User talk:Sevillissta

Visar Mulliqi moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Visar Mulliqi, does not yet 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 follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sevillissta, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sevillissta! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Visar Mulliqi (July 19)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

What would've best convinced is museum collections or major art reviews.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Visar Mulliqi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Visar Mulliqi has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Visar Mulliqi. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Visar Mulliqi has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Visar Mulliqi. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 00:44, 20 July 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) 01:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

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. Domdeparis (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prodding

Please read WP:PRODNOM as you are not following the correct procedure. The tag should be added to the top of the page and you are not informing the page's creator as is required. I do not have a problem with the nominations per se as I agree with the reasons stated even if you are clearly doing this to prove a WP:POINT because of the rejection of the article that you have submitted for creation. Domdeparis (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: Thank you for the corrections, appreciated. Sevillissta (talk)

I would suggest that you take a break from nominating other pages for deletion and try and do some constructive editing, looking for sources, improving articles because the way that you are editing looks very much like you have some kind of vested interest in Visar Mulliqi. Domdeparis (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: No, the story is this. I have been a major contributor in the Wiki Academy: City Marathon held in Prishtina, Kosovo in 2014. There I have met many WikiPedia authors and renowned researchers from all over the world. I have helped in the creation of Muslim Mulliqi article and helped research and source many others. I have sent you in the Biwom's talk page, the comparison between my article and Esat Valla, it's like day and night. I have protested about it in the Kiwi IRC live chat and a mod there named Huon Proded it with a very clear reason. Then some person comes along and unprods it by citing a vague source like: KultPlus, KosovaLive etc. Then the article that I have published, namely Visar Mulliqi article, was declined by another member citing that Kultplus and other local media are not 100% credible sources, as you can see on the comments. I have then edited and done everything according to the provided advice, yet it is still not published, while articles like that of Esat Valla remain. If there should be justice, it should either be the same for all or not at all. Wikipedia should be the last place where double-standards injustice should occur.

I will of course continue contributing in Wikipedia as I have done in the Wiki Academy and in a lot of years after that before not logging in for long and forgetting the credentials altogether.

If it would be a favoring from my side regarding the Visar Mulliqi article, then I would put only 1 source and some other vague sources (eg. Esat Valla's article) and say that it should be there at all costs, which would be absurd. Rather I have included strong sources, Academic Personnel website from the University of Prishtina. Sources from the Government of Kosovo, sources from the Museum of Applied Arts in Vienna, Austria. Sources from the exhibition in Paris, France under the FICEP patronage. Sources from media that are way more relevant than a privately-owned and recently created (2013) portal like Kultplus (I even included a source from Kultplus just for the sake of proving the double-standards). So tell me, what is there not to believe about Visar Mulliqi, and what is there more to believe about Esat Valla? Unless you also want to contribute towards the double-standards, which I will fight with all my will and beign.

Moreover, I will also not stop until justice prevails and the Visar Mulliqi article is published, as it rightfully deserves to be. If you want to help in that, feel free to do so, otherwise stop making accusations that I am favoring someone without reason when the facts are there.

Thank you.

So as I thought you do have a vested interest in this person. You do not get what Wikipedia is about and how the deletion process works, I don't know what you think a major contributor is but if your previous user name was User:Buharmorina you made a total of 139 edits you created 12 articles that were all deleted bar 1, your grandfather. Or maybe you were User:VeStushi with their 89 edits that's no better. These were the only 2 editors that fit your description and that edited your grandfather's page either way this is not what I would define as a major contributor. I would suggest that you desist from editing your father's page and please read WP:COI you are so clearly in this case. I would strongly suggest that you stop with the Don Quixote attitude. There is no question of injustice or justice, either the subject is notable or not and for the moment you do not prove that your father is notable. You have totally the wrong attitude to Wikipedia editing and I am not sure that you will be a useful contributor if you do not get a better attitude. If you do become disruptive, as I fear you may do, you will almost certainly be blocked as per WP:DISRUPT. Domdeparis (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: Why shift from the original matter? I am only against double-standards that is all. I will surely refrain from further editing anything that can possibly cause a conflict of interest. You are now personally going against me for revenge (not sure why) and that is more disruptive than anything else. Do not treat me as some kind of criminal, kindly behave.

Thank you.

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and please sign your posts. Be very careful about making threats of actions that you may regret as you might get to learn about the WP:BOOMERANG effect. I have tried to help you understand some of the policies and guidelines but you seem not to want to listen. I can't help you any more but I will keep an eye on your editing. Domdeparis (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: Thank you indeed about some of these WP codes that you keep inputting. I surely learned a lot from this debate, but I hope that you also learned about being transparent and not promoting double-standards. Freely keep an eye on my editing, it is good to know that someone is watching my every move here and will correct me in the future. Bye.

Just to finish I did not say that Visar Mulliqi was not notable, I said that when the article was draftified you had not proven that he was notable, and I never said that Esat Valla's page proves that he is notable, far from it, the subject is trying to help you understand the logic behind prodding and deprodding and trying to help you avoid disruptive editing because you wish to make a point. You are taking this far too personally which is one of the reasons COI editing is very strongly discouraged. Potentially disruptive editors get watched to make sure they do not make too many edits that disrupt Wikipedia. Don't take it personally it is done to help make the editing experience as happy as possible for everyone. As you are the subject's son I will be adding a COI tag to the article. If you wish to remove it please leave a message on the talk page explaining who you are. Happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC) p.s. please sign your posts[reply]

@Domdeparis: Now this is beyond personal. I am indirectly representing the son of Visar Mulliqi for sources and other material, just like in the Wiki Academy where we had the help of the Mulliqi family and the National Arts Gallery of Kosovo for material on Muslim Mulliqi and others. My previous username was Buharmorina. Please remove that COI yourself if you can as there is no talk page, I cannot find it. Do not take this to a further level please.

Thank you. Sevillissta (talk)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2018–19 Sevilla FC season (August 18)

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

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at 2018–19 Sevilla FC season. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No longer WP:TOOSOON but someone went ahead and created it in mainspace.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2018–19 Sevilla FC season 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:2018–19 Sevilla FC season, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SportingFlyer talk 23:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]