User talk:Wikinformadora

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charlie Gillespie (September 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 AviationFreak was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Charlie Gillespie 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:Charlie Gillespie, 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.

AviationFreak💬 00:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wikinformadora! 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! AviationFreak💬 00:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charlie Gillespie (September 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Charlie Gillespie 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:Charlie Gillespie, 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.

Angus W🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charlie Gillespie (September 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Charlie Gillespie 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:Charlie Gillespie, 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.

Angus W🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Woodroar (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Counting On‎. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Counting On‎. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How is a date of birth controversial? I only added factual information. Do you need their birth certificates as source?

We don't add full names or dates of birth unless widely published in reliable sources, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. We also don't color code tables by gender, per MOS:COLOR. Woodroar (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Those birth dates are widely publicised. It's a reality show. Their births were aired for millions of people. And since when you don't color code for genders? I've been checking this article for years and it has always included colors to easily see the info.

That's been our policy for years. This type of content was recently discussed at BLPN and the consensus was to remove it. I strongly suggest reverting yourself or I'll escalate this to ANI. Woodroar (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read the article that you referenced for the colors and I saw nothing about color coding by gender being against the rules. It looks like someone's personal opinion is to remove them. Not Wikipedia's. They are colors. Simply colors. No need to overthink or overcomplicate.

Just to add: consensus isn't one person telling their personal opinion and all abiding. That's what I read in the discussing you mention. The children's birthdays, their genders and the fact that one was adopted are all facts, so they belong in the free encyclopedia. Your personal opinions do not.

Those tables fail MOS:COLOR because an unvisited (blue) link on a blue background and a visited (purple) link on pink background don't meet our required color contrast; in addition, there's no legend or footnotes for those colors, or text indicating their meaning. They're also not widely published in reliable sources, much like the full names and dates of birth.

So I'm assuming that you won't revert yourself? Woodroar (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You assume well. In the case of the colors, your source to remove them is some random person saying "the freaking pink and blue colors, which violate the MOS and everything we've learned about gender in the last decades are so". No sources were added to back this stance of "what we learned". Who's "we"? What does this person mean by "learned"? An encyclopedia should give people facts and let the reader gather those facts. I believe you should add references to remove ""the freaking pink and blue colors", otherwise this stance shouldn't be on Wikipedia let alone dictate what other people put on Wikipedia.

I can add a legend for what the blue and pink means and increase the contrast for colorblind people.

The MOS issue is secondary. The warnings above were primarily about WP:BLP violations, especially WP:BLPPRIVACY. Woodroar (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the colors. In regards to the birth dates, the births of all minors were aired on TV and their lives is still on TV today. The family publicises their birthdays, so it's not something that needs to be kept hidden for their protection. Unfortunately these children were not given the opt in but, again, my personal opinions don't matter. They are public figures and their birthdates dates are widely available information, so they should be in the article.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

The conversation above with User:Woodroar shows that you do not fully appreciate, understand, or adhere to our guidelines for writing about living people. In addition, your comments on the colors (that they are just accidental?) show you do not take this matter seriously, and that you do not take WP:ACCESSIBILITY seriously. I am not going to debate these matters with you: I am telling you that you are offering three reasons for various sanctions: a topic ban per the discretionary sanctions, an indefinite block for violating the BLP, a block for violating accessibility standards, a block for not sourcing BLP information properly--wait, that's four, and there is one more: a block per WP:NOTHERE mostly because of the edit warring and the refusal to read up on policy (and the link to BLPN that Woodroar provided) and act on it. So please consider this a final warning, and please realize that you came this close to a block of some sort. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Charlie Gillespie

Hello, Wikinformadora. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Charlie Gillespie, 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. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Charlie Gillespie

Hello, Wikinformadora. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Charlie Gillespie".

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! Celestina007 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)