User talk:Stevenadrien

This is Stevenadrien's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Pop (January 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ARandomName123 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Reliable references are needed. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

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:World Pop 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.

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Pop (January 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 94rain 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 music-related topics). 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.

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:World Pop 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.

94rain ^Talk 16:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of World Pop

Hello Stevenadrien,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username CoconutOctopus, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, World Pop for deletion, because it appears to be about something that you or someone you know personally invented, coined, or discovered, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important and/or recognized enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|CoconutOctopus}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CoconutOctopus talk 17:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Z LaLa, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 17:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Z LaLa. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Z LaLa, you may be blocked from editing. CoconutOctopus talk 18:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Z LaLa. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Pop (January 31)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:World Pop 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Deb (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't e-mail people you don't know. It's not the way to appeal against your block. Your message was somewhat incoherent but I did pick up the following information:

You have an undeclared conflict of interest and you think this justifies edit warring;
You haven't read the guidelines;
You don't know what you did wrong and you think this makes it all right for you to continue editing.

Just to be clear, your only way of getting the block lifted is to appeal as described in the instructions above. Furthermore, now that I know you have no intention of changing your ways, you will not be allowed to edit this particular article after your block is lifted a month from now. Deb (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]