User talk:Estopedist1/Archive 1

Hello, Bioneer1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Abiotic decomposition, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Abiotic decomposition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:DICDEF: abiotic decomposition is decomposition that is not biotic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It used to say,

"who are deemed to be cognitively "higher functioning" (with an IQ of 70 or greater)",

then on 25 July 2019 Randomwikiman29937 changed it to

"who do not have a Intellectual disability (An IQ of 70 or more)",

so I fixed it to be,

"who do not have an intellectual disability (an IQ of 70 or less)" (because that's what an intellectual disability is),

but the current version refers to "autism without intellectual disability", so it's fine with "more". Volunteer1234 forgot to update this when they shortened the sentence on 24 November 2019. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your correction of Asutav Kogu in the article Aleksander Ennemuist. That was not my typo that you attributed to me. ExRat (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I see what you meant now. I disrupted the reference. I apologize. Yes, this was my mistake. Thank you for correcting it. ExRat (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liisi Ojamaa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estonian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y thanks for noticing!--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sports events in hosting countries are very often tagged with local wikiprojects, just from what I've seen. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10: There is certainly inconsistency about this question. My common sense tells, that it is bad practice, see eg Category:International ice hockey competitions hosted by Estonia. And compare Category:International sports competitions hosted by Germany which seems to be confirmed my common sense --Estopedist1 (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Jaanimäe, Setomaa Parish, does not have enough sources and citations 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. buidhe 01:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ohtuleht.ee is not reliable source

There is no reason to doubt their sport's-related content. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10: generally definitely not reliable source but maybe we can do exception when dealing with sports and entertainment stuff. If better sources are available should be substituted--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of festivals in Estonia, does not have enough sources and citations 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. buidhe 19:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Hey, mate! Can we speedy move it to back namespace 0?--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of festivals in Estonia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

buidhe 06:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your Estonian entries would be much appreciated on this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I registered. Thanks for noticing!--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. one thing though, please don't create articles with an ugly "more sources" tag. Nobody is going to add them and it makes the articles look worse than they are. if sourcing is a concern for you add more sources! Keep up the good work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: ugly or not, but reviewers add the template {{refimprove}} anyway. Eg see [1] or [2]--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1,

Thank you for creating Anthyllis coccinea.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please see WP:Citing sources for information on proper reference formatting.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1,

Thank you for creating Voldemar Panso.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for you work on this article. Needs expansion, possibly by adding details about his personal life and works.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Samf4u}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Samf4u (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1,

Thank you for creating Anna Raudkats.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for your work on this article. Recommend expanding it using the corresponding article at the Estonian language Vikipeedia

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Samf4u}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Samf4u (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Toomas Sulling, does not have enough sources and citations 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. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1,

Thank you for creating Paul Pinna.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Expansion and sources needed.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|WikiAviator}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

WikiAviator (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1

Thank you for creating Edgar Kant.

User:Gazal world, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating this page. I hope, you will expand it by adding further information about his life and works.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Gazal world}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Gazal world (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrei Krõlov 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/Andrei Krõlov 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. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Parvicardium hauniense, does not have enough content 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. John B123 (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10 and Flying Saucer: I can easily create articles of all Estonian villages (about 700 is missing yet) but to do it much more easily, EHAK-code is needed for individual village. I have doc-file where is the list with all missing Estonian villages by parish. Does anyone want to help me doing this work manually using eg etwiki?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not really interested. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I bet you can "easily create articles of all Estonian villages", and you're already doing that. And since the article's main text (probably) won't contain much information, the infobox at least should. If you could just make the most important wikidata statements visible in the infobox (or even in the text), it would look much nicer. I mean the current population with date, area, density, coords, etc., almost like in the Estonian version. Since I'm pretty busy these days and not really active in WP, I can't help much. But good luck anyway! Flying Saucer (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please take a look at this policy before mass creating stubs with AWB. It's currently flooding NPP. Praxidicae (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the mass creation of stubs is not permitted according to policy. Please stop, and get consensus to generate these articles before continuing. Thank you. – bradv🍁 20:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: sorry, mates. I was thinking that page reviewers can mass-review article sets--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You either need to create these manually, or you need to file a WP:BRFA. I would also suggest that these would benefit from having better sources before they are created. – bradv🍁 20:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv and Praxidicae: Have the newest batch of mass-created articles been permitted via BRFA? I don't see the evidence that it has, and I'm seeing almost nothing but Estonian villages in NPP now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: sorry, mate. Probably all villages in Estonia are covered now. Maybe some appears when link problem--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ridali Gliding Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Primary refs only to the club's website, no indication this meets WP:GNG.

