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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Friedmann's SCG Function 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SimpleSubCubicGraph! 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! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SimpleSubCubicGraph. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Friedmann's SCG function, 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) 06:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Canadian expulsion of Indian diplomats. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and sources are necessary for controversial topics like this. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not remove content supported by reliable sources and replace it with unsourced content. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that you are edit warring. Please stop reverting and keep it to the talk page. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They started it, not me. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you created or have recently made significant changes to, International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for pages, so it has been blanked and redirected. Three typical reasons for this are that: (1) the article's subject appears to fail our notability guidelines; (2) the article is unsourced; or (3) the sources used in the article are unreliable. The page's history is preserved and it is possible to restore the article: If you believe that this page should remain included on Wikipedia or that this action was taken in error, then you may revert the edit that blanked and redirected the page.

Wikipedia:Your first article has more information about creating articles, and you may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jiffles1 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jiffles1 I did in fact provide a reason on the page that I linked. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DNBT, I did not assume ownership of an article. I simply said don't come and mess up random articles for no reason other than a personal feud. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At 17:13, 28 December 2024 you stated "Do NOT REVERT MY PAGE. This is news most definitely. Instead of ignoring it you have to come to my page and edit it." [1] -- D'n'B-t -- 19:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DNBT, yes it was true I said that however I was not wrong. I did create the page. But that was NOT the justification used. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments. Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate with civility and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 19:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Canterbury Tail, I appreciate the warning, however I did not realize that the single letter C in defence was British English. I assumed it was a spelling mistake. In my defense, it popped up with a red squiggly line underneath, indicating a spelling mistake. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also made multiple English changes in this edit. You changed signalling to signaling, hospitalised to hospitalized and inserted apologized instead of apologised Canterbury Tail talk 21:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems not encyclopaedic to me. Wikipedia is not a memorial

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Maungapohatu (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident that the article International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 and the User Simple Contributions are very arbitrary. I suggest you calm down a little, and stop editing as it seems like you are sabotaging the project. Tgvarrt (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

-- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borgenland (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to act rudely and attack other editors, as you did here and here, you will be blocked from editing the Azerbaijan Air articles and potentially from editing entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you shouldn't be editing Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 or International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 at all, since both pages are covered by the Russo-Ukrainian War contentious topic, and only extended confirmed editors can edit articles related to that topic. If you continue to edit either of those articles, you will be blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts There was nothing controversial placed there. All I did was standardize the reactions with every other Wikipedia article in existence. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-extended-confirmed editors are not allowed to edit articles about Azerbaijan or the Russo-Ukranian war, full-stop. It doesn't matter if the edits are productive or not. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts I have three questions, first, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents When will my username be removed from here? Secondly, what is controversial with Azerbaijan as a country? Third, how do I check how many edits I have made in total so I can see how much progress I have made towards 500 edits. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, the thread will be automatically archived by a bot. Second, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee as well as the Wikipedia community have imposed contentious topic restrictions and general sanctions on topics relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related conflicts, including political and ethnic conflicts. You can read more about why at those pages and the pages that they link to. Third, Special:Contributions/SimpleSubCubicGraph. Please not that you must reach 500 edits organically. Do not attempt to game the system by making unconstructive edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts Can I please receive the link to the pages that explain why Armenia and Azerbaijan are controversial, and ethnic and religious disputes alongside wars? And I also want to say, I am not trying to game the system. I make edits when I feel they are justified but most things I want to edit are locked behind ECP due to political nature. That is why I want to track my total edits so I know when I can start editing political and "controversial" pages. Thank you for your help. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the pages, and they're also linked in the various template notices on your talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts And my final question is ECP the only way to edit Armenia/Azerbaijan and other contentious topic? Would it be possible to allow me to edit the crash page exclusively due to its non political nature? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no way for you to be allowed to edit those pages until you are EC. Also, the crash is definitely not non-political. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making any modifications Jeju Air Flight 2216, do not rush. Tgvarrt (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgvarrt I added them to the talk page. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Bridge. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Aviationwikiflight for the feedback, I created this page mainly due to redlinks on the incident of the bridge collapsing. There is not much about this bridge online until the crash so I will go ahead and delete it. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

We'd need a few more sources that discuss this.

