User talk:Ameninhat

Speedy deletion nomination of Chemotional

Hello Ameninhat,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Chemotional for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. BeowulfBrower (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Ameninhat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chemotional

I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place to promote your new word. As reviewing administrator, I have declined the speedy-deletion nomination, because this does not fit its criteria; but it is still not suitable, so I have proposed it for deletion - formal notice below.

To explain in more detail, see WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms, and also the fundamental policy WP:No original research, which includes:

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery."

I did find this 1998 paper, but it seems to be using the word in a different and more restricted sense.

Before editing about yourself or your own concerns, you should also read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chemotional

The article Chemotional has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. There are no references except the author's book, and I have found none, to indicate that this neologism meets WP:Notability or WP:NEO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Alphabetae

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 Alphabetae requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and 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. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed 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. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 16:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alphabet. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and original research

You are trying to add your own self-published research. Please read WP:COI and WP:NOR. You attempted to publicise this research by creating an article for it and now you are trying to use Alphabet to publicise it. You also persistently tried to push a word you invented and another book. There's a clear pattern here and you seem to be interested only in self publicity. At the moment I don't see a reason not to block you from editing. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (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 ( or ) 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.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Egyptian hieroglyphs have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Egyptian hieroglyphs was changed by Ameninhat (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.867245 on 2023-04-14T08:06:19+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Egyptian hieroglyphs, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]