User talk:Wikiediter2029

Welcome!

Hello, Wikiediter2029, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Great British Railways. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Danners430 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, I'm Fyrael. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Henley College Coventry, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Fyrael (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Coventry, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. TTWIDEE (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Mirror, you may be blocked from editing. Referentis (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Citizen Housing Association UK (June 13)

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

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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Citizen Housing Association UK 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.

~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikiediter2029! 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! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Citizen Housing Association UK (June 15)

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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:Citizen Housing Association UK 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) 10:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janzen Madsen moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Janzen Madsen. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for lettting me know, I'll get to adding more sources in my free time. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to see what kind of sources are useful for establishing notability, see WP:GOLDENRULE. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Janzen Madsen (July 21)

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

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.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Janzen Madsen 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.

RangersRus (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello, I'm Tarlby. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Grow a Garden, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hi Wikiediter2029! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Alexander Isak and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Raskuly (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Wikiediter2029 (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're still marking edits as minor when they're anything but that (e.g., [1]). Please be mindful going forward. RegentsPark (comment) 00:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark They haven't stopped. Nor have they stopped adding text without a reliable source.

They have also changed " Lando Norris was born " to "Lando Norris is born" and

"Norris was contracted to drive for McLaren for the 2019 Formula One World Championship to "is contracted" which makes no sense. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In July, GB News has been more popular than The BBC, and Sky News in terms of average viewership. This had marked the BBC has been taken over for a month. GB News has an averagw of 80.61K, whereas The BBC has 78.65K with sky being 67K. GB News Ben Briscoe, Head of Programme states: "This is a seismic moment, not just for us, but for British broadcasting. We are ending the dominance of the BBC News Channel and Sky News." They were able to add citations ok. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Police 101, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 112 and 111. 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) 08:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Phone-number-stub

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Phone-number-stub, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Johnj1995 (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of 15.ai has passed

Your good article nomination of the article 15.ai has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of [[User:|User:]] -- [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]]) 18:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination instructions

Here were the changes I made to the talk page: [2]

The oldid field is the number that you see if you go to the history of an article and click on the timestamp. For example, when you were reviewing the 15.ai article, the article looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&oldid=1313495971. Notice that the URL ends in "oldid=1313495971", so that's the value that goes into oldid. So, the value of the template should have looked like {{GA|~~~~~|topic=Computing and engineering|page=3|oldid=1313495971}}. The 3 is because this was the third GA nomination, and "Computing and engineering" is one of the categories listed in WP:GAN/I#N2. After that, just go to the WikiProject templates and change the {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B}} into {{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA}}. Hope that helps! If you have any more questions WP:GAN/I#R4 should be able to answer them. –G M 19:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Line GA review

Hi Wikiediter2029, I see that you quick-failed my GA nomination for Kingston Line claiming lack of incline citations, modern coverage and sourcing detail. I do not think this is a fair or accurate review. Every single statement in the body of the article has an inline citation to a reliable source. It is accurate up to the most recent relevant service changes in July 2025, which are cited in the "Service since 1997" section. Quick-fail GAs are only allowed in certain situations, and you have not given any evidence that this is one of them.

When you do a GA review, you need to follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I#R1. That is true for both passing and failing; reviews like Talk:Thomas Edison/GA2 are not appropriate. I recommend you either give these articles full reviews per the instructions, or withdraw your reviews to allow others to review the articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let me check again then. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Thomas Edison

Thomas Edison has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 15.ai

15.ai has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews

Hello Wikiediter2029. Please stop all activities related to reviewing Good article nominees for the time being. While short reviews are not unusual, short can still be somewhat "in-depth", and this is a requirement. Your reviews are too cursory to be acceptable. For more information, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Improper review. Do not be discouraged. This is not such a big deal. Your enthusiasm is valued and you could be doing GA reviews relatively soon, as long as you do them appropriately. But it is important that you take a several days' break from this type of activity until the discussion I've linked to concludes on the issue of your reviews. Sincerely —Alalch E. 01:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I also removed your GA nomination of Mercedes-Benz, as it doesn't look like you have any edits to it or have posted on its talk page/contacted primary authors; as a result, this is considered a drive-by nom. If you wish to re-nominate it, you should first consult the main contributors. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hello, I'm Leafy46. An edit that you recently made to Z seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Leafy46 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Hi Wikiediter2029! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Alexander Isak and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Police terms in the UK moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Police terms in the UK, 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. Mccapra (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]