User talk:Se5hat03

Hello, Se5hat03, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Se5hat03, good luck, and have fun. PamD 15:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PamD 15:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Hallo, Wikipedia doesn't link names of countries - see WP:OVERLINK. This reduces the "sea of blue" and makes it easier for readers to see significant links. I've reverted several of your recent edits accordingly. Thanks for your work: there's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia but it's an interesting journey. PamD 15:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Black Sabbath, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan township articles

I noticed you updated several township articles with newer population statistics. However, there is no such thing as a "2021 census" when using statistics; only the decennial census data is used, except in incorporated municipality infoboxes where "estimated" populations are sometimes listed on a yearly basis. Ongoing updates are being discussed in the List of municipalities in Michigan and its talk page. I know some township articles are horribly outdated with 2000 census data, but they can be updated with 2010 census data for the time being until reliable 2020 census data is available. —Notorious4life (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will update the 2000 census data. Se5hat03 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Aiguillon

Hi there. Thanks for your contribution to this article. However, I have reverted it for several reasons:

The lead is just a summary of the article. The article, relying on the sources, states "the physical defences were in a poor state. The main wall, 2,700 feet (820 m) long, was modern but incomplete – gaps were filled with improvised defences. A bridge over the River Lot was fortified and had a barbican gate, but it was centuries old and poorly maintained." Your change contradicts this. If there are different views on this in modern reliable sources, could we discuss them on the article's talk page.
As the lead is a summary of material contained in the main article it is not necessary nor normal to cite in the lead.
I have doubts as to whether the source you reference is a WP:RS. Could you explain why you believe it is? Note that Featured Articles (FAs) - the ones with a bronze star in the corner - need sources which are high quality reliable sources.
There is no need to say "in fact" in the article. Everything in Wikipedia is, or should be, a fact.

Thanks, see you on the talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article NIAI RK-I. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colebatch

Thanks for adding the further reading, please have a close read of the references, and the ADB item is actually referred to in reference number 2 - we try hard in such articles to not double up -

thanks for your contribution... JarrahTree 10:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you slow down

Wikipedia's guidelines on external links, Wikipedia:External links, states, and I quote, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Please, I implore you, stop rapidly adding dozens of links to articles. It is not useful, it is against Wikipedia guidelines, and you're creating a whole lot of work for other people to clean up your mess. --Jayron 32 13:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems

Your edit to Henry Brooke (writer) 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. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More mirrored publications

It looks like you're searching for phrases on Google Books to help us with sourcing. Thanks. Unfortunately, when you search for direct phrases, you're going to pick up material that has been copied from here. Please note that your citation additions here, here, here, and here use a very deceptive publisher that copies our material wholesale without attribution and published the material as "scientific textbooks". While I understand that mirrors like that one are very hard to spot, when you find the exact phrase in another source, one of two things is happening: they've copied us, or we've copied them. When they've copied us, we obviously cannot use the source. When we've copied them, we need to clean up the copyright violation. Either way, the source can't be used, and further action may be needed. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Giles Dickson (June 20)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Giles Dickson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Se5hat03! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Fancy Refrigerator! Thank you for your feedback and for your message. As this is one of my first pages, I am not disappointed. I will work on the references and hopefully can come back with an eligible version of this article. Thank you. Se5hat03 (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This assignment certainly taught me new methods for advanced Google search. Very useful. I resubmitted the draft for review and I am looking forward to further comments. Se5hat03 (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baltic Wind (June 22)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Apart from the first source (a registry entry), this draft only cites the subject's own website. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Baltic Wind and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Giles Dickson (October 23)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs independent sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Giles Dickson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Baltic Wind

Hello, Se5hat03. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Baltic Wind, 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) 11:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]