User talk:Scientelensia

/Archive1 | /Archive2 | /Archive3 | /Archive4 | /Archive5

Trip at Knight

Hey there! I haven't looked at Trip at Knight in a few months, so I gearing up to get it to GA as I thought it was still a bleak article. I saw that you have recently massively expanded it and was wondering, if you are planning to put it up for GA, could you tag me once you do? I'd love to review it, nice work over there!! Locust member (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your recognition! That’s a great idea, I hadn’t thought about it before. I will tag you when I do! Also, in about a month, I plan to make similar upgrades to the articles for all his other albums. Scientelensia (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Trip at Knight

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trip at Knight you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Locust member -- Locust member (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It started today on Monday June 16 and will run until Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Live Love Laugh Die

Hello, Scientelensia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Live Love Laugh Die, 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) 19:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Liverpool F.C. 7–0 Manchester United F.C. (June 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 Gommeh 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 events). 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:

Regardless of the rivalry involved, I really doubt that a single match would deserve its own article. The only exception to this rule would be if this were the championship match for the Premier League (which AFAIK it isn't). This should be merged to, or included in, Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry.

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:Liverpool F.C. 7–0 Manchester United F.C. 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.

» Gommeh (he/him) 17:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scientelensia! 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! » Gommeh (he/him) 17:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professional ratings from school newspapers?

per this edit, in what way is The Declaration, the student news site of Colonia High School a "professional rating"? Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point. I think a well-written student newspaper can, in some cases, be considered a professional critical source. What makes someone a ‘professional’ critic is often a combination of credibility and consistency of thoughtful output, not simply formal credentials or employment. I personally believe that although student journalism may lack proper vetting, adhering to this view entirely overlooks the essence of criticism: the articulation of insight. Lived experience, cultural literacy, and the ability to engage an audience meaningfully can make a student critic just as "professional" in quality as someone paid for their work. So while professional status may imply a formal role, the heart of criticism lies in thoughtful engagement with the world. This is something a student newspaper can absolutely achieve. Aside from this, the relative and surprising paucity of reviews for this mixtape do recommend the inclusion of less ‘known’ sources.

Thanks! Scientelensia (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Trip at Knight

The article Trip at Knight you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Trip at Knight for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Locust member -- Locust member (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Elizabeth Brontë for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elizabeth Brontë, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Brontë until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elizabeth Brontë (August 14)

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

Hello, thanks for your submission. However, the recent and quite well-attended AfD does not support notability of this subject based on available sources. Thank you,

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:Elizabeth Brontë 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.

Zzz plant (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Romantic

Just thought I'd let you know that people have made an article for the song, in case you wanna work on it / add your material from the TLoaS page to it 2A00:23C8:F118:9301:D54:2A09:578:BF7F (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Very kind of you Scientelensia (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]