User talk:Itzcuauhtli11
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Itzcuauhtli11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Flora Wambaugh Patterson did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Introduction tutorial
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. Suonii180 (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]
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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 13
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Podarge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xanthus. 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) 07:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
January 2025
[edit]
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
The edit summary field looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks! Spideog (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hi Itzcuauhtli11. Thank you for your work on Feliciano Sánchez Sinencio. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
The current article describes him, but does not clearly demonstrate that he qualified under WP:NPROF or WP:N. The citation numbers are too small and awards are not that impressive. BAeing elected as an IEEE Fellow is the level we look for. Please see if you can improve the page.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Ldm1954 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. I'll try to improve the article. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hi Itzcuauhtli11. Thank you for your work on Feliciano Sánchez Sinencio. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Please add Infobox Scientist, with a picture if possible. Note: only include 1-2 awards of significance, not all of them.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Ldm1954 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 17
[edit]An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Academia de Artes
- added links pointing to Héctor García, Jesús Martínez, Francisco Serrano, Javier Álvarez and Juan Soriano
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hi Itzcuauhtli11. Thank you for your work on José Benítez Sánchez. Another editor, Netherzone, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Thanks of the article on José Benítez Sánchez. It looks great.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Netherzone (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Netherzone: Thank you for your kind words. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
A beer for you!
[edit]
|
Your contributions are truly valued. Cheers to you! Maduka Jayalath (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC) |
- @Maduka Jayalath: Thank you! You're so kind. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
[edit]
|
Hello Itzcuauhtli11! The thread you created at the Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
See also the help page about the archival process.
The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing |
About Freeky
[edit]Hello. I just wanted to express my opinion about your decision to delete the Freeky article. I read that you merely repeated what another user said about "the Billboard Japan article is not enough". I'm sorry but, did you actually review all the sources that were cited? There weren't only "reactions to a press release" I don't know maybe i'm crazy, but citing an interview where the artist and the producer explained the origin of the song, also an Instagram post by the artist in which she further explained the meaning of the song and the message behind it. I don't know, this just makes me utterly disappointed in the people who makes these these sloppy decisions and just makes me not want to contribute any more on the English Wikipedia, especially after seeing loads of articles without even half the information I took the effort to put. クラウデド (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @クラウデド:. I sympathize with your concerns. There are many editors who vote following the opinion of other voters, specially while reviewing sources not in English. Just last week I had a disagreement about poor sources in Chinese with some editors.
- But I take my voting seriously. Specially since it's someone's work. I review the sources in the AfD and try to find other sources online, in the news, Google Books, papers, etc. and vote accordingly.
- In the case of Freeky, I did review all the sources in the article. Since I don't read Japanese, I used a translation tools to read them, but to me they didn't look significant enough.
- I said "the Billboard Japan article is not enough" since it's not enough to prove notability. Usually at least 3 independent reliable sources about the subject of the article are needed to meet WP:N.
- Usually it's not easy to prove notability about any song to merit its own article. For example, right now there's an article about a Mariah Carey song listed for deletion. Last month an article about a song by Shakira was listed (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiempo Sin Verte). Even if the artist is very famous and successful and its album sells a lot, a song need to be notable enough by itself to have its own article.
- WP:NSONG gives guidelines to meet. As I also said in my vote, national charting or major awards are usually needed.
- Social media, number of followers, number of times its video has been seen in Youtube, number of times the song was listened to in streaming sites, press releases, info on the artist's official or on fan websites, number of times its lyrics have been looked for in Genius or other lyrics sites, and interviews with the artist, the artist's manager or producer doesn't count towards proving notability or counts very little. The length of the article or the number of sources it has doesn't count either. Significant coverage in independent, secondary, reliable sources is what's needed. Mentions are also not enough. WP:SOURCE has the guidelines if you want to review them.
- The deletion process is imperfect and many times frustrating. But following the guidelines prevents issues most of the time.
- I'm open to talking if you want to discuss it further. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)