User talk:ArzakMululu

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
1,096		Wuxia (talk)	Add sources
440		Aka Manto (talk)	Add sources
439		Jin Yong (talk)	Add sources
20		Darío Ripoll (talk)	Add sources
40		Columbia Theological Seminary (talk)	Add sources
2,125		Eduardo Yáñez (talk)	Add sources
67		Vintage Culture (talk)	Cleanup
46		Kisses (album) (talk)	Cleanup
124		Secessionist movements of Canada (talk)	Cleanup
14		Rassemblement pour l'Indépendance Nationale (talk)	Expand
25		Green Party of Quebec (talk)	Expand
512		Coalition Avenir Québec (talk)	Expand
166		Invisibility (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
38		Social conservatism in Canada (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
125		Alberta separatism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
233		Québécois people (talk)	Merge
39		Kultur Shock (talk)	Merge
110		Tomahawk chop (talk)	Merge
20		National Presbyterian Church (talk)	Wikify
5		Robert Blair (moderator) (talk)	Wikify
179		Language demographics of Quebec (talk)	Wikify
9		Myra Monoka (talk)	Orphan
2		Byron Wade (talk)	Orphan
4		Hirondina Joshua (talk)	Orphan
33		To Rob a Thief (talk)	Stub
4		Labor-Progressive Party (Quebec) (talk)	Stub
6		Parti équitable (talk)	Stub
24		Carmen Beato (talk)	Stub
99		Stephen Schneider (actor) (talk)	Stub
9		Simon Marcil (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging

You are too inexperienced to tag articles for speedy deletion. You tagged St Josephs Catholic Primary School as an WP:A7, but schools are not eligible to be speedy deleted per A7; it says so in the criterion itself. Do not tag any pages for speedy deletion until you have gained considerably more experience than you have now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Good evening friend, thanks for the heads up! Have a blessed day! ArzakMululu (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Please reply

Hi Arzak, you removed my message although a reply was requested. What is the connection between you and User:Maltaroset, if any? I have noticed others accounts as well but this is a good start. S0091 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey S0091, how are you doing on this lovely evening!? Everything alright?! Maltarosimeire is a dear friend of mine in which im teaching how to edit on Wikipedia properly. Any mistakes were made?

Thanks Arzak. The issue I see is I am not sure the articles being created meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and sources used may not be reliable. I suggest submitting articles through WP:AFC so they can reviewed by experienced editors who can provide guidance. Either way, they will be reviewed but are more likely to be deleted later if they are deemed unsuitable. Are you helping any other editors? S0091 (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks, did not know that was an option tho. I myself request patrol on some articles i did, 2 weeks ago, and it wasnt even patrolled. I wonder how much time will take to review these articles, honest question. And no, only her, and i myself also working very hard to learn how to properly edit on this beautiful website. Sorry if i made any mistakes, i guess is the learning curve. ArzakMululu (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It can take a couple months or so for WP:NPP to review a new article as it is not a queue. Editors review want they want in no particular order. I do strongly suggest reading WP:NMUSIC and WP:ENTERTAINER, along with this list (ex. stay away from IMBD) and WP:42. Also, be mindful of WP:MEAT given you are working with another editor. Even the perception of coordination between editors can raise serious concerns, thus my note. S0091 (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@S0091: Thanks and i appreciate your advice. Before start editing i had read Music/Artist notability guidelines. I might do some mistakes regarding this topic here and there, but i wouldn't forcibly try to insert an article of someone with absolutely no base or notability. If i may ask a question, i see various stub articles with no references what so ever, and it is patrolled and approved. And an stub article such as Maltaroset did, are instantly deemed as unreliable and with no WP:N. That makes me wonder, what are the criteria used on these? Makes me think. Thanks for your time and patience! ArzakMululu (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Those may fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Have you seen this recently with new articles? If so, can you provide a couple examples? As Wikipedia evolved over the past 20 years, the criteria for inclusion became stricter. I can understand older articles with no sources but not today unless a WP:BEFORE search revealed the topic is likely notable. Also, passing patrol does not protect an article from being deleted nor does an article existing for years as deletion can happen at any time (see WP:AFD). Oh and please read WP:INDENT. There is a format to follow on talk pages. S0091 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@S0091: I'm talking about recently created articles, and about a person to be more precise. I'm taking some examples right now of the top of NewPagesFeed, all articles are patrolled and on mainspace: Jennifer Friedlander , Sizwe Mdlinzo , César Torres , Lubomir Mykytiuk , all of them are right at the top of NewPagesFeed, i haven't even scrolled much.

