User talk:P,TO 19104/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:P,TO 19104. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Welcome!
Hello, P,TO 19104, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages that you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia or the Tutorial
- Create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- How to add those all-important references
- Simplified style guide
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, If you need help visit the Teahouse or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sadads (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent GA nominations
P,TO 19104, welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you nominated two articles for GA status today: Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings and Anna Karenina. Unfortunately, there were problems with both nominations, so I will be unwinding them for now.
It is not unusual for new editors to nominated articles to be Good Articles without being aware of the GA process or the GA criteria. In this case, you nominated both articles after a few edits, but the GA nomination instructions are very clear that Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination.
As you are not a significant contributor to either, you need to do that consultation. Wikipedia standard duration for such consultations are a minimum of seven days. If there is consensus that a particular article is ready for nomination after that time (meets or just about meets the criteria), then you are welcome to nominate it at that time.
I hope you will enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent GA reviews
P,TO 19104, no sooner did I post the above than you opened two GA reviews and in 40 minutes had attempted to pass one and put the other on hold, neither of which you did correctly. Your comments on both, unfortunately, make it clear that you do not understand the GA process, nor do you truly understand what the GA criteria mean, nor what is involved in reviewing. The negligible amount of time you spent on each makes that clear.
I regret having to do so, but I'm going to strongly recommend that you spend some weeks learning how Wikipedia works and how the criteria work before you think of returning to GAN, and that you get a mentor to work with you before you do return. The Warcraft (film) article, which you passed (but didn't do so correctly, indicating to me that you didn't bother reading the GA nomination instructions, which describe the steps a reviewer needs to take, as I had previously suggested. A few minutes of skimming found incomplete sentences and other issues, and you don't seem to have checked for close paraphrasing, copyvios, or indeed the various sources cited in the article to make sure that it accurately reflects the
I have undone your problematic passage of Warcraft (film), and will be making a similar note on the Seikilos epitaph review page, where I'm going to call for a second opinion reviewer, since I don't understand your issues with the nomination, which again doesn't seem to have been done with a true understanding of the GA criteria. I'm sorry this hasn't worked out, but there are many other areas of Wikipedia where you can contribute, and become more familiar with the site and how assessing articles works. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Help me!
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... Daniel Ortega P,TO 19104 (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I made a request to have a BLP article semi-protected, but an administrator rejected it because it "only" had on vandalism indicdent in the last month; this article is about a Nicaraguan national politician is high stakes (in that respect), I think. Why would that request be rejected and should I ask for something less than "semi-protected" -- like the "pending changes"? Could you also explain what is protected and what isn't? Thanks!
P,TO 19104 (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- The protection policy says that any form of protection - whether semi-lock, full-lock, or CRASH lock - should only be used if there is a need for it that other measures cannot solve. Just being a politician ahead of an election isn't a valid need and it would likely backfire; there'd need to be sustained (over a period of weeks or months on a daily basis), egregious (WP:OUTING, threats, or extreme BLP violations), or unreasonable (i.e. a crush of editors vandalising so rapidly that (semi-)protection is needed to get it under control) levels of unconstructive editing to justify protection. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)