driving Motor 3701 for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground Driving Motor 3701 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Note this nomnination also covers:
Thryduulf ( talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of British rail Locomotive 02 001 for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British rail Locomotive 02 001 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at
Talk:British Rail Locomotive 02 003, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Put simply, this is an encyclopedia, not a repository for every last piece of information about individual items of rolling stock, no matter how insignificant. The key thing to bear in mind is that the subject has to be notable, not just another item in a long list of identical (for all practical purposes) items. Your point about 08s is very relevant, who wants 850 separate articles all saying more or less the same thing? The same thing applies to the class 02s, if on a smaller scale. There were ony a few of them, they did nothing special in their careers, all of which can be summed up in one article. The 37s and 47s (and some other classes) warrant a bit more information because the various sub-classes were created to fulfill different roles. Hence my two lists to help clarify the situation. The 02s were shunters and remained shunters.
There are enthusiast pages on the web that carry the sort of detailed information that an enthusiast like yourself might want to know, see for Class 66 for instance. There may be one for class 02s, and other classes that you are interested in, that would welcome the in-depth information you have. -- Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 14:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, please do not use Flickr for references (let alone over 40 times in a single article, as you did at British Rail Class 02). Per WP:USERGENERATED, sources such as Flickr are not acceptable for Wikipedia. In general, the level of detail you are adding to locomotive articles is excessive for Wikipedia's standards as well. As others have mentioned, such contributions would be welcome on fansites, but not here. Before creating more articles, I strongly recommend that you review Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 02:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Loch Urigull for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Urigull until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Fram ( talk) 14:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Allnabad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Just a farmstead, not a village or similar place, fails WP:NGEO.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
14:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our
policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read
Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the
Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. Thank you.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Railway Driving Motor Car has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Entirely unsourced, failing WP:V and some outright wrong statements as detailed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Other_articles_by_N1TH_Music. Could potentially be made into something, but looks more like a candidate for TNT.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
21:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Ceathramh Garbh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Something that is 58m higher than its surroundings is not a mountain, by definition. If not deleted, should be redirected to its parent Arkle (Sutherland).
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Black Kite (talk)
23:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Trainsandotherthings (
talk •
contribs)
01:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- To avoid any ambiguity from that {{ ANI-notice}} I would like to confirm the discussion thread is here. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Kréintgeshaff has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NGEO: it's a farm, nothing more.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
13:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your post at ANI. It is always better to engage when issues are raised at ANI rather than to stay silent. As I said there, were were all new once and we've all made mistakes.
Moving forward, I've added a Welcome notice to the top of your talk page. Please take the time to read the pages linked from it, as it will be of benefit. WP:RS is also worth a read. As you now seem to appreciate, Flickr should only ever be used as a source of photographs that are suitably licenced for use on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the majority of them aren't.
As you are interested in railways and also the Sutherland area, what do you think about writing an article on the Wester pipe railway. There is an article on de-Wiki, and the sources used are in English. Reply here as I'm going to temporarily watchlist this page. Mjroots ( talk) 07:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I've just curated both Loch Merkland and Loch Urigill and saw your messages on the talk pages. Don't worry, both are suitably sourced with a couple of solid references so it would be very doubtful that there would be any reason to delete them. Best Regards. Hughesdarren ( talk) 10:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:English Corner Nova Scotia
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:English Corner Nova Scotia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 19:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
Your draft article, Draft:English Corner Nova Scotia
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " English Corner Nova Scotia".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi N1TH Music! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
British Rail Class 02 that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
Kj cheetham (
talk)
18:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Leslie Railway
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Leslie Railway, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 08:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Railway Driving Motor Car
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Railway Driving Motor Car, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 12:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
JohnFromPinckney. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Contern, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. I appreciate your additions and improvements, but the article was already tagged as needing further citations; there's no good reason to make the situation worse. Can you provide some reliable sources for your material and readd it? Thanks, —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk /
edits)
10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Brichermillen moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Brichermillen, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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.
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
18:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've moved this to drafts, because I'm not entirely convinced that the subject is notable even per WP:GEOLAND, and in any case the sources cited are less than WP:RS; please provide better sources and/or otherwise establish notability, and then put this through the AfC pre-publication review process. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Brichermillen has been accepted
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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.
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!
Theroadislong ( talk) 18:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Thankyou for you're new articles for places in England. If you're interested I have a project at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes which lists missing parishes in England that need articles. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. You moved Carignano to Carignano, Piedmont already a week ago, but Carignano, Liguria is not ready yet. Can you please answer in Talk:Carignano, Piedmont. Thanks, bye. MrKeefeJohn ( talk) 19:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Comunal Documents of Santa Margherita Ligure for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Comunal Documents of Santa Margherita Ligure until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Fram ( talk) 09:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to
Santa Margherita Ligure has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. You have included straight translations from the (copyrighted) municipality website and presumably other sources as well. Translation of a copyrighted text is just as much a copyright violation as posting the original text.
Fram (
talk)
15:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Urm if one section is copyrighted why would you delete everything including what isn't copyrighted. How do I get any of my work which I wrote myself back? N1TH Music ( talk) 18:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Everything I wrote for Geography, Tourism, Settlements, History, staffing (of municipality) had absoluely not copy and paste why did you eliminate everything, you could have just deleted everything that cited the comune. I had no idea that the trnaslations were still copyrighted. I spent weeks working on that did you have to literally DELETE every revision N1TH Music ( talk) 18:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to
Santa Margherita Ligure has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. "no directly translated material"? You have sections which start with "View from the Seafront of Santa Margherita Castle " without an image in sight, and with text which is a direct translation of
https://www.beniculturalionline.it/location-3306_Castello-di-Santa-Margherita-Ligure.php. The other sections seem to have the same problems. Again, please stop.
Fram (
talk)
12:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fram What Copyright? All the information is either from the Italian Wikipedia (which last time I checked is the same website and therefore isn't copyright to translate) or from openstreet map or other small sources and is paraphrased. There's no copyrighted material there.
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please see Help:Translation. You may not simply translate other Wikipedia articles without providing proper attribution. You also shouldn't post machine translations but should check your translations carefully, which you clearly didn't. Each article you translate (even partially) needs individual attribution (not just a general "taken from itwiki" or some such). Fram ( talk) 13:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fram I don't know what this
https://www.beniculturalionline.it/location-3306_Castello-di-Santa-Margherita-Ligure.php is. "View from the Seafront of Santa Margherita Castle "I wrote that myself or if not I got it from Italian Wikipedia and they stright copied it, I've never been to that sight and so not have any intentions to copy other material. I'm sorry for last time but I genuinely thought it was a loophole to translate material to avoid copyright and now I know better. But wouldn't it be better to only delete the one supposedly copied line rather than to remove all my work, no?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fram What are you talking about? The only translations are from the Italian Wikipedia which is not copyright because Italian Wikipedia is still Wikipedia, correct me if I'm wrong.
N1TH Music (
talk)
14:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which post are you replying to? Again, please see
Help:Translation.
Fram (
talk)
14:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- There was no reply button to your message for some reason at the time so I replied to myself and then tagged you. I'll check Help:Tranlsation and then I'll try to readd my changed to Santa Margherita Ligure without copyrighting anyone. If you could maybe please tell me one more time exaclty which parts are in violation of copyright law? N1TH Music ( talk) 14:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Fram I replied already but forgot to @ you please read the message
N1TH Music (
talk)
14:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- "If you could maybe please tell me one more time exaclty which parts are in violation of copyright law?" As far as I can tell, all of it. Unattributed translations of Italian Wikipedia articles are violations of our copyright policies.
Fram (
talk)
14:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Fram Really? because many pages say that information can be taken from a corresponding article in another langauge. But anyway the link you gave me said that raw machine translations are not very good so if I edit everything it's ok, right? I didn't accidentally or unknowingly copy from an external site? N1TH Music ( talk) 14:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- "If you could maybe please tell me one more time exaclty which parts are in violation of copyright law?" As far as I can tell, all of it. Unattributed translations of Italian Wikipedia articles are violations of our copyright policies.
Fram (
talk)
14:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which post are you replying to? Again, please see
Help:Translation.
Fram (
talk)
14:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- "But wouldn't it be better to only delete the one supposedly copied line rather than to remove all my work, no?" Uh, nearly all you wrote was a translation from Italian, not just that one line. No idea where you got that idea. Fram ( talk) 13:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fram What are you talking about? The only translations are from the Italian Wikipedia which is not copyright because Italian Wikipedia is still Wikipedia, correct me if I'm wrong.
N1TH Music (
talk)
14:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Kackerterhaff moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Kackerterhaff, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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.
TheBirdsShedTears (
talk)
06:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Loch Urigull
A tag has been placed on Loch Urigull requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
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. Fram ( talk) 12:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
FramI don’t understand why shouldn’t this redirect exist?
N1TH Music (
talk)
12:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- N1TH Music, the message from Fram is a notice that the page has been tagged, it is not the start of a discussion. If you disagree with the tagging, you need to follow the directions given above, beginning
If you think this page should not be deleted
. Posting here will not alter the outcome. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)- I did that, I posted information on the talk page of Loch Urigull but I still wanted to clarify something. N1TH Music ( talk) 04:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- N1TH Music, the message from Fram is a notice that the page has been tagged, it is not the start of a discussion. If you disagree with the tagging, you need to follow the directions given above, beginning
Nomination of Abellio, Ellesmere Port for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abellio, Ellesmere Port until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Fram ( talk) 08:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
"Conton" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Conton and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 23#Conton until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Fram (
talk)
08:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
"Bocce (Locality)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Bocce (Locality) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 23#Bocce (Locality) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Fram (
talk)
08:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
"Border of Santa Margherita Ligure" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Border of Santa Margherita Ligure and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 24#Border of Santa Margherita Ligure until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Fram (
talk)
10:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Trudlerbrook
A tag has been placed on Trudlerbrook requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
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. Fram ( talk) 10:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
"Street Design of Santa Margherita" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Street Design of Santa Margherita and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 24#Street Design of Santa Margherita until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Fram (
talk)
10:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Blackslough Wood for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackslough Wood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Fram ( talk) 10:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
A discussion about your edits, including a proposal to block you, is started at WP:ANI#WP:CIR block needed. You are welcome to comment there. Fram ( talk) 11:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Geography of Santa Margherita Ligure has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, unlikely that a small area (<4 square miles) with a population of <10K needs an entire article on the geography of the area ( WP:N), appears to be mostly original research with no or poor sourcing for claims made.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c
16:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Naver until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Singularity42 ( talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
Singularity42 Why is it up for deletion, there are 50 sources 30 of which aren't openstreetmap or google maps?
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've commented at the AfD and would be best to keep all comments in one place. But it's just a bunch of online maps with the location. That's not reliable sources supporting notability. In other words, all the sources do is confirm existence, which is not the same as notability in these circumstances. Singularity42 ( talk) 17:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi N1TH Music! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Mjroots ( talk) 07:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi N1TH Music, I saw you are having some trouble with article creation and referencing. I wanted to offer to work with you, not exactly as a mentor (I've not been here long enough to think I'm that good) but as an editing buddy you can check things with. For example, if you wrote an article in your sandbox and let me look at it before submitting it for creation, then I could go over it with you and help you decide whether your sources are reliable and whether the article's subject is noteworthy. Having a second set of eyes might help, and I'd be more than happy to talk things over with you so we can establish what sources are reliable and can be used on Wikipedia and what we should avoid.
If you think that would be helpful, just let me know. Either way, good luck and I hope your day is getting better! StartGrammarTime ( talk) 08:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh that would be absolutely Incredible, Thank You. But I think I understand the basics it's just that the problem is that I tend to overestimate the value of some sources which I am already managing to cease.
N1TH Music (
talk)
08:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, something that might help is WP:RSP - a list of known reliable (and unreliable) sources. It doesn't have everything, but there's a lot there! Are you planning to continue working on small towns/villages, or move onto something with more reliable sources for the time being? If it were me, I would probably start with something else - I don't know if you've seen the Task Center yet, but it has tons of options for editors wanting to improve the 'pedia. StartGrammarTime ( talk) 01:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how you came across this page, but next time, just revert to the redirect. You should check the page history before doing drastic like draftifying. — Kusma ( talk) 20:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies and point taken, I found it on special:shortpages N1TH Music ( talk) 06:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
of you to lecture other editors on sourcing concerns while you yourself are at ANI for the same reason, especially considering they just created it 4 minutes prior. Just a thought. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know my basics. I'm not stupid, sure I've had a history of bad referencing but at least I cited Something. Was there anything wrong in what I wrote, No. I just informed this person that they must cite sources and liked them to
WP:Citing sources. I don't see how that's an issue.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you know the basics, you should be aware of
WP:BITE in this case, considering they created it 4 minutes prior to your warning.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
17:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok no I didn't know that, but now I do, I'm sorry. Also that editor has been here since February not sure if that classifies as a newcomer, you tell me. Also when I was new, all of the first few articles I made were immediately moved to draftspace, redirected or PRODed.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point and should stick to cleaning up your own mess that you've made.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm trying to but I'm not receiving any help so I'm scared to rebuild any of my work. Every time I try to fix something, Fram uses it as evidence to block me and whenever I ask him for assistance he just tells me to stop editing. If you could help that'd be nice. N1TH Music ( talk) 18:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point and should stick to cleaning up your own mess that you've made.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok no I didn't know that, but now I do, I'm sorry. Also that editor has been here since February not sure if that classifies as a newcomer, you tell me. Also when I was new, all of the first few articles I made were immediately moved to draftspace, redirected or PRODed.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you know the basics, you should be aware of
WP:BITE in this case, considering they created it 4 minutes prior to your warning.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
17:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
RickinBaltimore (
talk)
12:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I respect the decision made by the administrators and am aware that they hold ground to stand on when they decided to block me, however I believe that I am learning, however gradually and I can become a good, useful editor and thus I shall explain my exact reasoning. I think I should be unblocked because everything I wrote was in good faith. I have made several mistakes however it'd be a lie to say I haven't improved. I think but might be wrong that whoever is reading this, as an admin can review deleted pages. So, I encourage you to look at my oldest, deleted creations as well as some of my earlier edits such as my first expansion of Contern, my original Mulinetti article and Draft:Leslie Railway. Now compare to my more recent edits. I had after backlash about my creations started editing pages I found on Special:ShortPages and Special:NewPages redirecting and deleting bad articles. I believe my work there was good but one may disagree. I know of 2 examples of "Big Mistakes" and I have my reasoning as to what happened. For one User:Kusma mentioned that he told me how deletions worked and yet I kept doing the same mistake. This is because I was using a different template. When I use Template:Proposed Deletion there was always an error involving the substitute, which I asked about. But after that I found Template:Prposed Deletion/Dated Which I assumed was different because it appeared to work fine without a substitute but I admit I was wrong. But nobody mentioned it to me, so I never found out about it until I reread my block request page and saw a comment mentioning it, after I'd already been blocked. The other big mistake I made was with 2022 Pakistan economic crisis. I added a speedy deletion tag after seeing this mess of an article. Afterwards my edit was reverted and I saw the comment on that revision saying I should have checked the history. But I did check the history I read an earlier, larger revision and I still thought it was terrible. It was only right after I published my edit where I found that there was a larger revision I'd never clicked on. Then I quickly tried to revert my edit but an error message kept popping up stating that it was impossible due to conflicting revisions. Not to mention that I was on a portable device and had something else to do so I couldn't just manually revert it. But BuyandLarge I knew it was wrong but couldn't fix it I am aware as to why I was blocked even excluding my recent edits. I had 1 incident with copyright violations, many cases of me making articles on non-notable topics, not showing basic common sense or competence 3 times and being terrible with Citing and referencing. But every single one of these errors I'd learnt just it was too late. I now understand WP:GEOLAND better, I know not to site maps or User generated content. I know not to trust Wikipedia lists that could have been edited by anyone. I've learnt the notability guidelines better. And I know that just translating something from another language is not a loophole to avoid copyright but is in fact a violation. If you were to look at most of my recent edits, you should see improvement to some extent. Also I was in the process of writing a new article at the time of being blocked and I was making it specifically to prove that I was capable of making a competently made article and I cited 0 maps (excluding some old paper ones and Ordnance Survey maps) and I checked my citations. It was about another loch so I cited reliable sources like the Gazetteer for Scotland and Canmore. I've also been fixing some of my mistakes involving bad referencing and too much detail in articles such as Eitermillen, Trudlerbaach, Contern and Loch Naver. Although to no avail in the case of Eitermillen as even my newer referencing still wasn't good and I accept that and am willing to work on it if I get unblocked. My future plans if I get unblocked are to work on and publish my drafts which are: Kackerterhaff, List of British rail small shunters and List of Frazioni in the Metropolitan city of Genoa. Then I wish to continue expanding Contern and berrylands and start expanding Santa Margherita Ligure once more. However for that last one I must make my editing less detailed, avoid copyright and locate more sources which I'm willing to do. Other than that I wish to work on Aaron's Hill, Somerset and Blackslough wood to avoid them being deleted and to find better sources for them. And I wish to continue searching NewPages and ShortPages for small articles that I can deal with accordingly. Off course however I will reread some guidelines including WP:BITE and WP:Proposed deletion to ensure I don't continue making the same mistakes. I have been working in good faith and I admit to have been making many mistakes along the road but I am certain now I have learnt everything I have to. Had I known beforehand about how to make a proposed deletion, I would be fine right now and I would be happily editing helping wikipedia. I will cease to reference bad sources, write in too much detail and not check history when it comes to short pages. Overall I wish to stay here because I like editing and it's a hobby. I hope people have seen my effort to improve, me asking questions and trying to learn from my mistakes should be evidence of me trying and me writing this very request as quickly and thoroughly as possible just reflects that. If you still aren't convinced to let me roam free, that's fine I'd hope maybe my block could at least be modified to allow me to edit user talk pages and draft pages. Therefore I can maybe regain trust by submitting good, well sourced articles and then I can get my mainspace privileges back. As for User talk pages I am attentive and wish to be able to ask questions but if that's to much I am ok with Draftspace editing privilidges only for the time being. Thank you, regards and have a nice day to whoever is reading this :) N1TH Music ( talk) 15:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Yamla Wait, Wall of Text applies to Block Requests. Fine, ok that's fine rules are rules I guess. I'll rewrite it. I thought it wasn't too long. N1TH Music ( talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Pontificalibus I've got a question, do you have any more sources regarding Blackslough Wood? N1TH Music ( talk) 18:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Fram I know you probably didn’t expect nor want to hear from me following my blockage and I do not even know if you will get notified about this but the discussion for Blackslough wood is coming to a close and I have gone searching and found 16 reliable sources and I do not only believe no, I am certain that they have established notability for Blackslough wood. If I get a reply from you I can list them and show you the notable sections and as for Aaron’s hill, it could be redirected to Blackslough wood with a small section in the Blackslough wood article talking briefly about it. I hope to hear from you. N1TH Music ( talk) 08:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Vatten, Skye and
Uig, Duirinish now contain good sources that I added.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
10:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale I know and thanks for those edits, but I can't really get knocked for not addid sources because I'd literally just started editing then. Anyway I feel the need to list the sources I found in order to Prove that Blackslough wood it notable:
- So most importantly I found this, this, this and this. 2 of these are official censuses from the area of Gasper and Stourton. The first one from 1871 lists 2 people living in "Blackslough Lodge" and 20 living in just Blackslough. So a population of 22 really isn't so small. Meanwhile the data from 1891 lists 5 people living in "Black Slough", 3 people living in "Black Slough Farm" and 6 more residing in "Black Slough Lodge" That's 14 total which is less but follows all trends I'd expect it to given that today, not only is the place abandoned but there's almost no physical evidence left behind that there ever was a settlement there. Also thissource also lists 4 people who were in fact born in Blackslough and their ages vary from as young as 5 to 48 which is evidence that there was enough infrastructure in Blackslough for an entire family to live there since the 1850s. This source also lists the same 4 births and similar information from the 1891 census. The same website's 1871 date here list the same 2 residents living at Blackslough Lodge as the other one which backs up that source. Then also here there are several mentions of Blacksloe and Blacksloe Lodge, this isn't a coincidence because if you check up all the names of the reisdents from this 1861 census, many of them match up with this document. So obviously there was just a name change, The 1851 census also lists Blacksloe but the 1841 goes back to Blackslough so I don't know what happened but all these censuses alone show that from the 1830s all the way through to the 1910s Blackslough was populated and finally this is the only mention I could find of Blackslough existing in the 1881 census. So I believe this alone, excluding the other sources I found already shows independent notability for Blackslough Wood because it shows that for at least 80 years, people lived here and the population is referenced across 7 different census as well as births, marriages and occupations of the various individuals. But if you don't agree, I have a dozen other sources.
- Some sources show proof that Blackslough is in fact related to Brewham or at least the Four Towers Estate meaning that if all the sources I did find aren't enough, then the article should be redirected to Brewham or one could be made about the Four Towers Estate and then it be redirected there. This entire webpage is about the four towers estate which shows it's notability and it also mentions Blackslough Wood and Blackslough as well as providing some new information regarding it. Best of all it provides it's own sources and there's one for each of the sources regarding Blackslough so that's 2 more available references. Then this map here is a 1839 map of Brewham lists the Four Towers Estate as part of the map so there absolutely is a correlation between Brewham and Blackslough Wood. This source also mentions Blackslough wood and gives even more new information in this case from the 18th century. So if what I said in the paragraph before isn't enough to establish notability than it should at least be redirected, there's no need to delete.