I'm sorry, i'm not justifying my possible mistakes with others, as you mentioned WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but these articles, to be patrolled and acceptable on mainspace makes no sense to me. All of them, there's like 1 sentence, no references at all, and if have reference, use unreliable sources as IMDB as you can see in Lubomir Mykytiuk. Care to comment? Thanks in advance for your time and patience! ArzakMululu (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It has 2 sources, including a recognized encyclopedia. IMDB is not used a source, just in the External links section which is fine. Stubs are acceptable as long as they meet WP:N. You can have a robust well-written article but if it does not meet WP:N, it matters not. S0091 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@S0091: Well, I just checked here, but if I'm not mistaken, there are 2 references, one is a very suspicious source that does not even have a secure connection and the other is from Wikipedia itself (which are not admissible as a source according to Wikipedia guidelines). Or am I mistaken? Sorry to disturb you, but I just need to understand. You can say "thats because the creator of such articles has an autopatrol ranking" , i would understand, not accept , but would understand. Since new users like myself are heavily monitored , even with our articles, such as Foxel by maltaroset that are extremely well constructed with multiples references from multiple types of sources are neglected. Again, sorry to disturb you with these questions, but you will be a treasure if you could help me see other perspective that i might not be seeing. Thanks. again in advance! ArzakMululu (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I missed the upper list but as you state, those are in the queue so have yet to be reviewed so not worth commenting about. You had stated Lubomir Mykytiuk uses IMDB as a source but it does not so perhaps a misunderstanding on your part about the difference between references vs. external links and they do appear to meet WP:NMUSICIAN. I have not mentioned autopatrol and you may not accept it as much as you want but it does not change anything. Articles can be deleted regardless if the creator has autopatrol or not. You are welcome to WP:AFD if you believe an article does not meet the relevant criteria. Also, you can have a hundred sources but if they do not establish WP:N then it matters not. Soundcloud, Beatport, Applemusic, etc. does nothing to establish notability, nor do interviews (i.e. Wikipedia does not care what a subject has to say about themselves). S0091 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@S0091: I'm not mentioning SoundCloud, Beatport or Apple Music, i'm talking about the five first references of the Foxel article, in which are widely known sources of the subject (electronic music) in Brazil. And comparing them to Jennifer Friedlander article and source. Let me be specific, first the article is extremely poorly constructed, the first and only reference is from Pomona University (where she is hired as a professor) so not reliable. And Lubomir Mykytiuk , which again, very poorly constructed article, two sources, one is a very suspicious website with no relevance what so ever (yes, i´ve done my research), even with no secure connection and the other source is from Wikipedia itself (which clearly contradicts the WP:N guideline). I just cannot understand why so biased. Or am I missing something? Again, thanks for your time and patience, but i need to understand. ArzakMululu (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

For Jennifer Friedlander, see WP:NPROF (academics have a different set of criteria and if you read the edit summary by the creator they state the specific criteria they believe the article meets). For Lubomir Mykytiuk, you are misreading the reference template. The publisher of the source is linked if it has a Wikipedia article about them (just like if you were referencing the New York Times, the Wikipedia NYT article is linked). The reference is from 1997 so not available online so cannot be linked directly, but it has the title of the article along the date it was published which is what is needed for WP:V. A poorly constructed article does not prevent it from inclusion (useless they meet G11 or G12 or something like that) or just so horribly written no English speaking person would be able to understand it. Not to be dismissive of your queries but you are very new so I suggest taking some time to get to know the Wikipedia's policies and norms. What you are bringing up as issues, so far are not. You just do not know how to interpret what you are seeing. It takes a loooong time. I have been here for three years and still much to learn and I bet you would get the same from someone that has been here for a decade. S0091 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

And feel free to seek another opinions/input. The Teahouse is great place to ask these types of questions because you get a broader base of editors (not just little ol' me). I do still suggest reading WP:INDENT as some editors can be quite particular about it. S0091 (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@S0091: Yes! Now i understand! Thank you so much for your time and patience when explaining it to me! Very much appreciated! Have a wonderful saturday! Cheers ArzakMululu (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Nostalgix moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Nostalgix, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. In addition, you appear to have a WP:COI or WP:UPE issue.(?) 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, and have addressed the COI/UPE issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Do not move the article into mainspace yourself.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Red Cloak (DJ) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Red Cloak (DJ), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. In addition there is the question of WP:UPE. (?) 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, and have addressed the UPE concern, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Do not move the article into mainspace yourself.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Foxel (July 16)

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

Dan arndt (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ArzakMululu! 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! Dan arndt (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nostalgix (July 16)

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

Dan arndt (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited INGEK, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bass House. 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) 05:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Red Cloak (DJ)

Hello, ArzakMululu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Red Cloak".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Nostalgix

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

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)