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. Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Urmas Klaas, does not have enough sources and citations 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. John B123 (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of waterfalls in Estonia, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 08:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The infobox for Tääksi has errors for the coordinates, could you please take a look and make the necessary fixes? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y, sorry, @Hughesdarren:--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The infobox for Võhmassaare has errors for the coordinates, could you please take a look and make the necessary fixes? Regards.

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of lakes of Estonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Hino, Kalli, Arbi, Agali, Ahijärv and Laho

List of rivers of Estonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Agali

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Arvamusfestival requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Tatupiplu'^talk 14:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1,

Thank you for creating Estonian Literary Society.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

More prose and citations would be nice if at all possible.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2 Quick Start, does not have enough sources and citations 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 follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 17:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1,

Thank you for creating List of springs of Estonia.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains^(talk) 15:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of lakes of Estonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Hino, Kalli, Arbi, Agali, Ahijärv and Laho

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 12:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an AFC reviewer and hence shouldn't move drafts to mainspace, regardless of how good it is. Thank you. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 12:57, 22 March 2020 (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 Robert McClenon was:

This draft is a request to spin off an article. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article, unless the draft satisfies a special notability guide. If the draft satisfies a special notability guide, please identify the notability criterion with a reliable source. This does not mean that the draft should be spun off, and it does not mean that the draft should not be spun off. It does mean that discussion should be on the talk page of the existing article, Talk:Tallinn University of Technology]. (If this draft is resubmitted without discussion on the talk page of the existing article and does not satisfy a special notability guide, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.) Discuss at the university talk page whether a separate article for the library is warranted. Otherwise this material can be expanded in the university article. This is not saying that a separate article is disapproved, and it is not saying that a separate article is approved.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tallinn University of Technology Library and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tallinn University of Technology Library, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1! Having an article 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Union of Estonian Architects, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1,

Thank you for creating Union of Estonian Architects.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Notability not established. Please see the requirements for WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Sulfurboy}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Sulfurboy (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Estopedist, since Meriküla and Mereküla point to exactly the same articles, wouldn't it make more sense to make Mereküla a redirect to Meriküla? Leschnei (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I see that they are not the same articles. I still think that there is merit to having one disambiguation page. It would be easier to keep up to date. What do you think? Leschnei (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: agree, it is confusing even to Estonians. You are free to do it; and Mereküla is more used, see et:Mereküla. Also note, that also Merekülä exists--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Meriküla to Mereküla. Please take a look and make any changes you think necessary. Leschnei (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: well done!--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Estopedist1. I see you've been making an effort to fix the links to disambiguation pages you have added to various templates. Thanks for that. You might find it helpful to know that, on Special:Preferences on the Gadgets tab, under Appearance, there is an option to display links to disambiguation pages in orange. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Estopedist1, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia/publicwatchlist? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y @Pelmeen10: updated. Divided into two sections to reduce lag--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2020 (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 Dan arndt 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Discogs is not an acceptable or 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2 Quick Start and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2 Quick Start, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sokos Hotels logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're doing great work but try to learn to add "the" or "a" before words. Islands are in. The islands are in. See this .† Encyclopædius 05:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Encyclopædius: sorry, mate. I am somewhat affected by my Neo-English--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. Read Noun and Definite article, might help you. † Encyclopædius 07:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a park. 'The park' would be if there is only one, understand? 'Is a river' not 'the river' too† Encyclopædius 15:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Max Kaur you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: sorry, mate. My obvious mistake. Fixed it here: talk:Vello Asi --Estopedist1 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to warn you that you are in danger of being blocked for edit warring, because of your repeated additions to the template Template talk:Estonian elections in violation of the consensus at the talk page. Please continue to discuss there, but do NOT make any further additions to the template unless and until there is consensus at the talk page to do so. If you make another edit against the consensus, you will be blocked from editing. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