- One might say that although there's evidence here that there was a settlement in the past but there's nothing now however WP:Notability states that notability isn't temporary, if something was notable 100 years ago, it still is now. Better yet, there are sources containing information which alone at the very least partially establish Notability with Blackslough wood but if paired with the historical sources they absolutely do. Well for one this and this label Blackslough wood as a Nature Reserve of sorts, this mentions a walking trail which passes through Blackslough wood which Aligns with all the maps I've found as well as Geograph which although not reliable sources and thus not listed here, do show many tracks and trials running through the woods. Then Ordnance Survey lists Blackslough wood in it's list of places in south somerset and also OS has this page entirely about Blackslough wood including some pretty useful details. Also a different addition of OS maps, the one used by Canmore also lists Blackslough Wood as a place
- The other sources found include this which was already cited in the existing article. Fram Acknowledged this stating No evidence that this is a hamlet, this indicates it is a forest. And in hindsight he was correct. It is only a forest but I've found evidence that shows it used to be a settlement and not such a small one either. And also I myself found the 2 historical sources Pontificalibus previously listed in his comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackslough Wood. They are more historical evidence to back up my claims. Finally I found this book which doesn't bring any new information to the table but is evidence to the places existence. But also this is meerly a preview who knows what the complete editions says.
- All in all, there is enough information from these sources to write a lot. Certainly enough to establish Notability and as for Aaron's Hill, Somerset we could redirect it to Blackslough wood and add a small section talking about it. I haven't found any reliable sources for it yet but I'm sure if I went looking I would because it took me about 15 minutes to find all this about Blackslough Wood. So I would hope for you to tell me if you now believe that this is Notable or not (And if not, why not?) and I'd hope for @ Fram to do the same. N1TH Music ( talk) 13:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale @ Fram
- Actually I went searching further for more reliable sources and I found:
- A book from 1905 back when the place was populated labelling "Blackslough Wood", "Blackslough" and "Blackslough Lodge".
- Another book, this one from 1999 which mentions Blackslough Wood and the Four Towers Estate. It also mentions information from the 1410s and the 1680s if anyone could actually find a free version somewhere, there could be a lot of information to be held as this entire book is about the area
- Then I searched for "Blackslough" "Somerset" Instead of Blackslough Wood and then more came up:
- This book had 37 mentions of the term Blackslough and I checked it's referring to this. It also dates back to 1896 making it a source from the time Blackslough was actually inhabited.
- This 1886 book mentions Blackslough and also Somerset in the same paragraph.
- This book which actually I already listed previously for mentioning Blackslough Wood Backs up the claims made by this
- This book mentions Blackslough.
- This 1948 source mentions Blackslough
- And that's all I could find before I started seeing repetitions but then I began searching for reliable sources on Google Scholar:
- I only found this pdfthough which only has a passing mention of Blackslough.
- Then I searched for News but unfortunately there was nothing there. It appears that most sources are books because this place was abandoned around 90 years ago but regardless I found multiple sources saying this place was inhabited as far back as the 1680s and up until at least the 1910s or around 230 years. This place was permanently inhabited from prior to the unification of England and Scotland into the Uk to as late as World War 1. And now it's a nature reserve. That is 100% a notable enough topic. N1TH Music ( talk) 16:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
More Sources: this gives Blackslough a passing mention. This gives the first information about somebody dying in Blackslough. And proved that it was inhabited until 1917 This gives more evidence to there being former residents at Blackslough, as if there wasn't already enough. I believe this recent document references Blackslough Wood, correct me if I'm wrong. This gives Blackslough at least a passing mention Another Historical Source And this appears to confirm all the basics. The area was inhabited, now it's abandoned and now it's a forest. Some passing mention of Blackslough Here I'm not quite sure what this is about or trying to say but it certainly mentions Blackslough. I also found this and this. I'm having trouble finding much more but all the above is enough sources to write a bloody good article. N1TH Music ( talk) 13:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Ohnoitsjamie Here, these places may only be markers on a map now, but histroical sources, (see above) certainly prove that it meets WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Just need to archive one more source: http://www.stourtonhistory.org/census_1891.html
N1TH Music ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your reason here I respect the decision made by the administrators and am aware that they hold ground to stand on when they decided to block me, however I am learning and I have made significant progress and I am certain I have learnt from all of my mistakes. I think I should be unblocked because everything I wrote was in good faith. I can show proof of me improving if you were to look at my old edits of Contern, my original Mulinetti article and Draft:Leslie Railway. Now compare to my more recent edits. I had after backlash about my creations started editing pages I found on Special:ShortPages and Special:NewPages redirecting and deleting bad articles. I believe my work there was good but one may disagree. I know of 2 examples of "Big Mistakes" and I have my reasoning as to what happened. For one User:Kusma mentioned that he told me how deletions worked and yet I kept doing the same mistake. This is because I was using a different template. When I use Template:Proposed Deletion there was always an error involving the substitute, which I asked about. But after that I found Template:Prposed Deletion/Dated Which I assumed was different because it appeared to work fine without a substitute but I admit I was wrong. But nobody mentioned it to me, so I never found out about it until I reread my block request page and saw a comment mentioning it, after I'd already been blocked. The other big mistake I made was with 2022 Pakistan economic crisis. I added a speedy deletion tag after seeing this mess of an article. Afterwards my edit was reverted and I saw the comment on that revision saying I should have checked the history. But I did check the history I read an earlier, larger revision and I still thought it was terrible. It was only right after I published my edit where I found that there was a larger revision I'd never clicked on. Then I quickly tried to revert my edit but an error message kept popping up stating that it was impossible due to conflicting revisions.
I understand why I was blocked, I had 1 incident with copyright violations, many cases of me making articles on non-notable topics, not showing basic common sense or competence 3 times and being terrible with Citing and referencing. But every single one of these errors I'd learnt just it was too late.
I have learnt from all of my mistakes. I know not to cites maps or User Generated Content and not to rely on lists made by Wikipedia themselves. I know that translations are still copyright violations. I know I need to use a substitution when making a PROD. I understand there are alternatives to deletion. I understand WP:BITE. I thoroughly understand all of WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing and Referencing.
Also before being blocked I showed direct signs of improvement, I've been fixing some of my mistakes involving bad referencing and too much detail in articles such as Eitermillen, Trudlerbaach, Contern and Loch Naver. Although to no avail in the case of Eitermillen as even my newer referencing still wasn't good and I accept that and am willing to work on it if I get unblocked. I also found many sources for Blackslough wood, which I have listed here on my talk page and want to get moved to the deletion discussion.
My future plans if I get unblocked are to work on and publish my drafts which are: Kackerterhaff, List of British rail small shunters and List of Frazioni in the Metropolitan city of Genoa. Then I wish to continue expanding Contern and berrylands and start expanding Santa Margherita Ligure once more. However for that last one I must make my editing less detailed, avoid copyright and locate more sources which I'm willing to do. I also want to join new page patrol and use the new sources I found to fix Blackslough wood and redirect Aaron’s Hill, Somerset. I will cease to reference bad sources, write in too much detail and not check history when it comes to NPP.
Thank you, regards and have a nice day to whoever is reading this :) N1TH Music ( talk) 14:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline; only one unblock request at a time please. And by the way, I did read the above. It's a decent appeal, if a bit wordy. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is still approximately 700 words. In general, it should be possible to write a coherent and complete unblock request in approximately 100 words. I'm not at all convinced any volunteer has the time or energy to read your current request. -- Yamla ( talk) 16:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but I thought there's no way I could get my point across in 100 words, I wanted to ensure that the admin understood my point and would unblock me. But if the method to getting unblocked is writing a maximum of 200 words then so be it N1TH Music ( talk) 17:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Anachronist So it was a good appeal? I was told it was WP:Wall of Text. But since you did read it could it be possible for you to please be the one to review my current appeal. I wish to get my priviledges back Asap as I need to work on Blackslough Wood before it gets deleted.
I respect the decision made by the administrators and am aware that they hold ground to stand on when they decided to block me, I made several mistakes over and over again and showed few signs of improvement. My errors were, writing articles about obscure topics with unreliable soruces, WP:Citing Sources and WP:Notability. I expanded Santa Margherita Ligure too much with too much detail and I directly translated material from sources thinking it wasn't a copyright violation, WP:Copyright and WP:Too much detail. Recently to show improvement I started looking at Special:ShortPages and Special:NewPages to deal with bad pages but I made the issue of proding pages which needed redirecting and making my Prods without a substitute. But I've learnt my lesson now. If you look up on my talk page you could see that I've found actual reliable sources for an article which I made which was badly sourced. My redirect mistakes I saw myself but due to complications between edits I couldn't fix automatically. I just before getting blocked started a new page which I was writing properly.
If I do get unblocked my contributions will consist of me finishing the article I started writing when I was blocked, Fixing the issues with Loch Naver, Eitermillen and Blackslough Wood. Finishing my expansion of Berrylands and Contern. And eventually once more trying to expand Santa Margherita Ligure but properly, and also to hopefully join NewPagePatrol. Then after that, I will continue to write new articles but about notable topics.
Thank you, regards and have a nice day to whoever is reading this :) N1TH Music ( talk) 17:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music ( talk) 17:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- According to Microsoft Word, that's 262 words (and I double checked, the full colons in
Special:NewPages
for example do not cause each word to count as separate words, it's one "word" as far as the total count goes). Your first request was 1,068 words. Your 2nd was 702 words. When an admin declines your unblock request and gives you a goal of 100 words, it's not exactly encouraging when you ignore that goal because...? You're blocked over WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR concerns. If you want to display competence, you should start by being able to follow directions (the word count, and more broadly, reading the guide to requesting an unblock). If you want to show you're here to create an encyclopedia, you can start by figuring out how to convey your unblock request in theapproximately 100 words
Yamla suggested (which would demonstrate being able to be concise when necessary). I would withdraw/disable the pending requests and reconsider how you're going to request an unblock that can meet the ~100 word limit. — Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)- "This is still approximately 700 words. In general, it should be possible to write a coherent and complete unblock request in approximately 100 words." He said around 100 words. I can theoretically write as much as I would like but it's about how much the Admin is willing to read. It may still be quite long but I'm following the instructions written here ackowledge what I did wrong, how I'm going to improve it and how I plan to edit in the future. N1TH Music ( talk) 18:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
unblock|reason=I know why I've been blocked, I wrote many articles on obscure topics with bad references, had 1 incident with copyright and made mistakes while Proding articles. I however have reread WP:Notability, WP:Citing Sources, WP:Copryight Violations and more, I'm confident I've learnt from all my mistakes. If I do get unblocked my contributions will consist of me finishing the article I started writing when I was blocked, Fixing the issues with articles I've created. Finishing my expansion of Berrylands and Contern etc... and also hopefully join NewPagePatrol. Then after that, I will continue to write new articles but about notable topics. N1TH Music ( talk) 18:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music ( talk) 18:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC) @Yamla, I understand that you are a volunteer and are by no means obliged to reply to me quickly, however I was hoping you could possible please review my unblock request as soon as you can. I got it under 100 words and I need my privileges back Asap (if they are deserved) because I must use the new sources I found for Blackslough Wood to fix the article before it gets deleted. I'm on a time constraint and I hope you understand. N1TH Music ( talk) 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. Another admin will review your request. --
Yamla (
talk)
17:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Yamla ok thanks for the info, may I ask why is that, just curious.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have already reviewed one of your requests. Additionally, I'm only briefly stopping in before more vacationing in the mountains (hooray!). --
Yamla (
talk)
17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Yamla Ok thanks again for the information, I hope you have a good time. But I was hoping, may be asking for too much here and I'd be fine with a no but I was hoping maybe you could perhaps inform another admin about my situation so he/she could review it. Because I really don't want Blackslough Wood to go when I have everything I need to fix it right here on my talk page. N1TH Music ( talk) 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Yamla hi again, hope you had a good time in the mountains. Nobody has stopped by to review any my unblock request, only procedurally decline my other (too long) one which I forgot to remove. I understand that you are unable to review my most recent request but would it be possible for you to inform somebody else to please look at it. Please, I'm getting more and more worried I will be unable to fix Blackslough Wood before it's too late.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are already in the queue, there's nothing I can do here. --
Yamla (
talk)
17:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you not capable of talking directly too somebody or does that classify as double standards or something like that? I don't know it just appears that others are getting their reviews done quicker even though my overly long one got declined anyway. N1TH Music ( talk) 17:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are already in the queue, there's nothing I can do here. --
Yamla (
talk)
17:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have already reviewed one of your requests. Additionally, I'm only briefly stopping in before more vacationing in the mountains (hooray!). --
Yamla (
talk)
17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Yamla ok thanks for the info, may I ask why is that, just curious.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Anachronist Hi, Since you procedurally declined my other request, would it be possible for you to review my current one? Please, I understand your position as a volunteer but I really wish to fix Blackslough Wood and Aaron's hill before they get deleted. I have all the sources I need right here on my talk page. N1TH Music ( talk) 16:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, N1TH Music,
- I was the administrator who closed the AFDs that involve articles you worked on. The consensus was a clear "Delete" to me but if you get unblocked, we can consider restoring them to User or Draft space where you could continue to improve them as long as you submitted them to AFC later. If you moved them directly into main space yourself, they'd be quickly deleted as CSD G4 so that would be a bad move. But focus on your block and we can talk about your articles should you return to editing.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Liz By restoring, do you mean the article just mean recreating it or will the history be preserved also because that's the main reason I didn't want it deleted was beacuse I wanted to view the article history, I could've recreated the article any day. Anso since you closed the discussion, I assume you're an admin, could you review my request?
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Every time you bang on about wanting to be unblocked, the further back down the queue you'll be pushed. Be patient. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok I'll keep quiet, I'm sorry but most requests I've seen have been replied to within 1 day and it's been 8 so obviously I'd loose a bit of my patience but I digress, I apologise and will wait. N1TH Music ( talk) 06:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Every time you bang on about wanting to be unblocked, the further back down the queue you'll be pushed. Be patient. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Liz I've got another question regarding that because my plans regarding what I want to do with those 2 articles have changed and I still wish to know whether or not you can retrieve previous revisions or not. Also shouldn't my block request automatically get procedurally declined after 2 weeks, just asking?
N1TH Music (
talk)
09:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please direct us to the relevant paragraph in
Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
12:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Redrose64 don't see one, but I swear that happens all the time, no? My bad, I just was expecting a decline about now and was asking in case you guys forgot. Also I didn't see anything about 1 block request at a time (but in fairness I did only skim through it) but that happened to me. And am I allowed to edit my request while it's still up? N1TH Music ( talk) 13:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please direct us to the relevant paragraph in
Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
12:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Liz By restoring, do you mean the article just mean recreating it or will the history be preserved also because that's the main reason I didn't want it deleted was beacuse I wanted to view the article history, I could've recreated the article any day. Anso since you closed the discussion, I assume you're an admin, could you review my request?
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Something you could do if unblocked is to help create the missing parishes in England such as
Whittington, Northumberland, see
User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes but please remember that they still need good sources rather than just links to maps from other Wikipedia pages. Parishes unlike woods and other small places always meet the notability criteria but the articles still need to be created with acceptable content.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
16:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale Yes I remembered you telling me about that, that would be what I would try to work on after I've dealt with some of my drafts. I mean if you look at some of my articles about places like Abbas Combe, Abbey Gate, Devon, Aaron's Hill, Surrey, Loch Rimsdale or Brichermillen it shows that when I have a more notable topic to write about, I will do a better job and parishes are officially recognised, populated places. So I'd gladly do that once I'm unblocked. N1TH Music ( talk) 16:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Faerschthaff for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faerschthaff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Alexandermcnabb Well I would want to comment on this topic but I'm still blocked at the moment. Is it permitted for me to write something here and you state that I said that in the discussion or is that violating a policy? N1TH Music ( talk) 10:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know! A quick ping to AfD regular @
Atsme: to ask for help! Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
10:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Alexandermcnabb Also What about WP:Alternatives to deletion Redirect the article instead, the place clearly exists, there's just not enough to say about it. N1TH Music ( talk) 10:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Alexandermcnabb Oh and did you ping her or should I?
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict) Sorry, but it fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:Notability (geographic_features). Read the latter closely. This article is about a private farm that has no notability, historic or otherwise, as a geo feature, and no architectural significance, which is further substantiated by the absence of multiple RS that have published stories/material/news about it. Also, be careful about posting while you're blocked or you may lose the ability to post on your own UTP, which at this point in time is to be used for appealing the block, or other important posts.
Atsme
💬
📧
10:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme Ok I guess that settles it, is a redirect feasible however?
WP:Alternatives to deletion
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- To what article would it be redirected? It's at AfD, so let the community decide.
Atsme
💬
📧
10:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme Redirect to
Contern#Faerschthaff A small section in the article already talking about the place. Seems perfect for a redirect.
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The AfD will decide.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- So are you allowed to post my comment on the AFD concerning the redirect? That was what I believe
Alexandermcnabb was originally going to ask.
N1TH Music (
talk)
11:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I cannot be your proxy - you are blocked from editing. Take this time to read the policies I included here - study them, re-read them, learn them. I cannot overemphasize how much it will improve your work here if you study the relative
WP:PAGs.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate you trying to help me however I've already reread everything WP:Notability WP:Citing Sources WP:Verifiability etc.. I've learnt from all my mistakes, now if it came to Faerschthaff I wither wouldn't make it or I'd make the article more thorough to establish proper notability. I'm now only waiting for my unblock request to be reviewed because I already know what to do after I get unblocked, I've reread all the rules but Thank You anyway. N1TH Music ( talk) 11:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I cannot be your proxy - you are blocked from editing. Take this time to read the policies I included here - study them, re-read them, learn them. I cannot overemphasize how much it will improve your work here if you study the relative
WP:PAGs.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- So are you allowed to post my comment on the AFD concerning the redirect? That was what I believe
Alexandermcnabb was originally going to ask.
N1TH Music (
talk)
11:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The AfD will decide.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme Redirect to
Contern#Faerschthaff A small section in the article already talking about the place. Seems perfect for a redirect.
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- To what article would it be redirected? It's at AfD, so let the community decide.
Atsme
💬
📧
10:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme Ok I guess that settles it, is a redirect feasible however?
WP:Alternatives to deletion
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I pinged her. The place exists but WP looks for notability, not existence. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
10:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Alexandermcnabb Yes, I agree but if it exists but isn't notable then it should be redirected to something, in this case
Contern, which has an entire section which briefs about Faerschthaff, it's the perfect redirect. Also I searched, there are more sources which could be used, if they are added, and If I go to the local Contern Town Hall to ask for documents (which I could do right now) I could find some good documents. The place clearly exists, so it should be redirected as an interim measure before better sources are found. Do you not agree?
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd even wonder about the redirect. The AfD will run its course - note as per guidance from User:Atsme, this isn't the best use of your talk page while blocked, "which at this point in time is to be used for appealing the block, or other important posts". That might be frustrating, but I'd close this conversation for now... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Alexandermcnabb Yes, I agree but if it exists but isn't notable then it should be redirected to something, in this case
Contern, which has an entire section which briefs about Faerschthaff, it's the perfect redirect. Also I searched, there are more sources which could be used, if they are added, and If I go to the local Contern Town Hall to ask for documents (which I could do right now) I could find some good documents. The place clearly exists, so it should be redirected as an interim measure before better sources are found. Do you not agree?
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict) Sorry, but it fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:Notability (geographic_features). Read the latter closely. This article is about a private farm that has no notability, historic or otherwise, as a geo feature, and no architectural significance, which is further substantiated by the absence of multiple RS that have published stories/material/news about it. Also, be careful about posting while you're blocked or you may lose the ability to post on your own UTP, which at this point in time is to be used for appealing the block, or other important posts.
Atsme
💬
📧
10:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know! A quick ping to AfD regular @
Atsme: to ask for help! Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
10:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- One last thing I want to mention in hopes that it will help you in the future...WP articles are about persons/places/things that are notable and verifiably so. Read
WP:VERIFIABLE, and the guideline
WP:GNG while you have some time off from editing. A quick glance at your UTP tells me you're headed in the wrong direction, and if I can help you learn to be a better editor, I am willing to mentor you. When you're block expires, post on my UTP or ping me here if you're agreeable to being mentored after the block expires.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme sure, I’d be happy to be mentored. But I wish to know what you mean by « you’re heading in the wrong direction. Like, do you have an example of what the problem is?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to be frank with you, N1TH, so I'll start with the
Law of holes. Read the administrators' comments here on your talk page, and try to absorb the fact that you are now subject to an indefinite block. If you expect to get out from under it, you need to be patient, and turn the lemons you've been served into lemonade. Give your UTP a rest for a week, spend some time reading the questions of others at
WP:The Teahouse, and utilize this time off to familiarize yourself with the WP Community,
WP:GNG,
WP:SNG,
WP:V,
WP:NOR. As for behavior, consider making a 180º turn and slow down your approach. Do more reading than responding and suggesting, and remember that brevity is your friend, not
wp:tl;dr. Learn our core content policies:
WP:V,
WP:NPOV, and
WP:NOR. WP encourages new editors to create articles, but avoid pushing your
WP:POV like an elephant in a china closet.
