User talk:Admissible

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Georges Liautaud (January 6)

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

❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Admissible! 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! ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Nationale (Haiti) moved to draftspace

Unfortunately, an article you recently created Radio Nationale (Haiti), is not ready as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage with citations from reliable and independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. I've moved your article 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 WP:GNG guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dous Makòs moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Dous Makòs, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) 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, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Valereee (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lalo (food) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Lalo (food), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Radio Nationale (Haiti) has been accepted

Radio Nationale (Haiti), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Admissible (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Georges Liautaud (February 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 Theroadislong 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:

Hagiographic tone needs to be dialled down a notch.

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:Georges Liautaud 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS. I had done my best. I leave the draft for editing to other editors. Admissible (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fincy Pierre (February 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 Akevsharma 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.

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:Fincy Pierre 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.

Akevsharma (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Phanord per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phanord. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Admissible (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The conclusions of the Sockpuppet survey are wrong because I don't use multiple accounts. I have no affiliation with Accesswiki or Kevinpierejen. Merely modifying some articles in common does not mean that I am a Sockpuppet of these aforementioned accounts. Articles about Haiti are not much on the English Wiki. I came to wikipedia to contribute constructively, not to abuse. Best regards.

Decline reason:

Less is not more, in this case. This request, again, just comes down to "I'm not a sock!" And if that were sufficient to get people unblocked for socking, we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy because everyone and their supposed "brother" would say it.

Since you have basically made the same argument three times when strongly prodded to do better, you won't get a fourth chance. I will be revoking your talk page access after saving this. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Admissible (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Admissible (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello dear editors and members of the Wikimedia community in English, I am writing to you to follow up on my blocking which I find abusive and supposedly made by mistake. :I am in no way a sockpuppet of User:Phanord. I created my account in October 2022 in order to make my constructive contribution to topics concerning Haiti and related. I didn't hurt Wikipedia. I usually contribute on relevant topics. I seek advice and authorization on points that seem complicated to me. I have no direct connection with User:Phanord, but how can I be a sockpuppet of User:Phanord? I would like to ask you to suspend the decision and to scrupulously review your clues which led to the blocking of my account. I ask you, dear members, to follow up on my request. Best regards.

Decline reason:

Simple denial is insufficient. You must address the concerns and findings given at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phanord. Yamla (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Admissible (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Editors and members !

1- With all due respect, I believe the blocking of my account was incorrect. Since my registration in Wikipedia, I strive to make constructive contributions. I contribute on my own responsibility, not under the dictation or request of others.

2- I did not abuse multiple accounts. This is my one and only Wikipedia account. Please check carefully. All of my contributions rely on the advancement of Haiti's online resources.

3- I have requested authorization from Admin UtherSRG for the modification of a biography that relates to Haiti. Here's the link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UtherSRG#Need_to_delete_a_draft_for_article_creation_from_scratch I haven't committed any violations relating to Wikipedia's rules. Best regards. Admissible (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not substantially different from your first request. It isn't enough to just say you didn't do it. You need to specifically speak to the findings of the sock puppet investigation and if they are in error, tell us why. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.