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:Elective dictatorships 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

qcne (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to 2024 United States Treasury Hack. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Elective dictatorships 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2025 Trump International Hotel Las Vegas explosion, 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. Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBritinator Do you have time to review it? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an AfC reviewer, @SimpleSubCubicGraph. There's no indication that this explosion yet meets WP:NEVENT. We would need significant coverage in multiple reliable (not GBNews..) sources. qcne (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks qcne, beat me to it. Indeed, I fail to see how the event is notable in its current state. TheBritinator (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:2025 Trump International Hotel Las Vegas explosion 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

qcne (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Gibran Rakabuming Raka, especially if it involves living persons. Your edits have been reverted. Thank you. Departure– (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure– that is not defamatory content. This is what I posted: "(Redacted)". All of this is true, defamatory would be lying. There is nothing here that is lying, (Redacted). What did I defame about? This is ridiclous. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content stating that a politician was disrupting a web project is a violation of WP:BLP. Departure– (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure– I cant source it because it was on wikipedia. That is clear intent and bias. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have suppressed the information here and at the article, as I believe that the information violates the harassment policy. I will send a message to my colleagues on the Oversight team asking for review, as this is a bit of a borderline issue. Please do not post the information again, as you may be blocked for it. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz This does not violate the harassment policy. It is there on Wikipedia for everyone to see, all I did was forget to cite it. Not to mention there are far worse stuff said below in the article, written by other users. The only difference between me and them is that I forgot to cite it. It is not defamatory since the stuff he said was true. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should clarify that by what I mean by "It is there on Wikipedia for everyone to see", the Indonesian vice president comments are in fact there to see for everyone if you check. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My warning is not for posting defamatory information. My warning is for apparent WP:OUTING: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes an editor's real-life name. You should not be linking Wikimedia accounts to "real-life" people without their consent. Sdrqaz (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz I do not understand what you mean by outing. I didn't out anyone and if what I did, simply reporting that he was a wikipedia user and made (ironically) defamatory statements of other people then why hasn't anything been done about the bottom of the article where they talk about him owning an account on wikipedia and accusing him of making sexual suggestions towards other wikipedian users. That section has been there for probably years. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be as clear as I can: you should not connect an account on Wikipedia to a person in real life. That is only allowed if the account on Wikipedia says "hi, I'm x". That is what WP:OUTING is. Can you clarify where the bottom of the article where they talk about him owning an account on wikipedia is, if it is in an English Wikipedia article? Please either email me or email the Oversight team (oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org) so it can be removed. Sdrqaz (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the outing (this is not a matter for discussion): it violated the BLP because it is clearly negative in tone, and it was completely unverified, another BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies @Sdrqaz what about this article? Isn't this literally outing every single person to their account? To your next point, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibran_Rakabuming_Raka&oldid=1263901433#Alleged_ownership_of_former_accounts. Before me this was last edited in December of 2024. As you can see if you scroll to the bottom of the page, you will see an entire section talking about his account. Why was that, that has existed there for years, and I checked not purged from the record? I did not put that there, someone else did and they got away with it. Now finally, onto Drmies point, what I put there was not negative in tone. I talked in this type of tone "He did X on Indonesian Wikipedia, and is accused of doing Y as well.". A biased tone would be like "He is a bad person for doing X and he is untrustworthy for doing Y", but all I did was list what he did on that account. Finally, I tried to cite the claims with evidence from Wikipedia itself but was told that was not a reliable source, so I didn't know what to do. The entire reason I even found the article and edited it was through WP:Notable people who have edited wikipedia. I figured what I did was not outing since there is an entire wikipedia page dedicated to linking articles about people to their real accounts. So to summarize everything I've said, no I did not write a biased/non-NPOV section against him and I didn't have the intention to "out him" due to my inexperience as an editor and the Wikipedia policy page that "reassured" me that I was not doing anything wrong. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content was negative, and if you cannot see the difference between that section you just linked and what you wrote, then perhaps this is a competence issue. You don't seem to understand that you can't just link everything say everything out loud, even if you think it's common knowledge or whatever. But here is the other thing, because I pointed out that your edit was not verified: you say I didn't know what to do because you couldn't find independent secondary sources. It's really simple:

If you don't know what to do, don't do it.

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. If you don't have proper sourcing for something in a BLP, don't put it in there. If you are connection someone on Wikipedia to someone else and they haven't done that themselves, you should not do it. WP:OUTING is really clear and if you can't follow that, or you can't see how that applies, then WP:CIR applies (so no, this isn't "literally outing every single person to their account" because the outing has already been done, in reliable secondary sources). Can we be done now? The more you say about this, the worse you make it, not just because you don't seem to listen to us, but also because it just gives more air to this BLP violation. I am not going to discuss this anymore, but administrative action is a possibility if you keep this up. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies There was a section below which also detailed more negative stuff[...]. That has not been removed yet, why do my edits get purged from the history log and I get sanctioned for doing the exact same thing someone else did but they got away while I did not? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a relink if you need: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibran_Rakabuming_Raka&oldid=1263901433#Alleged_ownership_of_former_accounts SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same link you already posted and it does NOT say what you say it says. You did a different thing. You did not do the same thing. Dude, the word doesn't even show up in the article. Now stop. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I did not realize that was a different account. So if it doesn't violate WP:Outing, then I am free to restore that version? In the current wikipedia article that section has also been removed. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was removed and suppressed because of your addition to the heading (don't say it), and in addition removal was likely felt to be warranted by the user who removed it because the sourcing is really, really poor. Please also look at the article you said you got this from. What you can do is take the Jawa Pos article (which really looks awful) and the BBC article (which is short and merely has an allegation, which the subject denies) to WP:RSN and ask editors there whether they think any content based on that might be OK.