Atsme
💬
📧
15:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Atsme I've given it a few days which I have spent off Wikipedia and I've reread WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. In fact this is the second time I've read through them all of the guidelines and I'm certain I've learnt everything important and I know what to do once I get unblocked, I'm only waiting for my unblock request to be reviewed and I'm hoping that happens soon enough for me to enter the discussion on Faerschthaff before it closes because nobody has even considered a redirect and I've already waited over 3 weeks. Also out of curiosity, I'm wondering as to how reviewing block requests works? N1TH Music ( talk) 06:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- See
Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests - actually, you should read the whole page.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Atsme Alright, I've reread the entire page and the section.
- Regarding Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests:
- So the first paragraph is quite unambiguous. But as for the second I was wondering if you have any Idea if anybody has already contacted or spoken to
User:RickinBaltimore? As for the 3rd section, unless I am mistaked, I made repeated mistakes, that was why I was blocked, I wasn't harrasing anyone and I certainly wasn't involved in any sockpuppetry. And
Template:2nd chance seems quite obvious to me and as a possibility. So overall do you have any idea how far along we are in resolving my block? And if we haven't stated, are you capable of unblocking me, or are you not a blocking administrator? Because, you said you could mentor me after I get unblocked, so it seems reasonable for you to talk to
User:RickinBaltimore and oversee my unblocking. 17:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just your friendly, neighborhood editor who mentors once in a while, and teaches at
WP:NPPSCHOOL. 30 days has not passed since you were first blocked, and that's too soon after the block appeals you've already made. What I'd like for you to do this coming week is practice brevity. Start by reading
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and
WP:DROPTHESTICK. Combine both into a single essay of 500 words or less. When you're happy with your summary, send it to me via the WP email option (when activated it shows-up in left side margin of one's user page). I see that your email option is not turned-on, so go to your TP preferences, and scroll down to email option to activate it, unless there's a specific reason to not do so. You can also start practicing brevity by composing an unblock request with 250 words or less that demonstrates how well you understand what caused your block, and that you won't do it again. Don't post it here; rather, send me the draft via WP email. Meanwhile, enjoy the weekend. WP is not going anywhere – we have no deadlines.
Atsme
💬
📧
18:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Atsme I can't send emails I believe, it tells me I have no send address. Also where'd this 30 days come from? I've never heard that before, it's not in the blocking policy. And I was told to keep my unblock request under 100 words, not 250, but since you've requested I've already written an unblock request that I believe follows your criteria right here on User talk:N1TH Music#Blockage (New) Right at the top, tell me what you think. Finally regarding Faerschthaff if I won't be unblocked within until at least the 29th of July (when I was first unblocked) then it will be impossible for me to contribute to the discussion and the article will be deleted. I understand it's not possible for you to essentially be my Proxy but is it possible for you to just simply mention something on the lines of "Comment A redirect to Contern#Faerschthaff could also work as per WP:Alternatives to deletion"? N1TH Music ( talk) 18:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Atsme Also I see you are apart of WP:NPPSCHOOL which is great because I once unblocked wish to join new page patrol so I hope it'd be possible for you to help me. N1TH Music ( talk) 18:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just your friendly, neighborhood editor who mentors once in a while, and teaches at
WP:NPPSCHOOL. 30 days has not passed since you were first blocked, and that's too soon after the block appeals you've already made. What I'd like for you to do this coming week is practice brevity. Start by reading
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and
WP:DROPTHESTICK. Combine both into a single essay of 500 words or less. When you're happy with your summary, send it to me via the WP email option (when activated it shows-up in left side margin of one's user page). I see that your email option is not turned-on, so go to your TP preferences, and scroll down to email option to activate it, unless there's a specific reason to not do so. You can also start practicing brevity by composing an unblock request with 250 words or less that demonstrates how well you understand what caused your block, and that you won't do it again. Don't post it here; rather, send me the draft via WP email. Meanwhile, enjoy the weekend. WP is not going anywhere – we have no deadlines.
Atsme
💬
📧
18:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to be frank with you, N1TH, so I'll start with the
Law of holes. Read the administrators' comments here on your talk page, and try to absorb the fact that you are now subject to an indefinite block. If you expect to get out from under it, you need to be patient, and turn the lemons you've been served into lemonade. Give your UTP a rest for a week, spend some time reading the questions of others at
WP:The Teahouse, and utilize this time off to familiarize yourself with the WP Community,
WP:GNG,
WP:SNG,
WP:V,
WP:NOR. As for behavior, consider making a 180º turn and slow down your approach. Do more reading than responding and suggesting, and remember that brevity is your friend, not
wp:tl;dr. Learn our core content policies:
WP:V,
WP:NPOV, and
WP:NOR. WP encourages new editors to create articles, but avoid pushing your
WP:POV like an elephant in a china closet.
Atsme
💬
📧
15:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme sure, I’d be happy to be mentored. But I wish to know what you mean by « you’re heading in the wrong direction. Like, do you have an example of what the problem is?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme I have sent in my essay, I believe I understand why some of my editing has been disruptive do you have any idea how the process of reviewing my unblock request is going? It's been over 30 days now.
N1TH Music (
talk)
15:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- At Email options you need to fill in, at the very minimum, Email (optional). Save it and check your mailbox for emails from Wikipedia or Wikimedia, do anything that it requests. Return to Email options, reload the page and make sure that it shows "Your email address was confirmed on ...". Ideally you should also enable " Allow other users to email me".
- You should stay well away from new page patrol until you are accepted back by the community. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Redrose64 Thank you however turns out I didn't have an email, that was the problem and it works now. And concerning NPP, I'm not a complete beginner, I learnt quite a few things in the past and I'm sure I can do a much better job correcting errors, adding tags and Proding articles than I would creating new ones, and it also gives me an easy opportunity to start slow as edits are small and can be infrequent. N1TH Music ( talk) 07:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme I have sent in my essay, I believe I understand why some of my editing has been disruptive do you have any idea how the process of reviewing my unblock request is going? It's been over 30 days now.
N1TH Music (
talk)
15:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
-
Redrose64, thank you for your input and helping this new editor get setup with his email. I realize he cannot take the course while he's blocked, and that his behavior will determine whether or not he stays that way. If it's any consolation to your concerns, I do realize that if N1TH gets his block removed, he must first demonstrate that he can be a productive editor in our community before he can enroll in NPPSCHOOL. Please rest assured that my NPP tutorial is extensive and rather rigorous. I'm also a pretty tough evaluator, and not overly generous with passing grades so if N1TH does decide to enroll after he has cleared all of his self-made hurdles, it will only serve to make him a wiser and more productive editor, regardless of whether or not he passes my course at NPPSCHOOL. I hope that brings you some peace of mind.
Atsme
💬
📧
17:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme What do you mean my behaviour will determine whether I get unblocked or not, I can't exactly behave or not behave when I'm blocked because I only can write in my talk page, no? I though it was about whether the blocking administrator was willing after reading my request, to give me a second chance. Also can NPPPSCHOOL be taken multiple times in until one passes. Because it seems like a great way to prove I've gained competence and will help me get accepted back into the community if I pass it.
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- What do I mean? You just demonstrated what I meant. Your comment to me could be construed as combative or argumentative, and was not helpful to your case. A better approach would have been for you to have said nothing, or simply added that it is your intention to be a productive editor, and that your behavior here or anywhere else will not be an issue in the future.
Atsme
💬
📧
12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Atsme Alright, I assume that makes sense, I just thought I wasn't really being monitored here. But very well, I can certainly assure everyone that I will edit productively in the future and there will be no behavioural concerns. N1TH Music ( talk) 05:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- What do I mean? You just demonstrated what I meant. Your comment to me could be construed as combative or argumentative, and was not helpful to your case. A better approach would have been for you to have said nothing, or simply added that it is your intention to be a productive editor, and that your behavior here or anywhere else will not be an issue in the future.
Atsme
💬
📧
12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme What do you mean my behaviour will determine whether I get unblocked or not, I can't exactly behave or not behave when I'm blocked because I only can write in my talk page, no? I though it was about whether the blocking administrator was willing after reading my request, to give me a second chance. Also can NPPPSCHOOL be taken multiple times in until one passes. Because it seems like a great way to prove I've gained competence and will help me get accepted back into the community if I pass it.
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Leslie Railway
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Leslie Railway".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. ✗ plicit 02:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It has been at least 6 weeks since my block was initiated, and I have taken this time off to learn more about the WP community and what I did wrong. I respect the decision made by the administrators and am aware that they hold ground to stand on when they decided to block me. I made several mistakes that included writing non-notable articles about obscure topics cited to unreliable sources, providing too much detail, and translating material from sources thinking it wasn't a copyright violation. I know my behaviour was wrong, and promise not to repeat it. User:Atsme has agreed to mentor me, and I look forward to learning more about WP:PAGs.
If I do get unblocked my contributions will consist of me cleaning up some of the mess I previously left behind at first. I'll make some edits to Contern to fix some of my errors, and also I will try to find better sources for expanding Loch Naver. I would like to expand some articles, create new ones, find notable topics to write about by performing more in depth research. As for some of my older articles I will bring them up to standard.
N1TH Music ( talk) 14:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Good luck to both of you. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I did agree to mentor N1TH, and I believe that he is sincere in his promise to do better. I'm of the mind that with proper guidance through the early stages of learning community norms, which can be overwhelming at times for new editors, he will adapt and become a productive editor. Atsme 💬 📧 21:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)- My primary reason for striking through my mentorship agreement is, unfortunately,
WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT as evidenced
in this diff re: their stated point, and
this diff in response to another NPP reviewer who did their best to explain. One cannot learn when thinking they know better. As of today, I withdraw as their mentor.
Atsme
💬
📧
12:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme, I'm a little confused by why exactly it isn't notable. I get the point but I was just a little confused and stating my previous thoughts, I am ignoring advice, I haven't tried to retrieve the article, I want to improve and I'm sorry if it appears I'm not listening, I just get curious when I hear something new and tend to ask questions. I haven't ignored what any of you both stated. I just wanted more insight to help me understand. I'm sorry if it doesn't come across that way but I do want to learn and improve and I would've hoped you could have helped me here. Because, you asked me why I believed Faerschthaff is notable and User:Ovinus did correct something I stated. I did not retort I just thought I had 1 other thing which might be the edidence which was actually of value like what I thought the other pieces were. I refrained from requesting Faerschthaff after you told me it wasn't notable. Since then I just wanted to find out a few details and was asking questions so I don't make these mistakes again in the future. I really do wish to peruse you mentoring me further as it has really helped me and if you want me to listen more and respond less then I can instantly do that, if it's necessary. I'm hoping you can reconsidor because while I was respondingto User:Ovinus, I didn't do any editing, I waited for us to reach a consensus and was just asking about different sources.
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- 👆🏻👇🏻 It is in the hands of the administrators now.
Atsme
💬
📧
13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'll be blunt: you need to give up on Faerschthaff. It's not notable. 99.99% of farms aren't notable. Sorry. Do something wholly uncontroversial; copy edit some articles, perhaps. Choose one from
Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit.
Here's one I picked at random which needs some love. Don't create articles, don't comment on others' unblock requests.
Ovinus (
talk)
16:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've realised I need to give up Faerschthaff. And I like how you're trying to help me but are you I shouldn't create, wouldn't it be ok if I just stuck to notable topics, look at Wester Pipe Railway, that was the one time I was told by someone that the article should be created, so I plenty of source material and one user during my CIR discussion said I did a good job on it. Also what are copy edits? I keep hearing about them but what does it mean? N1TH Music ( talk) 16:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Copy editing is taking an article which is written poorly--typos, grammar issues, etc--and bringing it up to standard. If I were you, I would avoid adding content at all for a couple weeks. Instead, enjoy cleaning up existing content, which is just as valuable, and may lend you credence as a net positive, rather than a reputation as being intransigent on whether Wikipedia's content guideines apply to them. Ovinus ( talk) 17:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'll be blunt: you need to give up on Faerschthaff. It's not notable. 99.99% of farms aren't notable. Sorry. Do something wholly uncontroversial; copy edit some articles, perhaps. Choose one from
Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit.
Here's one I picked at random which needs some love. Don't create articles, don't comment on others' unblock requests.
Ovinus (
talk)
16:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- 👆🏻👇🏻 It is in the hands of the administrators now.
Atsme
💬
📧
13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme, I'm a little confused by why exactly it isn't notable. I get the point but I was just a little confused and stating my previous thoughts, I am ignoring advice, I haven't tried to retrieve the article, I want to improve and I'm sorry if it appears I'm not listening, I just get curious when I hear something new and tend to ask questions. I haven't ignored what any of you both stated. I just wanted more insight to help me understand. I'm sorry if it doesn't come across that way but I do want to learn and improve and I would've hoped you could have helped me here. Because, you asked me why I believed Faerschthaff is notable and User:Ovinus did correct something I stated. I did not retort I just thought I had 1 other thing which might be the edidence which was actually of value like what I thought the other pieces were. I refrained from requesting Faerschthaff after you told me it wasn't notable. Since then I just wanted to find out a few details and was asking questions so I don't make these mistakes again in the future. I really do wish to peruse you mentoring me further as it has really helped me and if you want me to listen more and respond less then I can instantly do that, if it's necessary. I'm hoping you can reconsidor because while I was respondingto User:Ovinus, I didn't do any editing, I waited for us to reach a consensus and was just asking about different sources.
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Bricherhaff for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bricherhaff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
CMD ( talk) 13:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your comments, so I add some sources about Kévin Borlée on his talk page. Thanks for your comments. Arorae ( talk) 05:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Primefac (
talk)
13:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)- @
PrimefacWhat? Losing Mentorship makes you get blocked?
N1TH Music (
talk)
15:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Look, after my (and others') advice you kept being combative on the AfD discussion. You should have just stopped saying anything, and done something peaceful. Not sure why you didnt listen.
Ovinus (
talk)
17:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody mentioned the Afd, I was told about Faerschthaff but Bricherhaff appears on
List of populated places in Luxembourg Plus I advocated for a redirect as I had accepted that it wasn't notable. Plus it says I was blocked for losing mentorship which had already happened. I didn'think I'd get blocked for it unless I did something else badly wrong.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I resign.
Ovinus (
talk)
18:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean you resign, from what? N1TH Music ( talk) 18:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I resign.
Ovinus (
talk)
18:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody mentioned the Afd, I was told about Faerschthaff but Bricherhaff appears on
List of populated places in Luxembourg Plus I advocated for a redirect as I had accepted that it wasn't notable. Plus it says I was blocked for losing mentorship which had already happened. I didn'think I'd get blocked for it unless I did something else badly wrong.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, your mentor quitting because you continued to make the same sort of edits that got you blocked in the first place (i.e. the "backsliding" part of the block notice) is what got you blocked this time around.
Primefac (
talk)
18:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Primefac I don't think it was the same edits, we'd never reviewed WP:N or WP:GNG, I thought I was just having a discussion at the time and before I knew it she's quit. I also never did the disrptive action just tried to make a point so it seem weird to block me before I've even done anything especially since on this very talk page I admitted my error and took advice from one of the people who was trying to tell me why I was wrong. I'd started taking his advice and started properly contributing. After reading the recent messages here, do you still think I would have disruptively edited to the point of a block being necessary to protect the site?
N1TH Music (
talk)
18:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- You literally restored previous edits. How much more samey can it get?
CMD (
talk)
18:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Chipmunkdavis
- For both cases the idea was to at first restore the information and then add tags to signify the problems. Then from there I wanted to edit them, replace the unreliable sources with better ones and improve my old work. But I was rendered unable to do that for a few reasons, I do not think that those edits should remain long term and now that I'm blocked and who knows how long it will be for the improvements to happen, reverting is definitely the correct option. I just wanted a place to start when editing those 2 articles but since I never did start for real, no I don't think we should leave it, absolutely not, that's one thing I learnt while blocked the first time. Do you understand where I'm coming from?
N1TH Music (
talk)
18:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not really. You say "at first", but you did nothing with them. Why restore them if you weren't working on it? And why restore it at all? It's in the article history, and if you do need a live version, you have a sandbox.
CMD (
talk)
18:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Chipmunkdavis Ok to answer all your questions
- -The Sandbox I didn't think of, I've also been a little confused as to how that works
- -As for editing an older revision, I've had difficulties where it tells me my changes cannot be saved due to conflicting intermediate edits and I didn't want to worry about. Also I wanted to update everything in stages so if a mistake is made we can revert back to that. Naturally the first stage for me at least is the pre-existing mediocre revision with the same information and worse sources
- - Finally, why haven't I edited it yet, well because over the last few days I have been unable to edits with my computer and all my other devices have some trouble loading sources and opening other tabs, so I can still write messages but I can't edit anything beyond a copy edit. Even if I wasn't blocked I couldn't do any large edits for the next 2-3 days. Why'd you think I never posted the sources I'd found on WP:Articles for deletion/Bricherhaff.
- I hope that clears everything up for you. N1TH Music ( talk) 19:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not really. You say "at first", but you did nothing with them. Why restore them if you weren't working on it? And why restore it at all? It's in the article history, and if you do need a live version, you have a sandbox.
CMD (
talk)
18:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- You literally restored previous edits. How much more samey can it get?
CMD (
talk)
18:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Primefac I don't think it was the same edits, we'd never reviewed WP:N or WP:GNG, I thought I was just having a discussion at the time and before I knew it she's quit. I also never did the disrptive action just tried to make a point so it seem weird to block me before I've even done anything especially since on this very talk page I admitted my error and took advice from one of the people who was trying to tell me why I was wrong. I'd started taking his advice and started properly contributing. After reading the recent messages here, do you still think I would have disruptively edited to the point of a block being necessary to protect the site?
N1TH Music (
talk)
18:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Look, after my (and others') advice you kept being combative on the AfD discussion. You should have just stopped saying anything, and done something peaceful. Not sure why you didnt listen.
Ovinus (
talk)
17:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I had a mentorship which assisted me greatly in getting unblocked. I worked hard to learn as many policies as possible however unfortunately I didn't grasp a few things despite efforts to help me which resulted in my mentor withdrawing the mentorship. Since the wathdrawl and in fact prior the the second blockage I reviewed the policies which I had got wrong and I understand why I was blocked. I still hadn't grasped entirely WP:N and WP:GNG. I was still locked in with the belief that any inhabited place was notable which in me spiralling down towards WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. I have since, with a little assistance and advice from User:Ovinus, learnt from my errors and I'm sorry. If I get unblocked I will once more take the advice I have gotten from 2 other editors and I will start by doing small edits, correcting spelling and grammar and doing Copy Edits. From there I will have filled the gaps in my knowledge and from the last 2 years and the I can edit freely and correctly. N1TH Music ( talk) 15:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Based on the discussion below, I am declining this unblock request. Sorry, it's WP:TOOSOON and you are still showing significant problems. Practically speaking, I'd like to see you edit another project for at least six months and provide at least 500 constructive contributions with zero problems, prior to considering an unblock here. Sorry, I know this isn't the news you wanted to hear, but this has already taken up much, much too much of everyone's time and I think it is cruel to keep this unblock request open. Yamla ( talk) 15:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Might I suggest withdrawing this request and taking some time off? Your unblock request is more likely to be well received if you give it time (like 6+ months) rather than back to back unblock requests that don't demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia. This is just some friendly advice, you can take it or leave it but I, and others have been around long enough to know how these usually play out and it's usually not in the favor of the editor requesting an unblock.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
16:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
PRAXIDICAE🌈 I already took 6 weeks off and spent that time reading the guidelines. I made 2 mistakes and I had a user explain why I shouldn't continue and I didn't. Serious question, how will I benefit from waiting, genuinely I'm interested because at this point I don't think there's any guidelines I haven't read. I'm probably going to remove the request but I still wish to know. Thanks for the advice though
N1TH Music (
talk)
16:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- How about an unblock to see if N1TH Music can contribute successfully to the parishes project or some similar project? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
PRAXIDICAE🌈 I already took 6 weeks off and spent that time reading the guidelines. I made 2 mistakes and I had a user explain why I shouldn't continue and I didn't. Serious question, how will I benefit from waiting, genuinely I'm interested because at this point I don't think there's any guidelines I haven't read. I'm probably going to remove the request but I still wish to know. Thanks for the advice though
N1TH Music (
talk)
16:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed to see you blocked again, I was going to leave you a message yesterday but I didn't get round to it. The
parishes project would be a good place to start rather than things like woods and small places.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
16:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale I'm sorry but I guess I didn't manage to learn some things. 16:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC) N1TH Music ( talk) 16:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Crouch, Swale Also the reason I wanted to start with smaller places is because I made those articles long ago and I myself know they aren't even close to good enough, Like in the AFD for Bricherhaff people say it's non-notable but in reality I just couldn't find the adequate sourcing to prove it was legally recognised. Yesterday I couldn't prove it because I had computer troubles, before I just thought that article was adequate. Now I have the evidence I need but it's too late. I wanted to fix my past mistakes before moving onto new projects but that directly resulted in me being reblocked. And I partially blame that on the fact that I couldn't showcase my sources when it mattered. The AFD might have gone differently had I been able to use the evidence I had gathered to back my claims but I didn't.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've just had a look and I can't find any evidence of it being legally recognized.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
19:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Crouch, Swale I can show you what I found and from there you can inform me whether it is sufficient proof or not, that would certainly help me to actually know the answer.
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- What source do you have? I can mention it at the AFD if you provide it.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
08:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale Yes off course, I actually have multiple sources to prove the legal recognition of the place to create grounds for a redirect but as for Notability I'd have to keep looking.
- Basically first one needs to understand what Bricherhaff is however, it is a Lieu-dit (the luxembougish Lieu-dit is slightly different from the French one) hence why it appears on List of populated places in Luxembourg Also they are signposted on streets in white signs with only one language written, examples of this are this, this or this. These are signs for entering small Lieu-dits, now bricherhaff doesn't have a sign for entering the settlement but it has some similar signage such as this, a photograph I took myself. I understand that this isn't much evidence though so I went to find some actual sources as opposed to what is mostly common sense.
- First of all there is this map on Conter.lu, the official commune of contern website although it doesn't annotate Bricherhaff or Brichermillen for that matter it isn't about that it was more designed for the forests and woods and one of them is called the Bruecherbesch which I beleive is Luxembourgish and therefore Bricherhaff has a forest named after it which is some small claim to notability is it not?
- Next I found a few books which are generally considered reliable sources:
- The first one I found didn't have too much information just stating it's location and after searching there were no other mentions.
- The next one I found unfortunately just had a map on one page however I think a map which appears in a published book is better than just a map right?
- This next one however seems to be more reliable, it is a directory of settlements in Luxembourg containing bricherhaff.
- This one is a book about geography which appears to have some sort of actual information regarding Bricherhaff.
- Unfortunately other books appeared to be talking about a different Lieu did by the same name in Neudorf in Luxembourg. However I have 2 official Luxembourgish websites, directly run by the government which surely proves legal recognition.
- First off there's Geoportail.lu, people say it's just a map however I wished to create a discussion regarding the reliability of this source prior to my second block. If you look in the top Corner there's a seal from the official Luxembougish Government or if you go on the main page, it's obvious this is a reliable source.
- Then Lod.lu, again a government run website, I know it's a dictionary and translator however this is proof of Legal recognition and if the Luxembougish government adds towns a villages as definitions to their online dictionary, so be it. Also I checked by searching Heederhaff into Lod.lu. Heederhaff is just a farm which isn't legally recognised and what do you know, nothing came up. I think that's evidence Bricherhaff isn't just a farm.
- I haven't properly checked google for regular sources, here I was just trying to prove legal recognition of the place, but if you look on Google search or even Google news there appears to be at least a little. Surely this is enough grounds for a redirect, do you agree? If not, why, I need to know because I don't understand and I must learn. 09:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music (
talk)
09:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- From what I can see (I can't read all the Books sources but I got similar when I searched Books yesterday) is that they seem little more than mentions and don't appear to demonstrate its legally recognized but I agree given it appears on a road sign it probably merits a mention and a redirect.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
09:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale I do agree that it is just passing mentions, so it doesn't establish notability, but I think it does establish legal recognition which like you said merits a redirect. As for notability for a potential article, I'd have to search through communal and national documents and also on all the sources I can find on regular google to maybe dig up enough information for an article. But a section added to Brichermillen seems more reasonable, especially since both areas are literally owned by the same person. N1TH Music ( talk) 09:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Why would something appearing on a road sign merit a redirect? My local household waste recycling centre or tennis complex also appear on road signs, and are not notable. In rural areas in Germany, individual farms often appear on road signs indicating their access roads. That doesn't make them any more notable than other houses or businesses. —
Kusma (
talk)
10:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma The road signs are one of the 3 points I brought up to prove Legal Recognition. And legal recognition is important because
WP:GEOLAND that "Populated, leaglly reconised places are generally presumed to be notable, even if their population is low." And that's to merit an article, not a redirect. Bricherhaff is similar to
Waldhof as in it's a
Lieu-dit. Luxembourg has an official categorisation system with places, Yellowsignage is used for towns and villages, white for Lieu-dits so when this white signage is used, it is one of a few things which proves legal recognition. Bricherhaff passes GEOLAND bust fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage from reliable sources, therefore the best course of action is a redirect.
N1TH Music (
talk)
11:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- As long as there is nothing that can be
verifiably said about the place, there is nothing that can be mentioned in the target article, and then any redirect is likely going to be deleted. We don't seem to know anything about the place other than that it exists (and on satellite pictures it looks like a farm with a handful of buildings). Your "book about geography" above seems to only include the snippet "Centre de l'échangeur autoroutier Bricherhaff" in a map caption (and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as there doesn't seem to be a motorway interchange nearby). Your "first one I found" source is the only one that looks like there is any hope to say anything about the place (it says something about previous owners and has lots of references that may contain some usable history), but you'll likely need to spend a few days in a really good library (and get some interlibrary loans) to get anywhere with this. A lot of effort for a farm. —
Kusma (
talk)
11:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Kusma so there is stuff that can be said, Contern already has a section written about Bricherhaff, although short and poorly short poorly sourced. Brichermillen on the other hand is directly adjacent to Bricherhaff, and owned by the same person if it was redirected to there a small section could be made just briefly mentioning the basic information outlined here or on a couple other online sources which have some of the basics written down. Also right now there isn't much information but in the future much of the stuff in books may be digitised and there may be more to say, so a redirect seems like a good temporary measure. And User:Anachronist stated: "Redirect tp Brichermillen as suggested above. If it's regionally well-known, even with no sources, a redirect isn't the same as an article, so notability criteria don't apply. Also, redirects are harmless. If there are no hits on the redirect after a year, we can delete it easily." In a year hopefully I'll be unblocked and I could fix all this. N1TH Music ( talk) 11:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- As long as there is nothing that can be
verifiably said about the place, there is nothing that can be mentioned in the target article, and then any redirect is likely going to be deleted. We don't seem to know anything about the place other than that it exists (and on satellite pictures it looks like a farm with a handful of buildings). Your "book about geography" above seems to only include the snippet "Centre de l'échangeur autoroutier Bricherhaff" in a map caption (and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as there doesn't seem to be a motorway interchange nearby). Your "first one I found" source is the only one that looks like there is any hope to say anything about the place (it says something about previous owners and has lots of references that may contain some usable history), but you'll likely need to spend a few days in a really good library (and get some interlibrary loans) to get anywhere with this. A lot of effort for a farm. —
Kusma (
talk)
11:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma The road signs are one of the 3 points I brought up to prove Legal Recognition. And legal recognition is important because
WP:GEOLAND that "Populated, leaglly reconised places are generally presumed to be notable, even if their population is low." And that's to merit an article, not a redirect. Bricherhaff is similar to
Waldhof as in it's a
Lieu-dit. Luxembourg has an official categorisation system with places, Yellowsignage is used for towns and villages, white for Lieu-dits so when this white signage is used, it is one of a few things which proves legal recognition. Bricherhaff passes GEOLAND bust fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage from reliable sources, therefore the best course of action is a redirect.
N1TH Music (
talk)
11:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- From what I can see (I can't read all the Books sources but I got similar when I searched Books yesterday) is that they seem little more than mentions and don't appear to demonstrate its legally recognized but I agree given it appears on a road sign it probably merits a mention and a redirect.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
09:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- What source do you have? I can mention it at the AFD if you provide it.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
08:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Crouch, Swale I can show you what I found and from there you can inform me whether it is sufficient proof or not, that would certainly help me to actually know the answer.
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- If you really still think the issue was a lack of "sourcing to prove it was legally recognised", then I can assure you that the AfD would not go differently. What resulted in you being reblocked was an inability to learn, and this assertion is not helping with that.
CMD (
talk)
22:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Chipmunkdavis I know people say I can't learn and that's partly because I have claimed that the place is legally recognised, though at the time I had no evidence. That could be WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT but the fact is if I present every source I've found and then you tell me it's not enough, then I can believe it, less so if you tell me "it's just a farm" I know it's a farm, I've been there. The reason I thought the topic was interesting and therefore notable is because this tiny privately owned farm is notable. Anyway you say my inability to learn is the problem but if I don't even get a chance to show where I'm coming from or explain why I believe what I do then I can remain confident that if I did show it, people would agree with me. In fact I've compiled everything now, you were in the AFD if you want proof I can show you proof. And if I'm right it's not so much inability to learn is it? If I'm wrong then I'll stop complaining but nobody has seen my found sources. N1TH Music ( talk) 07:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Chipmunkdavis I see you've redirected my edits to Contern, While agree it was the correct decision because nobody was going to be able to fix that any time soon, at one point I corrected a spelling error. In the section "Reulend", it's actually called Roulend, it's spelt wrong every single time, I'm just saying you'd probably want to fix that.
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I have made great strides towards fixing the article up. You are correct that there is a lot of
WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT evident here. It is unlikely you will be unblocked if you continue to not hear arguments, as you seem keen to with your still continuing campaign to find google snippets about a small farm.
CMD (
talk)
13:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Chipmunkdavis Look what User:Kusma found, he was reviewing one of the books I found which mentioned Bricherhaff and he discovered a rabit hole, he stated "Your "first one I found" source is the only one that looks like there is any hope to say anything about the place (it says something about previous owners and has lots of references that may contain some usable history), but you'll likely need to spend a few days in a really good library (and get some interlibrary loans) to get anywhere with this. A lot of effort for a farm." One part is wrong however, in Luxembourg all libraries are one and with one single card you can access every library in the country, from the National Library, to the cities' Municipal library to small local libraries to even school libraries. Also everything is unified in A-Z.lu I could search for documents to prove my point there. Also there are many paths I haven't taken yet in my search for sources, Bricherhaff is spelt in 3 different ways, I've only searched 1. There are 4 or 5 pages on the regular google search with links about Bricherhaff, I've only search the first one. I haven't gone to my local townhall to ask if they have any documents. And I haven't been to a library, searched A-Z.lu or even touched the news section of google. Also there are many named fields and forests around bricherhaff, some Pdf files cannot be found in google searches, I'd have to go to Contern.lu and do some searching etc...
- Anyway, an admin has just stated, having seen one fraction of what is available online, that it is possible to establish notability for this topic, just he thinks it's not worth the effort. But I'm free to research what I want. With that being said, is it too much to ask for the article to be redirected so that when the time comes I can immediately start working on it as opposed to requesting undeletion?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- If your takeaway from what I said is that I believe the farm to be notable, you need to work on your critical reading skills. —
Kusma (
talk)
13:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma I said you said Notability could be established, you said that source is the only one which has hope in establishing notability, is that wrong, am I misinterpreting it, if so what did you mean in more detail?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I said there is hope to find out something about the place. I do not know whether it is possible to establish notability (it seems unlikely). It is quite possible that all that comes out of the research direction I suggested is "Bricherhaff is a farm. It exists at least since 16xx, when it belonged to so-and-so Abbey that was subordinate to the Archbishop of Trier", which would not establish notability, but at least verify some nontrivial information, unlike the maps, broken links and unreliable sources currently in the article. Researching places like this is hard, especially online. —
Kusma (
talk)
14:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma Exactly, so there's a chance for notability (and that's from 1 or 2 book sources) Geoportail.lu has some good trustworthy information aswell but besides that I do not know because I haven't checked. On the other hand I don't live far from Contern's Gememg or town hall, I could ask if they have documents. So surely there's potential for notability but more important it could otherwise be redirected to Brichermillen or Contern. Surely if there's not quite enough to warrant an article, there is enough to warrant a subsection to Brichermillen, a settlement which is literally owned by the same person as Bricherhaff. Do you agree?
N1TH Music (
talk)
15:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't think that any farm needs to be mentioned, and I don't quite see why the owner is relevant here. But the amount of discussion we had about this is getting ridiculous. —
Kusma (
talk)
15:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Kusma Well it doesn't need to be mentioned but neither do a lot of things, Bricherhaff has been avaeraging around 1 pageview a day, there are many articles with get 8-10 a month but they exist. And as User:Anachronist said "A redirect is harmless" I don't see what the problem with redirecting is? N1TH Music ( talk) 15:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Kusma Also the reason I'm continuing the discussion is because I want to find out exaclty why a redirect couldn't work. User:Anachronist said it's fine, so did User:Crouch, Swale and everybody else' claim is before I even started looking for sources. I want to understand why it may not be suitable so I don't make that error in the future. N1TH Music ( talk) 15:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't think that any farm needs to be mentioned, and I don't quite see why the owner is relevant here. But the amount of discussion we had about this is getting ridiculous. —
Kusma (
talk)
15:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma Exactly, so there's a chance for notability (and that's from 1 or 2 book sources) Geoportail.lu has some good trustworthy information aswell but besides that I do not know because I haven't checked. On the other hand I don't live far from Contern's Gememg or town hall, I could ask if they have documents. So surely there's potential for notability but more important it could otherwise be redirected to Brichermillen or Contern. Surely if there's not quite enough to warrant an article, there is enough to warrant a subsection to Brichermillen, a settlement which is literally owned by the same person as Bricherhaff. Do you agree?
N1TH Music (
talk)
15:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I said there is hope to find out something about the place. I do not know whether it is possible to establish notability (it seems unlikely). It is quite possible that all that comes out of the research direction I suggested is "Bricherhaff is a farm. It exists at least since 16xx, when it belonged to so-and-so Abbey that was subordinate to the Archbishop of Trier", which would not establish notability, but at least verify some nontrivial information, unlike the maps, broken links and unreliable sources currently in the article. Researching places like this is hard, especially online. —
Kusma (
talk)
14:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma I said you said Notability could be established, you said that source is the only one which has hope in establishing notability, is that wrong, am I misinterpreting it, if so what did you mean in more detail?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- If your takeaway from what I said is that I believe the farm to be notable, you need to work on your critical reading skills. —
Kusma (
talk)
13:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I have made great strides towards fixing the article up. You are correct that there is a lot of
WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT evident here. It is unlikely you will be unblocked if you continue to not hear arguments, as you seem keen to with your still continuing campaign to find google snippets about a small farm.
CMD (
talk)
13:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've just had a look and I can't find any evidence of it being legally recognized.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
19:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
@ Yamla I understand your judgement and asking me to take a break and work on another project but do you not think 6 months is a little long for somebody who already learnt from most (but unfortunately not all) of his mistake and who already has done over 500 edits on the simple wiki (granted with 2 slips ups, one of which was not recognising the difference between this wiki and the simple wiki)? Is the 6 months like a rough estimate but if I show thousands of flawless edits on another project within 2 months I can get reviewed then or will every request I make before February 2023 automatically be declined?
- Frankly, I don't think you'll be ready in six months. You are welcome to request an unblock in two months if you think that'll be convincing. 6 months is a rough estimate. --
Yamla (
talk)
20:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- And with that, I think the usefulness of this conversation is ended for now. N1TH, you are eligible for consideration under the standard offer. I am removing your talk page access to make it easier for you to start on this. You may request unblock six months from the date of this block, 23 February 2023. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
"but if I show thousands of flawless edits on another project within 2 months I can get reviewed then or will every request I make before February 2023 automatically be declined?"
- No you don't get to renegotiate the standard offer. Yes, as you've already seen on UTRS, requests to be unblocked before six months have elapsed will rejected. I'm advising you to stop pestering me on Commons or anywhere else regarding my rejection of your premature unblock request. Doing so is not helping your case. I've now asked you three times to stop harassing me on Commons. You're very close to being blocked there as well.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
19:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'll also note that WP:SO requires you not give people reason to object to your return. You are doing exactly that. I've regularly seen the "timer reset" on WP:SO offers. You are very lucky Ohnoitsjamie has not done so yet. N1TH Music, it's time to step away. Stop pestering people about your en.wiki block. Step away. February 2023 is the soonest anyone here should hear from you. -- Yamla ( talk) 19:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:List of British rail small shunters (under 300 hp)
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:List of British rail small shunters (under 300 hp), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 09:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Kackerterhaff
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Kackerterhaff, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 17:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Combino (Pasta)
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Combino (Pasta), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 13:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:List of British rail small shunters (under 300 hp)
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " List of British rail small shunters".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Kackerterhaff
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, " Kackerterhaff".
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 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Combino (Pasta)
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Combino".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:List of frazioni in the Metropolitan City of Genoa
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:List of frazioni in the Metropolitan City of Genoa, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 23:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Four Towers, Somerset
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Four Towers, Somerset, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 06:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:List of frazioni in the Metropolitan City of Genoa
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " List of frazioni in the Metropolitan City of Genoa".
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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
is closed. Considering problems cited my ohnoitsjamie, maybe an SO in six months. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 18:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- From today, of course.
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
18:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @
Yamla: Restore TPA so they can pose questions here instead of Commons?
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
18:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have no objections to restoring TPA. However, if there's more
WP:WALLOFTEXT or other abuse, N1TH Music should expect to lose talk page access again. I believe you are indicating they should not make an unblock request prior to 2023-08-15. --
Yamla (
talk)
18:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, NITH1, maybe you could not pose more questions on Commons. See you six months from now. UTRS will reset after a couple of days. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 18:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have no objections to restoring TPA. However, if there's more
WP:WALLOFTEXT or other abuse, N1TH Music should expect to lose talk page access again. I believe you are indicating they should not make an unblock request prior to 2023-08-15. --
Yamla (
talk)
18:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @
Yamla: Restore TPA so they can pose questions here instead of Commons?
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
18:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Four Towers, Somerset
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Four Towers".
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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
User has affirmed on SIMPLE they are not to use their alt account here. SIMPLE:user_talk:N1TH_Music#Your alternate account -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. You are not eligible for consideration till October. However, that date can easily by changed to six months from now if you persist in evading your block in this manner.. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Primefac: @ Jpgordon: pinging original blocking admins. By request, copying the unblock request from the UTRS ticket. I have verified the endorsement from Crouch, Swale. I'm inclined to accept this unblock request, given the endorsement and monitoring from Crouch Swale. -- Yamla ( talk) 23:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I was blocked here in August 2022 under WP:CIR concerns which included creating pages on topics (generally places) which were not notable as well as adding indiscriminate and excessive amounts of detail to articles which were. Additionally there was one instance of issues with copyright violations, in general I made edits which were at odds to policies such as WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND, WP:DIDN’T HERE THAT etc. My naming of these policies by name should be an indication that I have reread and understand them however just in case, I am now providing a written assurance. I will certainly not make edits in the same vein as I did prior to my block. I do still wish to work on Geography articles to an extent but using better sourcing and more specifically I plan to work on User:Crouch, Swale’s missing parishes project. Also I’m interested in working on articles regarding human longevity and music as well. During my absence I’ve also learnt the skill of constructing templates. All in all, I promise to make constructive edits to Wikipedia unlike I had done before as I’ve grown an matured to a massive extent since my block some 16 months ago. And to brush up on my skills I’ve worked on a Geography article and a music related one on the Simple English wiki. See “Loch Naver” over there, which is straight to the point, without too much detail and no citations to Openstreetmap or Peakvisor. Finally, I’ve received User:Crouch, Swale’s Cosign and endorsement that he will monitor over my future edits in the event I get unblocked. Thank you for reading, N1TH Music
Yamla ( talk) 23:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've no problem with this. Endorse unblock.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇
01:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Make it so. (support unblock)
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
01:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the matter, but thanks for the ping. Primefac ( talk) 12:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Make it so. (support unblock)
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
01:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. With no objections, and based on the mentoring offered by Crouch, Swale, I'm lifting the block. N1TH Music, please note this is probably your last chance. You've previously been mentored and, at that time, proven yourself unwilling to listen to advice. I hope (and sincerely expect) you take a completely different approach this time. -- Yamla ( talk) 13:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Yamla Now that the block is lifted, am I permitted to archive my talk page
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- You are. That includes all messages including unblock requests and including this very discussion. --
Yamla (
talk)
13:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Perfect, thank you. I’d like to wipe the slate clean N1TH Music ( talk) 13:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- You are. That includes all messages including unblock requests and including this very discussion. --
Yamla (
talk)
13:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi N1TH Music! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Mjroots ( talk) 07:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Mulinetti moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Mulinetti, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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.
Victor Schmidt (
talk)
11:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Mulinetti (August 25)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mulinetti 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:Mulinetti, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" 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 may 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.
|
|
Hello, N1TH Music!
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!
Theroadislong (
talk)
13:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Mulinetti (August 25)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mulinetti 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:Mulinetti, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" 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 may 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.
Mulinetti railway station moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Mulinetti railway station, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed ( verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia).
Wikipedia may not be used as a reference. See the policy against circular references. References to Wikipedia may and should be converted to in-line links. Although links do not take the place of references, which are required, links will facilitate the evaluation of this draft by providing context.
This draft should be revised and resubmitted with valid references and without using Wikipedia as a reference. You may ask for advice about references and/or links at the Teahouse.
The draft also has tone issues. The last sentence has a breezy informal tone that is not encyclopedic.
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.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
15:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Your draft article, Draft:Nozarego
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Nozarego".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Bricherhaff
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Bricherhaff".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Kréintgeshaff
Hello, N1TH Music. I just wanted to let you know that
Draft:Kréintgeshaff, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for
article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 ( talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Kréintgeshaff
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Kréintgeshaff".
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 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CommanderWaterford ( talk) 20:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Mulinetti
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Mulinetti".
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 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian ( talk) 18:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Mulinetti railway station
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Mulinetti railway station".
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 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian ( talk) 21:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Leslie Railway moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Leslie Railway, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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. ...
discospinster
talk
15:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Leslie Railway (April 13)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Leslie Railway 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:Leslie Railway, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" 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 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.