My advice to you is to just stay away from the matter: this has cost a bunch of people a bunch of time already. My advice to anyone editing BLPs is to err on the side of caution. I'm glad you had the realization you had, but I need you to realize one more thing: you came this close to being blocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Anyone can look at that and realize, yeah this user obviously wasnt defaming or outing someone intentionally (mens rea). Regardless thank you for the reminder and advice on BLPs and I will definitely be more cautious when editing biographies of living people. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pramila Jayapal, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts It didnt even matter since wikipedia already covered his account. Secondly if there was nothing wrong with my editing why go post 3 notifications on my talk page? Can I remove them? I got the message, now it seems pointless to have them on my talk page SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was about your edit to Pramila Jayapal, as the notice above stated. You are free to remove whatever notices you like from your talk page. See WP:OWNTALK. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SimpleSubCubicGraph! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Would 3 migrants drowning be worthy news?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts You could at least inform me what I edited about both post 1992 politics for the US and living or recently deceased people. I dont think I have done anything wrong and am willing to challenge any arguments made against me in the court of Arbitrations. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notice says: This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SimpleSubCubicGraph. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by TNM101 (chat) 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Be careful calling something libel on Wikipedia. It will earn a block.--v/r - TP 06:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend avoiding contentious topics or areas covered by general sanctions, as well as projectspace (such as WP:ITN, Wikipedia essays, etc.), until you have a good grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. As I said at WP:ARCA, your chances of changing contentious topic or general sanction restrictions are unlikely to succeed. You might view those things as roadblocks to areas that you would like to edit in, but they exist to prevent editors who don't know those policies well from causing disruption, intentional or otherwise (see, for example, the discussion above regarding BLP issues). You've already received several warnings from experienced editors about your content and conduct, and I do not want to see that end in a block. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you had already posted this by the time I left this message here. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts I am still autoconfirmed protected so its not really possible for me to edit anything controversial, nor do I plan on doing so after reaching 500 edits. Although I do not see anything wrong with at least trying to get the sanction lifted. I also appreciate that you care for me, which is very rare on Wikipedia, so thank you for that. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fully one-third of your edits are to projectspace; less than a quarter of them are to articles. Those numbers should not only be flipped, but you should be making far more edits to mainspace. As I said, focus on building an encyclopedia and becoming familiar with the policies and guidelines by applying them and following advice of experienced editors. Posting at ITN and trying to get essays deleted will not help you build the skills needed to be a successful editor. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: Can you refer to the Wikipedia main construct which is articles, not pages. Everything that is encyclopeadic on Wikipedia is an article. Refer to it as such. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep does it really matter? Articles, pages? Everyone knows they mean the same thing. I think its really weird to push your version of English onto me like a colonial overlord. Also wikipedia articles are pages. They are web pages that are displayed on a computer. Its like asking someone to refer to a banana as a fruit. It doesn't make sense. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia parlance:

- "Articles" are any webpages that are on the mainspace.

- "Pages" are usually any webpages not on mainspace, so Talk Pages or User Pages or Template Pages etc..

It can be a bit confusing for readers if you say "page" when you mean "article". qcne (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A clear line is at Wikipedia:Namespace, where the Article mainspace is clearly defined and separate from the other content on Wikipedia. Departure– (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Departure-: definition, they don't mean the same thing and of course it matters because i'm posting this message. Nomenclature defines reality. How people think and talk about something defines the system they are in. Everybody on here by common consent uses "articles" not pages. They are not pages and this is not a book. When you use pages, your placing yourself outside commonly agreed standards, which is not Wikipedia consensus by long term agreement. When I see editors use "pages" in conversation, I think they are paid editor or undeclared paid editors who don't give a ff about Wikipedia or editors or the internal processes. I know that for an absolute fact. The nomenclature is to use "article", so in the future use articles when talking about articles. Ok. scope_creep^Talk 18:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep I don't think I have seen anyone refer to Wikipedia "articles" as exclusively articles. The meaning is generally used interchangeably, like jail or prison even though they mean two separate things, but we just use them interchangeably. Also I have not seen one person get confused by me calling X "article" a page. I would like to know what comment or suggestion I made that led to you writing an entire paragraph over one simple word. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SimpleSubCubicGraph,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Magnitude 3.1 earthquake Los Angeles for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Magnitude 3.1 earthquake Los Angeles to be deleted, you can , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

Adamtt9 (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SimpleSubCubicGraph! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How to ask ArbCom to lower protection status on Armenia-Azerbaijan, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SimpleSubCubicGraph! The thread you created at the Teahouse, What is the opinion on wikipedia writing services?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]