Very short, unsourced. Please continue. Xx236 ( talk) 08:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The article Bricherhaff has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable. Additionally, Google Maps is not a meaningful source, and vdl.lu contains no useful information to verify the article contents.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
12:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The article Welcome Beach, British Columbia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
12:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Leslie Railway (May 4)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Leslie Railway 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:Leslie Railway, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" 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 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.
Railscot is a reliable source, more that half of all railway based articles on this site cute railscot N1TH Music ( talk) 10:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
English Corner Nova Scotia moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
English Corner Nova Scotia, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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. ...
discospinster
talk
18:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Bricherhaff moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Bricherhaff, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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.
Mccapra (
talk)
12:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of N1TH
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on N1TH, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
- It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
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. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Slenderman7676. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
British Rail Class 442, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Slender (
talk)
14:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, please avoid using Google search results as a reference, as that is not a WP:RELIABLE source. It may be used to find sources as per WP:GOOGLE, but is not a source in itself in that context. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- N1TH Music, I just noticed that Kj cheetham had called your attention to using Google search results as references. Thanks for all you do but be more specific. I have removed your reference in Railway Driving Motor Car with hopes that you will consider what we are trying to say. Danidamiobi ( talk) 01:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The article London Underground Driving Motor 3706 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability. Not everything that's kept in a museum is by default notable, it needs independent reliable sourcing to establish notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article London Underground Driving Motor 3701 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article London Underground Driving Motor 3690 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article British Rail Locomotive 02 004 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article British rail Locomotive 02 001 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article British Rail Locomotive 02 003 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The article London Underground Driving Motor 3370 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
no evidence of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Black Kite (talk)
10:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Underground Driving Motor 3209, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Island Line. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of London Underground Driving Motor 3701 for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground Driving Motor 3701 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Note this nomnination also covers:
Thryduulf ( talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of British rail Locomotive 02 001 for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British rail Locomotive 02 001 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at
Talk:British Rail Locomotive 02 003, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Put simply, this is an encyclopedia, not a repository for every last piece of information about individual items of rolling stock, no matter how insignificant. The key thing to bear in mind is that the subject has to be notable, not just another item in a long list of identical (for all practical purposes) items. Your point about 08s is very relevant, who wants 850 separate articles all saying more or less the same thing? The same thing applies to the class 02s, if on a smaller scale. There were ony a few of them, they did nothing special in their careers, all of which can be summed up in one article. The 37s and 47s (and some other classes) warrant a bit more information because the various sub-classes were created to fulfill different roles. Hence my two lists to help clarify the situation. The 02s were shunters and remained shunters.
There are enthusiast pages on the web that carry the sort of detailed information that an enthusiast like yourself might want to know, see for Class 66 for instance. There may be one for class 02s, and other classes that you are interested in, that would welcome the in-depth information you have. -- Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 14:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, please do not use Flickr for references (let alone over 40 times in a single article, as you did at British Rail Class 02). Per WP:USERGENERATED, sources such as Flickr are not acceptable for Wikipedia. In general, the level of detail you are adding to locomotive articles is excessive for Wikipedia's standards as well. As others have mentioned, such contributions would be welcome on fansites, but not here. Before creating more articles, I strongly recommend that you review Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 02:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Loch Urigull for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Urigull until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Fram ( talk) 14:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Allnabad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Just a farmstead, not a village or similar place, fails WP:NGEO.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
14:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our
policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read
Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the
Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. Thank you.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Railway Driving Motor Car has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Entirely unsourced, failing WP:V and some outright wrong statements as detailed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Other_articles_by_N1TH_Music. Could potentially be made into something, but looks more like a candidate for TNT.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
21:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Ceathramh Garbh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Something that is 58m higher than its surroundings is not a mountain, by definition. If not deleted, should be redirected to its parent Arkle (Sutherland).
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Black Kite (talk)
23:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Trainsandotherthings (
talk •
contribs)
01:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- To avoid any ambiguity from that {{ ANI-notice}} I would like to confirm the discussion thread is here. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Kréintgeshaff has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NGEO: it's a farm, nothing more.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
13:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your post at ANI. It is always better to engage when issues are raised at ANI rather than to stay silent. As I said there, were were all new once and we've all made mistakes.
Moving forward, I've added a Welcome notice to the top of your talk page. Please take the time to read the pages linked from it, as it will be of benefit. WP:RS is also worth a read. As you now seem to appreciate, Flickr should only ever be used as a source of photographs that are suitably licenced for use on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the majority of them aren't.
As you are interested in railways and also the Sutherland area, what do you think about writing an article on the Wester pipe railway. There is an article on de-Wiki, and the sources used are in English. Reply here as I'm going to temporarily watchlist this page. Mjroots ( talk) 07:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I've just curated both Loch Merkland and Loch Urigill and saw your messages on the talk pages. Don't worry, both are suitably sourced with a couple of solid references so it would be very doubtful that there would be any reason to delete them. Best Regards. Hughesdarren ( talk) 10:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:English Corner Nova Scotia
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:English Corner Nova Scotia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 19:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
Your draft article, Draft:English Corner Nova Scotia
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " English Corner Nova Scotia".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi N1TH Music! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
British Rail Class 02 that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
Kj cheetham (
talk)
18:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Leslie Railway
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Leslie Railway, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 08:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Railway Driving Motor Car
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Railway Driving Motor Car, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 12:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
JohnFromPinckney. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Contern, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. I appreciate your additions and improvements, but the article was already tagged as needing further citations; there's no good reason to make the situation worse. Can you provide some reliable sources for your material and readd it? Thanks, —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk /
edits)
10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Brichermillen moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Brichermillen, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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.
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
18:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've moved this to drafts, because I'm not entirely convinced that the subject is notable even per WP:GEOLAND, and in any case the sources cited are less than WP:RS; please provide better sources and/or otherwise establish notability, and then put this through the AfC pre-publication review process. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Brichermillen has been accepted
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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.
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!
Theroadislong ( talk) 18:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Thankyou for you're new articles for places in England. If you're interested I have a project at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes which lists missing parishes in England that need articles. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. You moved Carignano to Carignano, Piedmont already a week ago, but Carignano, Liguria is not ready yet. Can you please answer in Talk:Carignano, Piedmont. Thanks, bye. MrKeefeJohn ( talk) 19:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Comunal Documents of Santa Margherita Ligure for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Comunal Documents of Santa Margherita Ligure until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Fram ( talk) 09:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to
Santa Margherita Ligure has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. You have included straight translations from the (copyrighted) municipality website and presumably other sources as well. Translation of a copyrighted text is just as much a copyright violation as posting the original text.
Fram (
talk)
15:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Urm if one section is copyrighted why would you delete everything including what isn't copyrighted. How do I get any of my work which I wrote myself back? N1TH Music ( talk) 18:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Everything I wrote for Geography, Tourism, Settlements, History, staffing (of municipality) had absoluely not copy and paste why did you eliminate everything, you could have just deleted everything that cited the comune. I had no idea that the trnaslations were still copyrighted. I spent weeks working on that did you have to literally DELETE every revision N1TH Music ( talk) 18:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to
Santa Margherita Ligure has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. "no directly translated material"? You have sections which start with "View from the Seafront of Santa Margherita Castle " without an image in sight, and with text which is a direct translation of
https://www.beniculturalionline.it/location-3306_Castello-di-Santa-Margherita-Ligure.php. The other sections seem to have the same problems. Again, please stop.
Fram (
talk)
12:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fram What Copyright? All the information is either from the Italian Wikipedia (which last time I checked is the same website and therefore isn't copyright to translate) or from openstreet map or other small sources and is paraphrased. There's no copyrighted material there.
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please see Help:Translation. You may not simply translate other Wikipedia articles without providing proper attribution. You also shouldn't post machine translations but should check your translations carefully, which you clearly didn't. Each article you translate (even partially) needs individual attribution (not just a general "taken from itwiki" or some such). Fram ( talk) 13:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fram I don't know what this
https://www.beniculturalionline.it/location-3306_Castello-di-Santa-Margherita-Ligure.php is. "View from the Seafront of Santa Margherita Castle "I wrote that myself or if not I got it from Italian Wikipedia and they stright copied it, I've never been to that sight and so not have any intentions to copy other material. I'm sorry for last time but I genuinely thought it was a loophole to translate material to avoid copyright and now I know better. But wouldn't it be better to only delete the one supposedly copied line rather than to remove all my work, no?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fram What are you talking about? The only translations are from the Italian Wikipedia which is not copyright because Italian Wikipedia is still Wikipedia, correct me if I'm wrong.
N1TH Music (
talk)
14:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which post are you replying to? Again, please see
Help:Translation.
Fram (
talk)
14:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- There was no reply button to your message for some reason at the time so I replied to myself and then tagged you. I'll check Help:Tranlsation and then I'll try to readd my changed to Santa Margherita Ligure without copyrighting anyone. If you could maybe please tell me one more time exaclty which parts are in violation of copyright law? N1TH Music ( talk) 14:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Fram I replied already but forgot to @ you please read the message
N1TH Music (
talk)
14:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- "If you could maybe please tell me one more time exaclty which parts are in violation of copyright law?" As far as I can tell, all of it. Unattributed translations of Italian Wikipedia articles are violations of our copyright policies.
Fram (
talk)
14:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Fram Really? because many pages say that information can be taken from a corresponding article in another langauge. But anyway the link you gave me said that raw machine translations are not very good so if I edit everything it's ok, right? I didn't accidentally or unknowingly copy from an external site? N1TH Music ( talk) 14:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- "If you could maybe please tell me one more time exaclty which parts are in violation of copyright law?" As far as I can tell, all of it. Unattributed translations of Italian Wikipedia articles are violations of our copyright policies.
Fram (
talk)
14:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which post are you replying to? Again, please see
Help:Translation.
Fram (
talk)
14:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- "But wouldn't it be better to only delete the one supposedly copied line rather than to remove all my work, no?" Uh, nearly all you wrote was a translation from Italian, not just that one line. No idea where you got that idea. Fram ( talk) 13:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Fram What are you talking about? The only translations are from the Italian Wikipedia which is not copyright because Italian Wikipedia is still Wikipedia, correct me if I'm wrong.
N1TH Music (
talk)
14:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Kackerterhaff moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Kackerterhaff, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) 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.
TheBirdsShedTears (
talk)
06:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Loch Urigull
A tag has been placed on Loch Urigull requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
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. Fram ( talk) 12:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
FramI don’t understand why shouldn’t this redirect exist?
N1TH Music (
talk)
12:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- N1TH Music, the message from Fram is a notice that the page has been tagged, it is not the start of a discussion. If you disagree with the tagging, you need to follow the directions given above, beginning
If you think this page should not be deleted
. Posting here will not alter the outcome. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)- I did that, I posted information on the talk page of Loch Urigull but I still wanted to clarify something. N1TH Music ( talk) 04:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- N1TH Music, the message from Fram is a notice that the page has been tagged, it is not the start of a discussion. If you disagree with the tagging, you need to follow the directions given above, beginning
Nomination of Abellio, Ellesmere Port for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abellio, Ellesmere Port until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Fram ( talk) 08:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
"Conton" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Conton and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 23#Conton until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Fram (
talk)
08:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
"Bocce (Locality)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Bocce (Locality) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 23#Bocce (Locality) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Fram (
talk)
08:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
"Border of Santa Margherita Ligure" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Border of Santa Margherita Ligure and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 24#Border of Santa Margherita Ligure until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Fram (
talk)
10:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Trudlerbrook
A tag has been placed on Trudlerbrook requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
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. Fram ( talk) 10:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
"Street Design of Santa Margherita" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Street Design of Santa Margherita and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 24#Street Design of Santa Margherita until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Fram (
talk)
10:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Blackslough Wood for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackslough Wood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Fram ( talk) 10:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
A discussion about your edits, including a proposal to block you, is started at WP:ANI#WP:CIR block needed. You are welcome to comment there. Fram ( talk) 11:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Geography of Santa Margherita Ligure has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, unlikely that a small area (<4 square miles) with a population of <10K needs an entire article on the geography of the area ( WP:N), appears to be mostly original research with no or poor sourcing for claims made.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c
16:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Naver until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Singularity42 ( talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
Singularity42 Why is it up for deletion, there are 50 sources 30 of which aren't openstreetmap or google maps?
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've commented at the AfD and would be best to keep all comments in one place. But it's just a bunch of online maps with the location. That's not reliable sources supporting notability. In other words, all the sources do is confirm existence, which is not the same as notability in these circumstances. Singularity42 ( talk) 17:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi N1TH Music! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Mjroots ( talk) 07:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi N1TH Music, I saw you are having some trouble with article creation and referencing. I wanted to offer to work with you, not exactly as a mentor (I've not been here long enough to think I'm that good) but as an editing buddy you can check things with. For example, if you wrote an article in your sandbox and let me look at it before submitting it for creation, then I could go over it with you and help you decide whether your sources are reliable and whether the article's subject is noteworthy. Having a second set of eyes might help, and I'd be more than happy to talk things over with you so we can establish what sources are reliable and can be used on Wikipedia and what we should avoid.
If you think that would be helpful, just let me know. Either way, good luck and I hope your day is getting better! StartGrammarTime ( talk) 08:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh that would be absolutely Incredible, Thank You. But I think I understand the basics it's just that the problem is that I tend to overestimate the value of some sources which I am already managing to cease.
N1TH Music (
talk)
08:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, something that might help is WP:RSP - a list of known reliable (and unreliable) sources. It doesn't have everything, but there's a lot there! Are you planning to continue working on small towns/villages, or move onto something with more reliable sources for the time being? If it were me, I would probably start with something else - I don't know if you've seen the Task Center yet, but it has tons of options for editors wanting to improve the 'pedia. StartGrammarTime ( talk) 01:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how you came across this page, but next time, just revert to the redirect. You should check the page history before doing drastic like draftifying. — Kusma ( talk) 20:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies and point taken, I found it on special:shortpages N1TH Music ( talk) 06:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
of you to lecture other editors on sourcing concerns while you yourself are at ANI for the same reason, especially considering they just created it 4 minutes prior. Just a thought. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know my basics. I'm not stupid, sure I've had a history of bad referencing but at least I cited Something. Was there anything wrong in what I wrote, No. I just informed this person that they must cite sources and liked them to
WP:Citing sources. I don't see how that's an issue.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you know the basics, you should be aware of
WP:BITE in this case, considering they created it 4 minutes prior to your warning.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
17:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok no I didn't know that, but now I do, I'm sorry. Also that editor has been here since February not sure if that classifies as a newcomer, you tell me. Also when I was new, all of the first few articles I made were immediately moved to draftspace, redirected or PRODed.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point and should stick to cleaning up your own mess that you've made.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm trying to but I'm not receiving any help so I'm scared to rebuild any of my work. Every time I try to fix something, Fram uses it as evidence to block me and whenever I ask him for assistance he just tells me to stop editing. If you could help that'd be nice. N1TH Music ( talk) 18:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point and should stick to cleaning up your own mess that you've made.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok no I didn't know that, but now I do, I'm sorry. Also that editor has been here since February not sure if that classifies as a newcomer, you tell me. Also when I was new, all of the first few articles I made were immediately moved to draftspace, redirected or PRODed.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you know the basics, you should be aware of
WP:BITE in this case, considering they created it 4 minutes prior to your warning.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
17:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
RickinBaltimore (
talk)
12:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)N1TH Music ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I respect the decision made by the administrators and am aware that they hold ground to stand on when they decided to block me, however I believe that I am learning, however gradually and I can become a good, useful editor and thus I shall explain my exact reasoning. I think I should be unblocked because everything I wrote was in good faith. I have made several mistakes however it'd be a lie to say I haven't improved. I think but might be wrong that whoever is reading this, as an admin can review deleted pages. So, I encourage you to look at my oldest, deleted creations as well as some of my earlier edits such as my first expansion of Contern, my original Mulinetti article and Draft:Leslie Railway. Now compare to my more recent edits. I had after backlash about my creations started editing pages I found on Special:ShortPages and Special:NewPages redirecting and deleting bad articles. I believe my work there was good but one may disagree. I know of 2 examples of "Big Mistakes" and I have my reasoning as to what happened. For one User:Kusma mentioned that he told me how deletions worked and yet I kept doing the same mistake. This is because I was using a different template. When I use Template:Proposed Deletion there was always an error involving the substitute, which I asked about. But after that I found Template:Prposed Deletion/Dated Which I assumed was different because it appeared to work fine without a substitute but I admit I was wrong. But nobody mentioned it to me, so I never found out about it until I reread my block request page and saw a comment mentioning it, after I'd already been blocked. The other big mistake I made was with 2022 Pakistan economic crisis. I added a speedy deletion tag after seeing this mess of an article. Afterwards my edit was reverted and I saw the comment on that revision saying I should have checked the history. But I did check the history I read an earlier, larger revision and I still thought it was terrible. It was only right after I published my edit where I found that there was a larger revision I'd never clicked on. Then I quickly tried to revert my edit but an error message kept popping up stating that it was impossible due to conflicting revisions. Not to mention that I was on a portable device and had something else to do so I couldn't just manually revert it. But BuyandLarge I knew it was wrong but couldn't fix it I am aware as to why I was blocked even excluding my recent edits. I had 1 incident with copyright violations, many cases of me making articles on non-notable topics, not showing basic common sense or competence 3 times and being terrible with Citing and referencing. But every single one of these errors I'd learnt just it was too late. I now understand WP:GEOLAND better, I know not to site maps or User generated content. I know not to trust Wikipedia lists that could have been edited by anyone. I've learnt the notability guidelines better. And I know that just translating something from another language is not a loophole to avoid copyright but is in fact a violation. If you were to look at most of my recent edits, you should see improvement to some extent. Also I was in the process of writing a new article at the time of being blocked and I was making it specifically to prove that I was capable of making a competently made article and I cited 0 maps (excluding some old paper ones and Ordnance Survey maps) and I checked my citations. It was about another loch so I cited reliable sources like the Gazetteer for Scotland and Canmore. I've also been fixing some of my mistakes involving bad referencing and too much detail in articles such as Eitermillen, Trudlerbaach, Contern and Loch Naver. Although to no avail in the case of Eitermillen as even my newer referencing still wasn't good and I accept that and am willing to work on it if I get unblocked. My future plans if I get unblocked are to work on and publish my drafts which are: Kackerterhaff, List of British rail small shunters and List of Frazioni in the Metropolitan city of Genoa. Then I wish to continue expanding Contern and berrylands and start expanding Santa Margherita Ligure once more. However for that last one I must make my editing less detailed, avoid copyright and locate more sources which I'm willing to do. Other than that I wish to work on Aaron's Hill, Somerset and Blackslough wood to avoid them being deleted and to find better sources for them. And I wish to continue searching NewPages and ShortPages for small articles that I can deal with accordingly. Off course however I will reread some guidelines including WP:BITE and WP:Proposed deletion to ensure I don't continue making the same mistakes. I have been working in good faith and I admit to have been making many mistakes along the road but I am certain now I have learnt everything I have to. Had I known beforehand about how to make a proposed deletion, I would be fine right now and I would be happily editing helping wikipedia. I will cease to reference bad sources, write in too much detail and not check history when it comes to short pages. Overall I wish to stay here because I like editing and it's a hobby. I hope people have seen my effort to improve, me asking questions and trying to learn from my mistakes should be evidence of me trying and me writing this very request as quickly and thoroughly as possible just reflects that. If you still aren't convinced to let me roam free, that's fine I'd hope maybe my block could at least be modified to allow me to edit user talk pages and draft pages. Therefore I can maybe regain trust by submitting good, well sourced articles and then I can get my mainspace privileges back. As for User talk pages I am attentive and wish to be able to ask questions but if that's to much I am ok with Draftspace editing privilidges only for the time being. Thank you, regards and have a nice day to whoever is reading this :) N1TH Music ( talk) 15:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Yamla Wait, Wall of Text applies to Block Requests. Fine, ok that's fine rules are rules I guess. I'll rewrite it. I thought it wasn't too long. N1TH Music ( talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Pontificalibus I've got a question, do you have any more sources regarding Blackslough Wood? N1TH Music ( talk) 18:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Fram I know you probably didn’t expect nor want to hear from me following my blockage and I do not even know if you will get notified about this but the discussion for Blackslough wood is coming to a close and I have gone searching and found 16 reliable sources and I do not only believe no, I am certain that they have established notability for Blackslough wood. If I get a reply from you I can list them and show you the notable sections and as for Aaron’s hill, it could be redirected to Blackslough wood with a small section in the Blackslough wood article talking briefly about it. I hope to hear from you. N1TH Music ( talk) 08:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Vatten, Skye and
Uig, Duirinish now contain good sources that I added.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
10:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale I know and thanks for those edits, but I can't really get knocked for not addid sources because I'd literally just started editing then. Anyway I feel the need to list the sources I found in order to Prove that Blackslough wood it notable:
- So most importantly I found this, this, this and this. 2 of these are official censuses from the area of Gasper and Stourton. The first one from 1871 lists 2 people living in "Blackslough Lodge" and 20 living in just Blackslough. So a population of 22 really isn't so small. Meanwhile the data from 1891 lists 5 people living in "Black Slough", 3 people living in "Black Slough Farm" and 6 more residing in "Black Slough Lodge" That's 14 total which is less but follows all trends I'd expect it to given that today, not only is the place abandoned but there's almost no physical evidence left behind that there ever was a settlement there. Also thissource also lists 4 people who were in fact born in Blackslough and their ages vary from as young as 5 to 48 which is evidence that there was enough infrastructure in Blackslough for an entire family to live there since the 1850s. This source also lists the same 4 births and similar information from the 1891 census. The same website's 1871 date here list the same 2 residents living at Blackslough Lodge as the other one which backs up that source. Then also here there are several mentions of Blacksloe and Blacksloe Lodge, this isn't a coincidence because if you check up all the names of the reisdents from this 1861 census, many of them match up with this document. So obviously there was just a name change, The 1851 census also lists Blacksloe but the 1841 goes back to Blackslough so I don't know what happened but all these censuses alone show that from the 1830s all the way through to the 1910s Blackslough was populated and finally this is the only mention I could find of Blackslough existing in the 1881 census. So I believe this alone, excluding the other sources I found already shows independent notability for Blackslough Wood because it shows that for at least 80 years, people lived here and the population is referenced across 7 different census as well as births, marriages and occupations of the various individuals. But if you don't agree, I have a dozen other sources.
- Some sources show proof that Blackslough is in fact related to Brewham or at least the Four Towers Estate meaning that if all the sources I did find aren't enough, then the article should be redirected to Brewham or one could be made about the Four Towers Estate and then it be redirected there. This entire webpage is about the four towers estate which shows it's notability and it also mentions Blackslough Wood and Blackslough as well as providing some new information regarding it. Best of all it provides it's own sources and there's one for each of the sources regarding Blackslough so that's 2 more available references. Then this map here is a 1839 map of Brewham lists the Four Towers Estate as part of the map so there absolutely is a correlation between Brewham and Blackslough Wood. This source also mentions Blackslough wood and gives even more new information in this case from the 18th century. So if what I said in the paragraph before isn't enough to establish notability than it should at least be redirected, there's no need to delete.
- One might say that although there's evidence here that there was a settlement in the past but there's nothing now however WP:Notability states that notability isn't temporary, if something was notable 100 years ago, it still is now. Better yet, there are sources containing information which alone at the very least partially establish Notability with Blackslough wood but if paired with the historical sources they absolutely do. Well for one this and this label Blackslough wood as a Nature Reserve of sorts, this mentions a walking trail which passes through Blackslough wood which Aligns with all the maps I've found as well as Geograph which although not reliable sources and thus not listed here, do show many tracks and trials running through the woods. Then Ordnance Survey lists Blackslough wood in it's list of places in south somerset and also OS has this page entirely about Blackslough wood including some pretty useful details. Also a different addition of OS maps, the one used by Canmore also lists Blackslough Wood as a place
- The other sources found include this which was already cited in the existing article. Fram Acknowledged this stating No evidence that this is a hamlet, this indicates it is a forest. And in hindsight he was correct. It is only a forest but I've found evidence that shows it used to be a settlement and not such a small one either. And also I myself found the 2 historical sources Pontificalibus previously listed in his comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackslough Wood. They are more historical evidence to back up my claims. Finally I found this book which doesn't bring any new information to the table but is evidence to the places existence. But also this is meerly a preview who knows what the complete editions says.
- All in all, there is enough information from these sources to write a lot. Certainly enough to establish Notability and as for Aaron's Hill, Somerset we could redirect it to Blackslough wood and add a small section talking about it. I haven't found any reliable sources for it yet but I'm sure if I went looking I would because it took me about 15 minutes to find all this about Blackslough Wood. So I would hope for you to tell me if you now believe that this is Notable or not (And if not, why not?) and I'd hope for @ Fram to do the same. N1TH Music ( talk) 13:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale @ Fram
- Actually I went searching further for more reliable sources and I found:
- A book from 1905 back when the place was populated labelling "Blackslough Wood", "Blackslough" and "Blackslough Lodge".
- Another book, this one from 1999 which mentions Blackslough Wood and the Four Towers Estate. It also mentions information from the 1410s and the 1680s if anyone could actually find a free version somewhere, there could be a lot of information to be held as this entire book is about the area
- Then I searched for "Blackslough" "Somerset" Instead of Blackslough Wood and then more came up:
- This book had 37 mentions of the term Blackslough and I checked it's referring to this. It also dates back to 1896 making it a source from the time Blackslough was actually inhabited.
- This 1886 book mentions Blackslough and also Somerset in the same paragraph.
- This book which actually I already listed previously for mentioning Blackslough Wood Backs up the claims made by this
- This book mentions Blackslough.
- This 1948 source mentions Blackslough
- And that's all I could find before I started seeing repetitions but then I began searching for reliable sources on Google Scholar:
- I only found this pdfthough which only has a passing mention of Blackslough.
- Then I searched for News but unfortunately there was nothing there. It appears that most sources are books because this place was abandoned around 90 years ago but regardless I found multiple sources saying this place was inhabited as far back as the 1680s and up until at least the 1910s or around 230 years. This place was permanently inhabited from prior to the unification of England and Scotland into the Uk to as late as World War 1. And now it's a nature reserve. That is 100% a notable enough topic. N1TH Music ( talk) 16:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
More Sources: this gives Blackslough a passing mention. This gives the first information about somebody dying in Blackslough. And proved that it was inhabited until 1917 This gives more evidence to there being former residents at Blackslough, as if there wasn't already enough. I believe this recent document references Blackslough Wood, correct me if I'm wrong. This gives Blackslough at least a passing mention Another Historical Source And this appears to confirm all the basics. The area was inhabited, now it's abandoned and now it's a forest. Some passing mention of Blackslough Here I'm not quite sure what this is about or trying to say but it certainly mentions Blackslough. I also found this and this. I'm having trouble finding much more but all the above is enough sources to write a bloody good article. N1TH Music ( talk) 13:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Ohnoitsjamie Here, these places may only be markers on a map now, but histroical sources, (see above) certainly prove that it meets WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Just need to archive one more source: http://www.stourtonhistory.org/census_1891.html
N1TH Music ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your reason here I respect the decision made by the administrators and am aware that they hold ground to stand on when they decided to block me, however I am learning and I have made significant progress and I am certain I have learnt from all of my mistakes. I think I should be unblocked because everything I wrote was in good faith. I can show proof of me improving if you were to look at my old edits of Contern, my original Mulinetti article and Draft:Leslie Railway. Now compare to my more recent edits. I had after backlash about my creations started editing pages I found on Special:ShortPages and Special:NewPages redirecting and deleting bad articles. I believe my work there was good but one may disagree. I know of 2 examples of "Big Mistakes" and I have my reasoning as to what happened. For one User:Kusma mentioned that he told me how deletions worked and yet I kept doing the same mistake. This is because I was using a different template. When I use Template:Proposed Deletion there was always an error involving the substitute, which I asked about. But after that I found Template:Prposed Deletion/Dated Which I assumed was different because it appeared to work fine without a substitute but I admit I was wrong. But nobody mentioned it to me, so I never found out about it until I reread my block request page and saw a comment mentioning it, after I'd already been blocked. The other big mistake I made was with 2022 Pakistan economic crisis. I added a speedy deletion tag after seeing this mess of an article. Afterwards my edit was reverted and I saw the comment on that revision saying I should have checked the history. But I did check the history I read an earlier, larger revision and I still thought it was terrible. It was only right after I published my edit where I found that there was a larger revision I'd never clicked on. Then I quickly tried to revert my edit but an error message kept popping up stating that it was impossible due to conflicting revisions.
I understand why I was blocked, I had 1 incident with copyright violations, many cases of me making articles on non-notable topics, not showing basic common sense or competence 3 times and being terrible with Citing and referencing. But every single one of these errors I'd learnt just it was too late.
I have learnt from all of my mistakes. I know not to cites maps or User Generated Content and not to rely on lists made by Wikipedia themselves. I know that translations are still copyright violations. I know I need to use a substitution when making a PROD. I understand there are alternatives to deletion. I understand WP:BITE. I thoroughly understand all of WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing and Referencing.
Also before being blocked I showed direct signs of improvement, I've been fixing some of my mistakes involving bad referencing and too much detail in articles such as Eitermillen, Trudlerbaach, Contern and Loch Naver. Although to no avail in the case of Eitermillen as even my newer referencing still wasn't good and I accept that and am willing to work on it if I get unblocked. I also found many sources for Blackslough wood, which I have listed here on my talk page and want to get moved to the deletion discussion.
My future plans if I get unblocked are to work on and publish my drafts which are: Kackerterhaff, List of British rail small shunters and List of Frazioni in the Metropolitan city of Genoa. Then I wish to continue expanding Contern and berrylands and start expanding Santa Margherita Ligure once more. However for that last one I must make my editing less detailed, avoid copyright and locate more sources which I'm willing to do. I also want to join new page patrol and use the new sources I found to fix Blackslough wood and redirect Aaron’s Hill, Somerset. I will cease to reference bad sources, write in too much detail and not check history when it comes to NPP.
Thank you, regards and have a nice day to whoever is reading this :) N1TH Music ( talk) 14:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline; only one unblock request at a time please. And by the way, I did read the above. It's a decent appeal, if a bit wordy. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is still approximately 700 words. In general, it should be possible to write a coherent and complete unblock request in approximately 100 words. I'm not at all convinced any volunteer has the time or energy to read your current request. -- Yamla ( talk) 16:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but I thought there's no way I could get my point across in 100 words, I wanted to ensure that the admin understood my point and would unblock me. But if the method to getting unblocked is writing a maximum of 200 words then so be it N1TH Music ( talk) 17:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Anachronist So it was a good appeal? I was told it was WP:Wall of Text. But since you did read it could it be possible for you to please be the one to review my current appeal. I wish to get my priviledges back Asap as I need to work on Blackslough Wood before it gets deleted.
I respect the decision made by the administrators and am aware that they hold ground to stand on when they decided to block me, I made several mistakes over and over again and showed few signs of improvement. My errors were, writing articles about obscure topics with unreliable soruces, WP:Citing Sources and WP:Notability. I expanded Santa Margherita Ligure too much with too much detail and I directly translated material from sources thinking it wasn't a copyright violation, WP:Copyright and WP:Too much detail. Recently to show improvement I started looking at Special:ShortPages and Special:NewPages to deal with bad pages but I made the issue of proding pages which needed redirecting and making my Prods without a substitute. But I've learnt my lesson now. If you look up on my talk page you could see that I've found actual reliable sources for an article which I made which was badly sourced. My redirect mistakes I saw myself but due to complications between edits I couldn't fix automatically. I just before getting blocked started a new page which I was writing properly.
If I do get unblocked my contributions will consist of me finishing the article I started writing when I was blocked, Fixing the issues with Loch Naver, Eitermillen and Blackslough Wood. Finishing my expansion of Berrylands and Contern. And eventually once more trying to expand Santa Margherita Ligure but properly, and also to hopefully join NewPagePatrol. Then after that, I will continue to write new articles but about notable topics.
Thank you, regards and have a nice day to whoever is reading this :) N1TH Music ( talk) 17:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music ( talk) 17:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- According to Microsoft Word, that's 262 words (and I double checked, the full colons in
Special:NewPages
for example do not cause each word to count as separate words, it's one "word" as far as the total count goes). Your first request was 1,068 words. Your 2nd was 702 words. When an admin declines your unblock request and gives you a goal of 100 words, it's not exactly encouraging when you ignore that goal because...? You're blocked over WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR concerns. If you want to display competence, you should start by being able to follow directions (the word count, and more broadly, reading the guide to requesting an unblock). If you want to show you're here to create an encyclopedia, you can start by figuring out how to convey your unblock request in theapproximately 100 words
Yamla suggested (which would demonstrate being able to be concise when necessary). I would withdraw/disable the pending requests and reconsider how you're going to request an unblock that can meet the ~100 word limit. — Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)- "This is still approximately 700 words. In general, it should be possible to write a coherent and complete unblock request in approximately 100 words." He said around 100 words. I can theoretically write as much as I would like but it's about how much the Admin is willing to read. It may still be quite long but I'm following the instructions written here ackowledge what I did wrong, how I'm going to improve it and how I plan to edit in the future. N1TH Music ( talk) 18:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
unblock|reason=I know why I've been blocked, I wrote many articles on obscure topics with bad references, had 1 incident with copyright and made mistakes while Proding articles. I however have reread WP:Notability, WP:Citing Sources, WP:Copryight Violations and more, I'm confident I've learnt from all my mistakes. If I do get unblocked my contributions will consist of me finishing the article I started writing when I was blocked, Fixing the issues with articles I've created. Finishing my expansion of Berrylands and Contern etc... and also hopefully join NewPagePatrol. Then after that, I will continue to write new articles but about notable topics. N1TH Music ( talk) 18:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music ( talk) 18:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC) @Yamla, I understand that you are a volunteer and are by no means obliged to reply to me quickly, however I was hoping you could possible please review my unblock request as soon as you can. I got it under 100 words and I need my privileges back Asap (if they are deserved) because I must use the new sources I found for Blackslough Wood to fix the article before it gets deleted. I'm on a time constraint and I hope you understand. N1TH Music ( talk) 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. Another admin will review your request. --
Yamla (
talk)
17:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Yamla ok thanks for the info, may I ask why is that, just curious.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have already reviewed one of your requests. Additionally, I'm only briefly stopping in before more vacationing in the mountains (hooray!). --
Yamla (
talk)
17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Yamla Ok thanks again for the information, I hope you have a good time. But I was hoping, may be asking for too much here and I'd be fine with a no but I was hoping maybe you could perhaps inform another admin about my situation so he/she could review it. Because I really don't want Blackslough Wood to go when I have everything I need to fix it right here on my talk page. N1TH Music ( talk) 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Yamla hi again, hope you had a good time in the mountains. Nobody has stopped by to review any my unblock request, only procedurally decline my other (too long) one which I forgot to remove. I understand that you are unable to review my most recent request but would it be possible for you to inform somebody else to please look at it. Please, I'm getting more and more worried I will be unable to fix Blackslough Wood before it's too late.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are already in the queue, there's nothing I can do here. --
Yamla (
talk)
17:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you not capable of talking directly too somebody or does that classify as double standards or something like that? I don't know it just appears that others are getting their reviews done quicker even though my overly long one got declined anyway. N1TH Music ( talk) 17:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are already in the queue, there's nothing I can do here. --
Yamla (
talk)
17:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have already reviewed one of your requests. Additionally, I'm only briefly stopping in before more vacationing in the mountains (hooray!). --
Yamla (
talk)
17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Yamla ok thanks for the info, may I ask why is that, just curious.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Anachronist Hi, Since you procedurally declined my other request, would it be possible for you to review my current one? Please, I understand your position as a volunteer but I really wish to fix Blackslough Wood and Aaron's hill before they get deleted. I have all the sources I need right here on my talk page. N1TH Music ( talk) 16:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, N1TH Music,
- I was the administrator who closed the AFDs that involve articles you worked on. The consensus was a clear "Delete" to me but if you get unblocked, we can consider restoring them to User or Draft space where you could continue to improve them as long as you submitted them to AFC later. If you moved them directly into main space yourself, they'd be quickly deleted as CSD G4 so that would be a bad move. But focus on your block and we can talk about your articles should you return to editing.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Liz By restoring, do you mean the article just mean recreating it or will the history be preserved also because that's the main reason I didn't want it deleted was beacuse I wanted to view the article history, I could've recreated the article any day. Anso since you closed the discussion, I assume you're an admin, could you review my request?
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Every time you bang on about wanting to be unblocked, the further back down the queue you'll be pushed. Be patient. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok I'll keep quiet, I'm sorry but most requests I've seen have been replied to within 1 day and it's been 8 so obviously I'd loose a bit of my patience but I digress, I apologise and will wait. N1TH Music ( talk) 06:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Every time you bang on about wanting to be unblocked, the further back down the queue you'll be pushed. Be patient. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Liz I've got another question regarding that because my plans regarding what I want to do with those 2 articles have changed and I still wish to know whether or not you can retrieve previous revisions or not. Also shouldn't my block request automatically get procedurally declined after 2 weeks, just asking?
N1TH Music (
talk)
09:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please direct us to the relevant paragraph in
Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
12:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Redrose64 don't see one, but I swear that happens all the time, no? My bad, I just was expecting a decline about now and was asking in case you guys forgot. Also I didn't see anything about 1 block request at a time (but in fairness I did only skim through it) but that happened to me. And am I allowed to edit my request while it's still up? N1TH Music ( talk) 13:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please direct us to the relevant paragraph in
Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
12:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Liz By restoring, do you mean the article just mean recreating it or will the history be preserved also because that's the main reason I didn't want it deleted was beacuse I wanted to view the article history, I could've recreated the article any day. Anso since you closed the discussion, I assume you're an admin, could you review my request?
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Something you could do if unblocked is to help create the missing parishes in England such as
Whittington, Northumberland, see
User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes but please remember that they still need good sources rather than just links to maps from other Wikipedia pages. Parishes unlike woods and other small places always meet the notability criteria but the articles still need to be created with acceptable content.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
16:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale Yes I remembered you telling me about that, that would be what I would try to work on after I've dealt with some of my drafts. I mean if you look at some of my articles about places like Abbas Combe, Abbey Gate, Devon, Aaron's Hill, Surrey, Loch Rimsdale or Brichermillen it shows that when I have a more notable topic to write about, I will do a better job and parishes are officially recognised, populated places. So I'd gladly do that once I'm unblocked. N1TH Music ( talk) 16:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Faerschthaff for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faerschthaff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Alexandermcnabb Well I would want to comment on this topic but I'm still blocked at the moment. Is it permitted for me to write something here and you state that I said that in the discussion or is that violating a policy? N1TH Music ( talk) 10:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know! A quick ping to AfD regular @
Atsme: to ask for help! Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
10:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Alexandermcnabb Also What about WP:Alternatives to deletion Redirect the article instead, the place clearly exists, there's just not enough to say about it. N1TH Music ( talk) 10:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Alexandermcnabb Oh and did you ping her or should I?
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict) Sorry, but it fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:Notability (geographic_features). Read the latter closely. This article is about a private farm that has no notability, historic or otherwise, as a geo feature, and no architectural significance, which is further substantiated by the absence of multiple RS that have published stories/material/news about it. Also, be careful about posting while you're blocked or you may lose the ability to post on your own UTP, which at this point in time is to be used for appealing the block, or other important posts.
Atsme
💬
📧
10:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme Ok I guess that settles it, is a redirect feasible however?
WP:Alternatives to deletion
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- To what article would it be redirected? It's at AfD, so let the community decide.
Atsme
💬
📧
10:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme Redirect to
Contern#Faerschthaff A small section in the article already talking about the place. Seems perfect for a redirect.
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The AfD will decide.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- So are you allowed to post my comment on the AFD concerning the redirect? That was what I believe
Alexandermcnabb was originally going to ask.
N1TH Music (
talk)
11:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I cannot be your proxy - you are blocked from editing. Take this time to read the policies I included here - study them, re-read them, learn them. I cannot overemphasize how much it will improve your work here if you study the relative
WP:PAGs.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate you trying to help me however I've already reread everything WP:Notability WP:Citing Sources WP:Verifiability etc.. I've learnt from all my mistakes, now if it came to Faerschthaff I wither wouldn't make it or I'd make the article more thorough to establish proper notability. I'm now only waiting for my unblock request to be reviewed because I already know what to do after I get unblocked, I've reread all the rules but Thank You anyway. N1TH Music ( talk) 11:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I cannot be your proxy - you are blocked from editing. Take this time to read the policies I included here - study them, re-read them, learn them. I cannot overemphasize how much it will improve your work here if you study the relative
WP:PAGs.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- So are you allowed to post my comment on the AFD concerning the redirect? That was what I believe
Alexandermcnabb was originally going to ask.
N1TH Music (
talk)
11:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The AfD will decide.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme Redirect to
Contern#Faerschthaff A small section in the article already talking about the place. Seems perfect for a redirect.
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- To what article would it be redirected? It's at AfD, so let the community decide.
Atsme
💬
📧
10:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme Ok I guess that settles it, is a redirect feasible however?
WP:Alternatives to deletion
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I pinged her. The place exists but WP looks for notability, not existence. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
10:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Alexandermcnabb Yes, I agree but if it exists but isn't notable then it should be redirected to something, in this case
Contern, which has an entire section which briefs about Faerschthaff, it's the perfect redirect. Also I searched, there are more sources which could be used, if they are added, and If I go to the local Contern Town Hall to ask for documents (which I could do right now) I could find some good documents. The place clearly exists, so it should be redirected as an interim measure before better sources are found. Do you not agree?
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd even wonder about the redirect. The AfD will run its course - note as per guidance from User:Atsme, this isn't the best use of your talk page while blocked, "which at this point in time is to be used for appealing the block, or other important posts". That might be frustrating, but I'd close this conversation for now... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Alexandermcnabb Yes, I agree but if it exists but isn't notable then it should be redirected to something, in this case
Contern, which has an entire section which briefs about Faerschthaff, it's the perfect redirect. Also I searched, there are more sources which could be used, if they are added, and If I go to the local Contern Town Hall to ask for documents (which I could do right now) I could find some good documents. The place clearly exists, so it should be redirected as an interim measure before better sources are found. Do you not agree?
N1TH Music (
talk)
10:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict) Sorry, but it fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:Notability (geographic_features). Read the latter closely. This article is about a private farm that has no notability, historic or otherwise, as a geo feature, and no architectural significance, which is further substantiated by the absence of multiple RS that have published stories/material/news about it. Also, be careful about posting while you're blocked or you may lose the ability to post on your own UTP, which at this point in time is to be used for appealing the block, or other important posts.
Atsme
💬
📧
10:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know! A quick ping to AfD regular @
Atsme: to ask for help! Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
10:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- One last thing I want to mention in hopes that it will help you in the future...WP articles are about persons/places/things that are notable and verifiably so. Read
WP:VERIFIABLE, and the guideline
WP:GNG while you have some time off from editing. A quick glance at your UTP tells me you're headed in the wrong direction, and if I can help you learn to be a better editor, I am willing to mentor you. When you're block expires, post on my UTP or ping me here if you're agreeable to being mentored after the block expires.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme sure, I’d be happy to be mentored. But I wish to know what you mean by « you’re heading in the wrong direction. Like, do you have an example of what the problem is?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to be frank with you, N1TH, so I'll start with the
Law of holes. Read the administrators' comments here on your talk page, and try to absorb the fact that you are now subject to an indefinite block. If you expect to get out from under it, you need to be patient, and turn the lemons you've been served into lemonade. Give your UTP a rest for a week, spend some time reading the questions of others at
WP:The Teahouse, and utilize this time off to familiarize yourself with the WP Community,
WP:GNG,
WP:SNG,
WP:V,
WP:NOR. As for behavior, consider making a 180º turn and slow down your approach. Do more reading than responding and suggesting, and remember that brevity is your friend, not
wp:tl;dr. Learn our core content policies:
WP:V,
WP:NPOV, and
WP:NOR. WP encourages new editors to create articles, but avoid pushing your
WP:POV like an elephant in a china closet.
Atsme
💬
📧
15:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Atsme I've given it a few days which I have spent off Wikipedia and I've reread WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. In fact this is the second time I've read through them all of the guidelines and I'm certain I've learnt everything important and I know what to do once I get unblocked, I'm only waiting for my unblock request to be reviewed and I'm hoping that happens soon enough for me to enter the discussion on Faerschthaff before it closes because nobody has even considered a redirect and I've already waited over 3 weeks. Also out of curiosity, I'm wondering as to how reviewing block requests works? N1TH Music ( talk) 06:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- See
Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests - actually, you should read the whole page.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Atsme Alright, I've reread the entire page and the section.
- Regarding Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests:
- So the first paragraph is quite unambiguous. But as for the second I was wondering if you have any Idea if anybody has already contacted or spoken to
User:RickinBaltimore? As for the 3rd section, unless I am mistaked, I made repeated mistakes, that was why I was blocked, I wasn't harrasing anyone and I certainly wasn't involved in any sockpuppetry. And
Template:2nd chance seems quite obvious to me and as a possibility. So overall do you have any idea how far along we are in resolving my block? And if we haven't stated, are you capable of unblocking me, or are you not a blocking administrator? Because, you said you could mentor me after I get unblocked, so it seems reasonable for you to talk to
User:RickinBaltimore and oversee my unblocking. 17:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just your friendly, neighborhood editor who mentors once in a while, and teaches at
WP:NPPSCHOOL. 30 days has not passed since you were first blocked, and that's too soon after the block appeals you've already made. What I'd like for you to do this coming week is practice brevity. Start by reading
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and
WP:DROPTHESTICK. Combine both into a single essay of 500 words or less. When you're happy with your summary, send it to me via the WP email option (when activated it shows-up in left side margin of one's user page). I see that your email option is not turned-on, so go to your TP preferences, and scroll down to email option to activate it, unless there's a specific reason to not do so. You can also start practicing brevity by composing an unblock request with 250 words or less that demonstrates how well you understand what caused your block, and that you won't do it again. Don't post it here; rather, send me the draft via WP email. Meanwhile, enjoy the weekend. WP is not going anywhere – we have no deadlines.
Atsme
💬
📧
18:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Atsme I can't send emails I believe, it tells me I have no send address. Also where'd this 30 days come from? I've never heard that before, it's not in the blocking policy. And I was told to keep my unblock request under 100 words, not 250, but since you've requested I've already written an unblock request that I believe follows your criteria right here on User talk:N1TH Music#Blockage (New) Right at the top, tell me what you think. Finally regarding Faerschthaff if I won't be unblocked within until at least the 29th of July (when I was first unblocked) then it will be impossible for me to contribute to the discussion and the article will be deleted. I understand it's not possible for you to essentially be my Proxy but is it possible for you to just simply mention something on the lines of "Comment A redirect to Contern#Faerschthaff could also work as per WP:Alternatives to deletion"? N1TH Music ( talk) 18:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Atsme Also I see you are apart of WP:NPPSCHOOL which is great because I once unblocked wish to join new page patrol so I hope it'd be possible for you to help me. N1TH Music ( talk) 18:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just your friendly, neighborhood editor who mentors once in a while, and teaches at
WP:NPPSCHOOL. 30 days has not passed since you were first blocked, and that's too soon after the block appeals you've already made. What I'd like for you to do this coming week is practice brevity. Start by reading
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and
WP:DROPTHESTICK. Combine both into a single essay of 500 words or less. When you're happy with your summary, send it to me via the WP email option (when activated it shows-up in left side margin of one's user page). I see that your email option is not turned-on, so go to your TP preferences, and scroll down to email option to activate it, unless there's a specific reason to not do so. You can also start practicing brevity by composing an unblock request with 250 words or less that demonstrates how well you understand what caused your block, and that you won't do it again. Don't post it here; rather, send me the draft via WP email. Meanwhile, enjoy the weekend. WP is not going anywhere – we have no deadlines.
Atsme
💬
📧
18:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to be frank with you, N1TH, so I'll start with the
Law of holes. Read the administrators' comments here on your talk page, and try to absorb the fact that you are now subject to an indefinite block. If you expect to get out from under it, you need to be patient, and turn the lemons you've been served into lemonade. Give your UTP a rest for a week, spend some time reading the questions of others at
WP:The Teahouse, and utilize this time off to familiarize yourself with the WP Community,
WP:GNG,
WP:SNG,
WP:V,
WP:NOR. As for behavior, consider making a 180º turn and slow down your approach. Do more reading than responding and suggesting, and remember that brevity is your friend, not
wp:tl;dr. Learn our core content policies:
WP:V,
WP:NPOV, and
WP:NOR. WP encourages new editors to create articles, but avoid pushing your
WP:POV like an elephant in a china closet.
Atsme
💬
📧
15:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme sure, I’d be happy to be mentored. But I wish to know what you mean by « you’re heading in the wrong direction. Like, do you have an example of what the problem is?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme I have sent in my essay, I believe I understand why some of my editing has been disruptive do you have any idea how the process of reviewing my unblock request is going? It's been over 30 days now.
N1TH Music (
talk)
15:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- At Email options you need to fill in, at the very minimum, Email (optional). Save it and check your mailbox for emails from Wikipedia or Wikimedia, do anything that it requests. Return to Email options, reload the page and make sure that it shows "Your email address was confirmed on ...". Ideally you should also enable " Allow other users to email me".
- You should stay well away from new page patrol until you are accepted back by the community. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Redrose64 Thank you however turns out I didn't have an email, that was the problem and it works now. And concerning NPP, I'm not a complete beginner, I learnt quite a few things in the past and I'm sure I can do a much better job correcting errors, adding tags and Proding articles than I would creating new ones, and it also gives me an easy opportunity to start slow as edits are small and can be infrequent. N1TH Music ( talk) 07:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme I have sent in my essay, I believe I understand why some of my editing has been disruptive do you have any idea how the process of reviewing my unblock request is going? It's been over 30 days now.
N1TH Music (
talk)
15:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
-
Redrose64, thank you for your input and helping this new editor get setup with his email. I realize he cannot take the course while he's blocked, and that his behavior will determine whether or not he stays that way. If it's any consolation to your concerns, I do realize that if N1TH gets his block removed, he must first demonstrate that he can be a productive editor in our community before he can enroll in NPPSCHOOL. Please rest assured that my NPP tutorial is extensive and rather rigorous. I'm also a pretty tough evaluator, and not overly generous with passing grades so if N1TH does decide to enroll after he has cleared all of his self-made hurdles, it will only serve to make him a wiser and more productive editor, regardless of whether or not he passes my course at NPPSCHOOL. I hope that brings you some peace of mind.
Atsme
💬
📧
17:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme What do you mean my behaviour will determine whether I get unblocked or not, I can't exactly behave or not behave when I'm blocked because I only can write in my talk page, no? I though it was about whether the blocking administrator was willing after reading my request, to give me a second chance. Also can NPPPSCHOOL be taken multiple times in until one passes. Because it seems like a great way to prove I've gained competence and will help me get accepted back into the community if I pass it.
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- What do I mean? You just demonstrated what I meant. Your comment to me could be construed as combative or argumentative, and was not helpful to your case. A better approach would have been for you to have said nothing, or simply added that it is your intention to be a productive editor, and that your behavior here or anywhere else will not be an issue in the future.
Atsme
💬
📧
12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Atsme Alright, I assume that makes sense, I just thought I wasn't really being monitored here. But very well, I can certainly assure everyone that I will edit productively in the future and there will be no behavioural concerns. N1TH Music ( talk) 05:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- What do I mean? You just demonstrated what I meant. Your comment to me could be construed as combative or argumentative, and was not helpful to your case. A better approach would have been for you to have said nothing, or simply added that it is your intention to be a productive editor, and that your behavior here or anywhere else will not be an issue in the future.
Atsme
💬
📧
12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme What do you mean my behaviour will determine whether I get unblocked or not, I can't exactly behave or not behave when I'm blocked because I only can write in my talk page, no? I though it was about whether the blocking administrator was willing after reading my request, to give me a second chance. Also can NPPPSCHOOL be taken multiple times in until one passes. Because it seems like a great way to prove I've gained competence and will help me get accepted back into the community if I pass it.
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Leslie Railway
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Leslie Railway".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. ✗ plicit 02:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It has been at least 6 weeks since my block was initiated, and I have taken this time off to learn more about the WP community and what I did wrong. I respect the decision made by the administrators and am aware that they hold ground to stand on when they decided to block me. I made several mistakes that included writing non-notable articles about obscure topics cited to unreliable sources, providing too much detail, and translating material from sources thinking it wasn't a copyright violation. I know my behaviour was wrong, and promise not to repeat it. User:Atsme has agreed to mentor me, and I look forward to learning more about WP:PAGs.
If I do get unblocked my contributions will consist of me cleaning up some of the mess I previously left behind at first. I'll make some edits to Contern to fix some of my errors, and also I will try to find better sources for expanding Loch Naver. I would like to expand some articles, create new ones, find notable topics to write about by performing more in depth research. As for some of my older articles I will bring them up to standard.
N1TH Music ( talk) 14:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Good luck to both of you. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I did agree to mentor N1TH, and I believe that he is sincere in his promise to do better. I'm of the mind that with proper guidance through the early stages of learning community norms, which can be overwhelming at times for new editors, he will adapt and become a productive editor. Atsme 💬 📧 21:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)- My primary reason for striking through my mentorship agreement is, unfortunately,
WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT as evidenced
in this diff re: their stated point, and
this diff in response to another NPP reviewer who did their best to explain. One cannot learn when thinking they know better. As of today, I withdraw as their mentor.
Atsme
💬
📧
12:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme, I'm a little confused by why exactly it isn't notable. I get the point but I was just a little confused and stating my previous thoughts, I am ignoring advice, I haven't tried to retrieve the article, I want to improve and I'm sorry if it appears I'm not listening, I just get curious when I hear something new and tend to ask questions. I haven't ignored what any of you both stated. I just wanted more insight to help me understand. I'm sorry if it doesn't come across that way but I do want to learn and improve and I would've hoped you could have helped me here. Because, you asked me why I believed Faerschthaff is notable and User:Ovinus did correct something I stated. I did not retort I just thought I had 1 other thing which might be the edidence which was actually of value like what I thought the other pieces were. I refrained from requesting Faerschthaff after you told me it wasn't notable. Since then I just wanted to find out a few details and was asking questions so I don't make these mistakes again in the future. I really do wish to peruse you mentoring me further as it has really helped me and if you want me to listen more and respond less then I can instantly do that, if it's necessary. I'm hoping you can reconsidor because while I was respondingto User:Ovinus, I didn't do any editing, I waited for us to reach a consensus and was just asking about different sources.
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- 👆🏻👇🏻 It is in the hands of the administrators now.
Atsme
💬
📧
13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'll be blunt: you need to give up on Faerschthaff. It's not notable. 99.99% of farms aren't notable. Sorry. Do something wholly uncontroversial; copy edit some articles, perhaps. Choose one from
Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit.
Here's one I picked at random which needs some love. Don't create articles, don't comment on others' unblock requests.
Ovinus (
talk)
16:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've realised I need to give up Faerschthaff. And I like how you're trying to help me but are you I shouldn't create, wouldn't it be ok if I just stuck to notable topics, look at Wester Pipe Railway, that was the one time I was told by someone that the article should be created, so I plenty of source material and one user during my CIR discussion said I did a good job on it. Also what are copy edits? I keep hearing about them but what does it mean? N1TH Music ( talk) 16:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Copy editing is taking an article which is written poorly--typos, grammar issues, etc--and bringing it up to standard. If I were you, I would avoid adding content at all for a couple weeks. Instead, enjoy cleaning up existing content, which is just as valuable, and may lend you credence as a net positive, rather than a reputation as being intransigent on whether Wikipedia's content guideines apply to them. Ovinus ( talk) 17:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'll be blunt: you need to give up on Faerschthaff. It's not notable. 99.99% of farms aren't notable. Sorry. Do something wholly uncontroversial; copy edit some articles, perhaps. Choose one from
Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit.
Here's one I picked at random which needs some love. Don't create articles, don't comment on others' unblock requests.
Ovinus (
talk)
16:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- 👆🏻👇🏻 It is in the hands of the administrators now.
Atsme
💬
📧
13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Atsme, I'm a little confused by why exactly it isn't notable. I get the point but I was just a little confused and stating my previous thoughts, I am ignoring advice, I haven't tried to retrieve the article, I want to improve and I'm sorry if it appears I'm not listening, I just get curious when I hear something new and tend to ask questions. I haven't ignored what any of you both stated. I just wanted more insight to help me understand. I'm sorry if it doesn't come across that way but I do want to learn and improve and I would've hoped you could have helped me here. Because, you asked me why I believed Faerschthaff is notable and User:Ovinus did correct something I stated. I did not retort I just thought I had 1 other thing which might be the edidence which was actually of value like what I thought the other pieces were. I refrained from requesting Faerschthaff after you told me it wasn't notable. Since then I just wanted to find out a few details and was asking questions so I don't make these mistakes again in the future. I really do wish to peruse you mentoring me further as it has really helped me and if you want me to listen more and respond less then I can instantly do that, if it's necessary. I'm hoping you can reconsidor because while I was respondingto User:Ovinus, I didn't do any editing, I waited for us to reach a consensus and was just asking about different sources.
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Bricherhaff for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bricherhaff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
CMD ( talk) 13:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your comments, so I add some sources about Kévin Borlée on his talk page. Thanks for your comments. Arorae ( talk) 05:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Primefac (
talk)
13:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)- @
PrimefacWhat? Losing Mentorship makes you get blocked?
N1TH Music (
talk)
15:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Look, after my (and others') advice you kept being combative on the AfD discussion. You should have just stopped saying anything, and done something peaceful. Not sure why you didnt listen.
Ovinus (
talk)
17:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody mentioned the Afd, I was told about Faerschthaff but Bricherhaff appears on
List of populated places in Luxembourg Plus I advocated for a redirect as I had accepted that it wasn't notable. Plus it says I was blocked for losing mentorship which had already happened. I didn'think I'd get blocked for it unless I did something else badly wrong.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I resign.
Ovinus (
talk)
18:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean you resign, from what? N1TH Music ( talk) 18:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I resign.
Ovinus (
talk)
18:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody mentioned the Afd, I was told about Faerschthaff but Bricherhaff appears on
List of populated places in Luxembourg Plus I advocated for a redirect as I had accepted that it wasn't notable. Plus it says I was blocked for losing mentorship which had already happened. I didn'think I'd get blocked for it unless I did something else badly wrong.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, your mentor quitting because you continued to make the same sort of edits that got you blocked in the first place (i.e. the "backsliding" part of the block notice) is what got you blocked this time around.
Primefac (
talk)
18:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Primefac I don't think it was the same edits, we'd never reviewed WP:N or WP:GNG, I thought I was just having a discussion at the time and before I knew it she's quit. I also never did the disrptive action just tried to make a point so it seem weird to block me before I've even done anything especially since on this very talk page I admitted my error and took advice from one of the people who was trying to tell me why I was wrong. I'd started taking his advice and started properly contributing. After reading the recent messages here, do you still think I would have disruptively edited to the point of a block being necessary to protect the site?
N1TH Music (
talk)
18:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- You literally restored previous edits. How much more samey can it get?
CMD (
talk)
18:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Chipmunkdavis
- For both cases the idea was to at first restore the information and then add tags to signify the problems. Then from there I wanted to edit them, replace the unreliable sources with better ones and improve my old work. But I was rendered unable to do that for a few reasons, I do not think that those edits should remain long term and now that I'm blocked and who knows how long it will be for the improvements to happen, reverting is definitely the correct option. I just wanted a place to start when editing those 2 articles but since I never did start for real, no I don't think we should leave it, absolutely not, that's one thing I learnt while blocked the first time. Do you understand where I'm coming from?
N1TH Music (
talk)
18:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not really. You say "at first", but you did nothing with them. Why restore them if you weren't working on it? And why restore it at all? It's in the article history, and if you do need a live version, you have a sandbox.
CMD (
talk)
18:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Chipmunkdavis Ok to answer all your questions
- -The Sandbox I didn't think of, I've also been a little confused as to how that works
- -As for editing an older revision, I've had difficulties where it tells me my changes cannot be saved due to conflicting intermediate edits and I didn't want to worry about. Also I wanted to update everything in stages so if a mistake is made we can revert back to that. Naturally the first stage for me at least is the pre-existing mediocre revision with the same information and worse sources
- - Finally, why haven't I edited it yet, well because over the last few days I have been unable to edits with my computer and all my other devices have some trouble loading sources and opening other tabs, so I can still write messages but I can't edit anything beyond a copy edit. Even if I wasn't blocked I couldn't do any large edits for the next 2-3 days. Why'd you think I never posted the sources I'd found on WP:Articles for deletion/Bricherhaff.
- I hope that clears everything up for you. N1TH Music ( talk) 19:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not really. You say "at first", but you did nothing with them. Why restore them if you weren't working on it? And why restore it at all? It's in the article history, and if you do need a live version, you have a sandbox.
CMD (
talk)
18:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- You literally restored previous edits. How much more samey can it get?
CMD (
talk)
18:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Primefac I don't think it was the same edits, we'd never reviewed WP:N or WP:GNG, I thought I was just having a discussion at the time and before I knew it she's quit. I also never did the disrptive action just tried to make a point so it seem weird to block me before I've even done anything especially since on this very talk page I admitted my error and took advice from one of the people who was trying to tell me why I was wrong. I'd started taking his advice and started properly contributing. After reading the recent messages here, do you still think I would have disruptively edited to the point of a block being necessary to protect the site?
N1TH Music (
talk)
18:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Look, after my (and others') advice you kept being combative on the AfD discussion. You should have just stopped saying anything, and done something peaceful. Not sure why you didnt listen.
Ovinus (
talk)
17:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I had a mentorship which assisted me greatly in getting unblocked. I worked hard to learn as many policies as possible however unfortunately I didn't grasp a few things despite efforts to help me which resulted in my mentor withdrawing the mentorship. Since the wathdrawl and in fact prior the the second blockage I reviewed the policies which I had got wrong and I understand why I was blocked. I still hadn't grasped entirely WP:N and WP:GNG. I was still locked in with the belief that any inhabited place was notable which in me spiralling down towards WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. I have since, with a little assistance and advice from User:Ovinus, learnt from my errors and I'm sorry. If I get unblocked I will once more take the advice I have gotten from 2 other editors and I will start by doing small edits, correcting spelling and grammar and doing Copy Edits. From there I will have filled the gaps in my knowledge and from the last 2 years and the I can edit freely and correctly. N1TH Music ( talk) 15:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Based on the discussion below, I am declining this unblock request. Sorry, it's WP:TOOSOON and you are still showing significant problems. Practically speaking, I'd like to see you edit another project for at least six months and provide at least 500 constructive contributions with zero problems, prior to considering an unblock here. Sorry, I know this isn't the news you wanted to hear, but this has already taken up much, much too much of everyone's time and I think it is cruel to keep this unblock request open. Yamla ( talk) 15:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Might I suggest withdrawing this request and taking some time off? Your unblock request is more likely to be well received if you give it time (like 6+ months) rather than back to back unblock requests that don't demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia. This is just some friendly advice, you can take it or leave it but I, and others have been around long enough to know how these usually play out and it's usually not in the favor of the editor requesting an unblock.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
16:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
PRAXIDICAE🌈 I already took 6 weeks off and spent that time reading the guidelines. I made 2 mistakes and I had a user explain why I shouldn't continue and I didn't. Serious question, how will I benefit from waiting, genuinely I'm interested because at this point I don't think there's any guidelines I haven't read. I'm probably going to remove the request but I still wish to know. Thanks for the advice though
N1TH Music (
talk)
16:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- How about an unblock to see if N1TH Music can contribute successfully to the parishes project or some similar project? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
PRAXIDICAE🌈 I already took 6 weeks off and spent that time reading the guidelines. I made 2 mistakes and I had a user explain why I shouldn't continue and I didn't. Serious question, how will I benefit from waiting, genuinely I'm interested because at this point I don't think there's any guidelines I haven't read. I'm probably going to remove the request but I still wish to know. Thanks for the advice though
N1TH Music (
talk)
16:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed to see you blocked again, I was going to leave you a message yesterday but I didn't get round to it. The
parishes project would be a good place to start rather than things like woods and small places.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
16:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale I'm sorry but I guess I didn't manage to learn some things. 16:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC) N1TH Music ( talk) 16:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Crouch, Swale Also the reason I wanted to start with smaller places is because I made those articles long ago and I myself know they aren't even close to good enough, Like in the AFD for Bricherhaff people say it's non-notable but in reality I just couldn't find the adequate sourcing to prove it was legally recognised. Yesterday I couldn't prove it because I had computer troubles, before I just thought that article was adequate. Now I have the evidence I need but it's too late. I wanted to fix my past mistakes before moving onto new projects but that directly resulted in me being reblocked. And I partially blame that on the fact that I couldn't showcase my sources when it mattered. The AFD might have gone differently had I been able to use the evidence I had gathered to back my claims but I didn't.
N1TH Music (
talk)
17:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've just had a look and I can't find any evidence of it being legally recognized.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
19:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Crouch, Swale I can show you what I found and from there you can inform me whether it is sufficient proof or not, that would certainly help me to actually know the answer.
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- What source do you have? I can mention it at the AFD if you provide it.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
08:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale Yes off course, I actually have multiple sources to prove the legal recognition of the place to create grounds for a redirect but as for Notability I'd have to keep looking.
- Basically first one needs to understand what Bricherhaff is however, it is a Lieu-dit (the luxembougish Lieu-dit is slightly different from the French one) hence why it appears on List of populated places in Luxembourg Also they are signposted on streets in white signs with only one language written, examples of this are this, this or this. These are signs for entering small Lieu-dits, now bricherhaff doesn't have a sign for entering the settlement but it has some similar signage such as this, a photograph I took myself. I understand that this isn't much evidence though so I went to find some actual sources as opposed to what is mostly common sense.
- First of all there is this map on Conter.lu, the official commune of contern website although it doesn't annotate Bricherhaff or Brichermillen for that matter it isn't about that it was more designed for the forests and woods and one of them is called the Bruecherbesch which I beleive is Luxembourgish and therefore Bricherhaff has a forest named after it which is some small claim to notability is it not?
- Next I found a few books which are generally considered reliable sources:
- The first one I found didn't have too much information just stating it's location and after searching there were no other mentions.
- The next one I found unfortunately just had a map on one page however I think a map which appears in a published book is better than just a map right?
- This next one however seems to be more reliable, it is a directory of settlements in Luxembourg containing bricherhaff.
- This one is a book about geography which appears to have some sort of actual information regarding Bricherhaff.
- Unfortunately other books appeared to be talking about a different Lieu did by the same name in Neudorf in Luxembourg. However I have 2 official Luxembourgish websites, directly run by the government which surely proves legal recognition.
- First off there's Geoportail.lu, people say it's just a map however I wished to create a discussion regarding the reliability of this source prior to my second block. If you look in the top Corner there's a seal from the official Luxembougish Government or if you go on the main page, it's obvious this is a reliable source.
- Then Lod.lu, again a government run website, I know it's a dictionary and translator however this is proof of Legal recognition and if the Luxembougish government adds towns a villages as definitions to their online dictionary, so be it. Also I checked by searching Heederhaff into Lod.lu. Heederhaff is just a farm which isn't legally recognised and what do you know, nothing came up. I think that's evidence Bricherhaff isn't just a farm.
- I haven't properly checked google for regular sources, here I was just trying to prove legal recognition of the place, but if you look on Google search or even Google news there appears to be at least a little. Surely this is enough grounds for a redirect, do you agree? If not, why, I need to know because I don't understand and I must learn. 09:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
N1TH Music (
talk)
09:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- From what I can see (I can't read all the Books sources but I got similar when I searched Books yesterday) is that they seem little more than mentions and don't appear to demonstrate its legally recognized but I agree given it appears on a road sign it probably merits a mention and a redirect.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
09:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale I do agree that it is just passing mentions, so it doesn't establish notability, but I think it does establish legal recognition which like you said merits a redirect. As for notability for a potential article, I'd have to search through communal and national documents and also on all the sources I can find on regular google to maybe dig up enough information for an article. But a section added to Brichermillen seems more reasonable, especially since both areas are literally owned by the same person. N1TH Music ( talk) 09:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Why would something appearing on a road sign merit a redirect? My local household waste recycling centre or tennis complex also appear on road signs, and are not notable. In rural areas in Germany, individual farms often appear on road signs indicating their access roads. That doesn't make them any more notable than other houses or businesses. —
Kusma (
talk)
10:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma The road signs are one of the 3 points I brought up to prove Legal Recognition. And legal recognition is important because
WP:GEOLAND that "Populated, leaglly reconised places are generally presumed to be notable, even if their population is low." And that's to merit an article, not a redirect. Bricherhaff is similar to
Waldhof as in it's a
Lieu-dit. Luxembourg has an official categorisation system with places, Yellowsignage is used for towns and villages, white for Lieu-dits so when this white signage is used, it is one of a few things which proves legal recognition. Bricherhaff passes GEOLAND bust fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage from reliable sources, therefore the best course of action is a redirect.
N1TH Music (
talk)
11:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- As long as there is nothing that can be
verifiably said about the place, there is nothing that can be mentioned in the target article, and then any redirect is likely going to be deleted. We don't seem to know anything about the place other than that it exists (and on satellite pictures it looks like a farm with a handful of buildings). Your "book about geography" above seems to only include the snippet "Centre de l'échangeur autoroutier Bricherhaff" in a map caption (and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as there doesn't seem to be a motorway interchange nearby). Your "first one I found" source is the only one that looks like there is any hope to say anything about the place (it says something about previous owners and has lots of references that may contain some usable history), but you'll likely need to spend a few days in a really good library (and get some interlibrary loans) to get anywhere with this. A lot of effort for a farm. —
Kusma (
talk)
11:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Kusma so there is stuff that can be said, Contern already has a section written about Bricherhaff, although short and poorly short poorly sourced. Brichermillen on the other hand is directly adjacent to Bricherhaff, and owned by the same person if it was redirected to there a small section could be made just briefly mentioning the basic information outlined here or on a couple other online sources which have some of the basics written down. Also right now there isn't much information but in the future much of the stuff in books may be digitised and there may be more to say, so a redirect seems like a good temporary measure. And User:Anachronist stated: "Redirect tp Brichermillen as suggested above. If it's regionally well-known, even with no sources, a redirect isn't the same as an article, so notability criteria don't apply. Also, redirects are harmless. If there are no hits on the redirect after a year, we can delete it easily." In a year hopefully I'll be unblocked and I could fix all this. N1TH Music ( talk) 11:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- As long as there is nothing that can be
verifiably said about the place, there is nothing that can be mentioned in the target article, and then any redirect is likely going to be deleted. We don't seem to know anything about the place other than that it exists (and on satellite pictures it looks like a farm with a handful of buildings). Your "book about geography" above seems to only include the snippet "Centre de l'échangeur autoroutier Bricherhaff" in a map caption (and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as there doesn't seem to be a motorway interchange nearby). Your "first one I found" source is the only one that looks like there is any hope to say anything about the place (it says something about previous owners and has lots of references that may contain some usable history), but you'll likely need to spend a few days in a really good library (and get some interlibrary loans) to get anywhere with this. A lot of effort for a farm. —
Kusma (
talk)
11:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma The road signs are one of the 3 points I brought up to prove Legal Recognition. And legal recognition is important because
WP:GEOLAND that "Populated, leaglly reconised places are generally presumed to be notable, even if their population is low." And that's to merit an article, not a redirect. Bricherhaff is similar to
Waldhof as in it's a
Lieu-dit. Luxembourg has an official categorisation system with places, Yellowsignage is used for towns and villages, white for Lieu-dits so when this white signage is used, it is one of a few things which proves legal recognition. Bricherhaff passes GEOLAND bust fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage from reliable sources, therefore the best course of action is a redirect.
N1TH Music (
talk)
11:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- From what I can see (I can't read all the Books sources but I got similar when I searched Books yesterday) is that they seem little more than mentions and don't appear to demonstrate its legally recognized but I agree given it appears on a road sign it probably merits a mention and a redirect.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
09:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- What source do you have? I can mention it at the AFD if you provide it.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
08:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Crouch, Swale I can show you what I found and from there you can inform me whether it is sufficient proof or not, that would certainly help me to actually know the answer.
N1TH Music (
talk)
07:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- If you really still think the issue was a lack of "sourcing to prove it was legally recognised", then I can assure you that the AfD would not go differently. What resulted in you being reblocked was an inability to learn, and this assertion is not helping with that.
CMD (
talk)
22:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Chipmunkdavis I know people say I can't learn and that's partly because I have claimed that the place is legally recognised, though at the time I had no evidence. That could be WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT but the fact is if I present every source I've found and then you tell me it's not enough, then I can believe it, less so if you tell me "it's just a farm" I know it's a farm, I've been there. The reason I thought the topic was interesting and therefore notable is because this tiny privately owned farm is notable. Anyway you say my inability to learn is the problem but if I don't even get a chance to show where I'm coming from or explain why I believe what I do then I can remain confident that if I did show it, people would agree with me. In fact I've compiled everything now, you were in the AFD if you want proof I can show you proof. And if I'm right it's not so much inability to learn is it? If I'm wrong then I'll stop complaining but nobody has seen my found sources. N1TH Music ( talk) 07:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Chipmunkdavis I see you've redirected my edits to Contern, While agree it was the correct decision because nobody was going to be able to fix that any time soon, at one point I corrected a spelling error. In the section "Reulend", it's actually called Roulend, it's spelt wrong every single time, I'm just saying you'd probably want to fix that.
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I have made great strides towards fixing the article up. You are correct that there is a lot of
WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT evident here. It is unlikely you will be unblocked if you continue to not hear arguments, as you seem keen to with your still continuing campaign to find google snippets about a small farm.
CMD (
talk)
13:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Chipmunkdavis Look what User:Kusma found, he was reviewing one of the books I found which mentioned Bricherhaff and he discovered a rabit hole, he stated "Your "first one I found" source is the only one that looks like there is any hope to say anything about the place (it says something about previous owners and has lots of references that may contain some usable history), but you'll likely need to spend a few days in a really good library (and get some interlibrary loans) to get anywhere with this. A lot of effort for a farm." One part is wrong however, in Luxembourg all libraries are one and with one single card you can access every library in the country, from the National Library, to the cities' Municipal library to small local libraries to even school libraries. Also everything is unified in A-Z.lu I could search for documents to prove my point there. Also there are many paths I haven't taken yet in my search for sources, Bricherhaff is spelt in 3 different ways, I've only searched 1. There are 4 or 5 pages on the regular google search with links about Bricherhaff, I've only search the first one. I haven't gone to my local townhall to ask if they have any documents. And I haven't been to a library, searched A-Z.lu or even touched the news section of google. Also there are many named fields and forests around bricherhaff, some Pdf files cannot be found in google searches, I'd have to go to Contern.lu and do some searching etc...
- Anyway, an admin has just stated, having seen one fraction of what is available online, that it is possible to establish notability for this topic, just he thinks it's not worth the effort. But I'm free to research what I want. With that being said, is it too much to ask for the article to be redirected so that when the time comes I can immediately start working on it as opposed to requesting undeletion?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- If your takeaway from what I said is that I believe the farm to be notable, you need to work on your critical reading skills. —
Kusma (
talk)
13:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma I said you said Notability could be established, you said that source is the only one which has hope in establishing notability, is that wrong, am I misinterpreting it, if so what did you mean in more detail?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I said there is hope to find out something about the place. I do not know whether it is possible to establish notability (it seems unlikely). It is quite possible that all that comes out of the research direction I suggested is "Bricherhaff is a farm. It exists at least since 16xx, when it belonged to so-and-so Abbey that was subordinate to the Archbishop of Trier", which would not establish notability, but at least verify some nontrivial information, unlike the maps, broken links and unreliable sources currently in the article. Researching places like this is hard, especially online. —
Kusma (
talk)
14:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma Exactly, so there's a chance for notability (and that's from 1 or 2 book sources) Geoportail.lu has some good trustworthy information aswell but besides that I do not know because I haven't checked. On the other hand I don't live far from Contern's Gememg or town hall, I could ask if they have documents. So surely there's potential for notability but more important it could otherwise be redirected to Brichermillen or Contern. Surely if there's not quite enough to warrant an article, there is enough to warrant a subsection to Brichermillen, a settlement which is literally owned by the same person as Bricherhaff. Do you agree?
N1TH Music (
talk)
15:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't think that any farm needs to be mentioned, and I don't quite see why the owner is relevant here. But the amount of discussion we had about this is getting ridiculous. —
Kusma (
talk)
15:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Kusma Well it doesn't need to be mentioned but neither do a lot of things, Bricherhaff has been avaeraging around 1 pageview a day, there are many articles with get 8-10 a month but they exist. And as User:Anachronist said "A redirect is harmless" I don't see what the problem with redirecting is? N1TH Music ( talk) 15:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Kusma Also the reason I'm continuing the discussion is because I want to find out exaclty why a redirect couldn't work. User:Anachronist said it's fine, so did User:Crouch, Swale and everybody else' claim is before I even started looking for sources. I want to understand why it may not be suitable so I don't make that error in the future. N1TH Music ( talk) 15:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't think that any farm needs to be mentioned, and I don't quite see why the owner is relevant here. But the amount of discussion we had about this is getting ridiculous. —
Kusma (
talk)
15:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma Exactly, so there's a chance for notability (and that's from 1 or 2 book sources) Geoportail.lu has some good trustworthy information aswell but besides that I do not know because I haven't checked. On the other hand I don't live far from Contern's Gememg or town hall, I could ask if they have documents. So surely there's potential for notability but more important it could otherwise be redirected to Brichermillen or Contern. Surely if there's not quite enough to warrant an article, there is enough to warrant a subsection to Brichermillen, a settlement which is literally owned by the same person as Bricherhaff. Do you agree?
N1TH Music (
talk)
15:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I said there is hope to find out something about the place. I do not know whether it is possible to establish notability (it seems unlikely). It is quite possible that all that comes out of the research direction I suggested is "Bricherhaff is a farm. It exists at least since 16xx, when it belonged to so-and-so Abbey that was subordinate to the Archbishop of Trier", which would not establish notability, but at least verify some nontrivial information, unlike the maps, broken links and unreliable sources currently in the article. Researching places like this is hard, especially online. —
Kusma (
talk)
14:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kusma I said you said Notability could be established, you said that source is the only one which has hope in establishing notability, is that wrong, am I misinterpreting it, if so what did you mean in more detail?
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- If your takeaway from what I said is that I believe the farm to be notable, you need to work on your critical reading skills. —
Kusma (
talk)
13:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I have made great strides towards fixing the article up. You are correct that there is a lot of
WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT evident here. It is unlikely you will be unblocked if you continue to not hear arguments, as you seem keen to with your still continuing campaign to find google snippets about a small farm.
CMD (
talk)
13:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've just had a look and I can't find any evidence of it being legally recognized.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
19:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Yamla I understand your judgement and asking me to take a break and work on another project but do you not think 6 months is a little long for somebody who already learnt from most (but unfortunately not all) of his mistake and who already has done over 500 edits on the simple wiki (granted with 2 slips ups, one of which was not recognising the difference between this wiki and the simple wiki)? Is the 6 months like a rough estimate but if I show thousands of flawless edits on another project within 2 months I can get reviewed then or will every request I make before February 2023 automatically be declined?
- Frankly, I don't think you'll be ready in six months. You are welcome to request an unblock in two months if you think that'll be convincing. 6 months is a rough estimate. --
Yamla (
talk)
20:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- And with that, I think the usefulness of this conversation is ended for now. N1TH, you are eligible for consideration under the standard offer. I am removing your talk page access to make it easier for you to start on this. You may request unblock six months from the date of this block, 23 February 2023. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
"but if I show thousands of flawless edits on another project within 2 months I can get reviewed then or will every request I make before February 2023 automatically be declined?"
- No you don't get to renegotiate the standard offer. Yes, as you've already seen on UTRS, requests to be unblocked before six months have elapsed will rejected. I'm advising you to stop pestering me on Commons or anywhere else regarding my rejection of your premature unblock request. Doing so is not helping your case. I've now asked you three times to stop harassing me on Commons. You're very close to being blocked there as well.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
19:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'll also note that WP:SO requires you not give people reason to object to your return. You are doing exactly that. I've regularly seen the "timer reset" on WP:SO offers. You are very lucky Ohnoitsjamie has not done so yet. N1TH Music, it's time to step away. Stop pestering people about your en.wiki block. Step away. February 2023 is the soonest anyone here should hear from you. -- Yamla ( talk) 19:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:List of British rail small shunters (under 300 hp)
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:List of British rail small shunters (under 300 hp), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 09:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Kackerterhaff
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Kackerterhaff, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 17:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Combino (Pasta)
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Combino (Pasta), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 13:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:List of British rail small shunters (under 300 hp)
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " List of British rail small shunters".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Kackerterhaff
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, " Kackerterhaff".
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 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Combino (Pasta)
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Combino".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:List of frazioni in the Metropolitan City of Genoa
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:List of frazioni in the Metropolitan City of Genoa, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 23:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Four Towers, Somerset
Hello, N1TH Music. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Four Towers, Somerset, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 06:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:List of frazioni in the Metropolitan City of Genoa
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " List of frazioni in the Metropolitan City of Genoa".
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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
is closed. Considering problems cited my ohnoitsjamie, maybe an SO in six months. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 18:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- From today, of course.
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
18:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @
Yamla: Restore TPA so they can pose questions here instead of Commons?
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
18:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have no objections to restoring TPA. However, if there's more
WP:WALLOFTEXT or other abuse, N1TH Music should expect to lose talk page access again. I believe you are indicating they should not make an unblock request prior to 2023-08-15. --
Yamla (
talk)
18:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, NITH1, maybe you could not pose more questions on Commons. See you six months from now. UTRS will reset after a couple of days. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 18:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have no objections to restoring TPA. However, if there's more
WP:WALLOFTEXT or other abuse, N1TH Music should expect to lose talk page access again. I believe you are indicating they should not make an unblock request prior to 2023-08-15. --
Yamla (
talk)
18:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @
Yamla: Restore TPA so they can pose questions here instead of Commons?
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
18:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Four Towers, Somerset
Hello, N1TH Music. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Four Towers".
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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
User has affirmed on SIMPLE they are not to use their alt account here. SIMPLE:user_talk:N1TH_Music#Your alternate account -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. You are not eligible for consideration till October. However, that date can easily by changed to six months from now if you persist in evading your block in this manner.. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Primefac: @ Jpgordon: pinging original blocking admins. By request, copying the unblock request from the UTRS ticket. I have verified the endorsement from Crouch, Swale. I'm inclined to accept this unblock request, given the endorsement and monitoring from Crouch Swale. -- Yamla ( talk) 23:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I was blocked here in August 2022 under WP:CIR concerns which included creating pages on topics (generally places) which were not notable as well as adding indiscriminate and excessive amounts of detail to articles which were. Additionally there was one instance of issues with copyright violations, in general I made edits which were at odds to policies such as WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND, WP:DIDN’T HERE THAT etc. My naming of these policies by name should be an indication that I have reread and understand them however just in case, I am now providing a written assurance. I will certainly not make edits in the same vein as I did prior to my block. I do still wish to work on Geography articles to an extent but using better sourcing and more specifically I plan to work on User:Crouch, Swale’s missing parishes project. Also I’m interested in working on articles regarding human longevity and music as well. During my absence I’ve also learnt the skill of constructing templates. All in all, I promise to make constructive edits to Wikipedia unlike I had done before as I’ve grown an matured to a massive extent since my block some 16 months ago. And to brush up on my skills I’ve worked on a Geography article and a music related one on the Simple English wiki. See “Loch Naver” over there, which is straight to the point, without too much detail and no citations to Openstreetmap or Peakvisor. Finally, I’ve received User:Crouch, Swale’s Cosign and endorsement that he will monitor over my future edits in the event I get unblocked. Thank you for reading, N1TH Music
Yamla ( talk) 23:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've no problem with this. Endorse unblock.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇
01:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Make it so. (support unblock)
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
01:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the matter, but thanks for the ping. Primefac ( talk) 12:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Make it so. (support unblock)
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
01:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. With no objections, and based on the mentoring offered by Crouch, Swale, I'm lifting the block. N1TH Music, please note this is probably your last chance. You've previously been mentored and, at that time, proven yourself unwilling to listen to advice. I hope (and sincerely expect) you take a completely different approach this time. -- Yamla ( talk) 13:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Yamla Now that the block is lifted, am I permitted to archive my talk page
N1TH Music (
talk)
13:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- You are. That includes all messages including unblock requests and including this very discussion. --
Yamla (
talk)
13:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Perfect, thank you. I’d like to wipe the slate clean N1TH Music ( talk) 13:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- You are. That includes all messages including unblock requests and including this very discussion. --
Yamla (
talk)
13:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)