an Estonian. Please remember!† Encyclopædius 08:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaatasin seda. Ma tegin eile üldse hea hulga artiklite puhul neid hinnanguid ringi, sest jäi mulje, et neid oli ikka väga suvaliselt laotatud. Mitte, et need oleks nüüd korda saanud, aga vähemalt ei ole hinnangud enam nii juhuslikud. Ja nagu sa tead, siis olen koostanud varem ka neid Eesti 100 ja Eesti 1000 nimekirjasid, ehk päris pikalt mõelnud selle üle, et mida tähtsamaks ja mida vähemtähtsaks pidada. Praegu oleks siin pigem küsimus selles, et kui mitu artiklit võiks olla top ja kui palju artikleid high kategoorias. Ma ise lähtuks sellest, et esimeses võiks Eesti puhul olla vähemalt sada ja teises vähemalt 500 (hetkel on neis vastavalt 76 ja 264). Samas peaks see arusaam esmalt paigas olema ja siis saab selle alusel artikleid valida. Nt Laikmaa on Eesti kunstnike seas kindlast üsna tipus. Mägi, Wiiralt ja Köler võiks olla gramm kõrgemal, aga Laikmaad oleks paras hoida high kategoorias kõrvuti Triigi, Sittowi, (Pärna) ning vast ka Adamsoni, Hagen-Schwarzi ja ehk veel mõnega. Üldiselt olin ka hinnanguid pannes pigem konservatiivne, ehk praktikas võiks sinna kõrgematesse sfääridesse rohkem artikleid tõsta. Ivo (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kruusamägi, Pelmeen10, Flying Saucer, and H2ppyme: see on hea, kui keegi püüab asja ülevaatlikult hinnata. Samas see on üksjagu subjektiivne teema ja seetõttu soovitan arutelulehtedel importance'it muuta ainult siis, kui see on ilmselgelt väär. Ma ise püüan hinnata pigem nii, et HIGH-klassi pääsevad ainult üksikud (TOP-klassis on Eesti A ja O). Ma ise ei paneks ühtegi kunstnikku HIGH-klassi; nt Arvo Pärdi aga küll. Kui on raskem asi, siis otsin hindamisel abi nt siit: Wikipedia:Assessing_articles#Importance_ratings:_a_variety_of_definitions ja siit: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Priority_of_topic--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need kirjeldused on seal muidugi kõik kenad, aga achieved international notability within their field ja vikiprojekt Eesti on vaja kuidagi ühildada, sest mõistetavalt on meil inimesi ja nähtusi, mis nö Eesti teema katmisel on kõige kõrgema tähtsuse kategooriaga üldse, aga rahvusvaheliselt pole ehk kunagi tähelepanu pälvinud. Ehk üle peaks neid hinnanguid vaatama küll ja selle üle aru pidama ning üks esmaseid samme oleks otsustada, et mitu artiklit oleks lubatav kõrgematesse kategooriatesse. Ehk kui top kategooria on nö Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia, siis mitu artiklit ühe üheköitelise Eesti-teemalise entsüklopeedia alla paigutaks?

Enne minu ringkäiku oli artikleid hinnanguga low importance, mis samal ajal klassifitseeruvad 100 kõige tähtsama Eestiga seotud artikli hulka, ja artikleid, mille hinnang oli top või high ning mille puhul oleks maksimaalselt põhjendatav mid... kui sedagi. Nagu ma ütlesin, siis olin siin pigem konservatiivne, ehk kui mul oli valikuid kahe kategooria vahel, siis reeglina valisin madalama. Ehk muutsin eelkõige ikka ainult ja ainult neid kohti, kus senist hinnangut ilmselgelt valeks pidasin.

Ja see näide ei kõlba sul. Arvo Pärt on ilmselgelt top kategooria isik. Nagu ilma mingi kahtluseta. Ja neid isikuid (ka kunstnike seas) on meil külluses, kes ei ole küll maailmanimed, aga Eesti oludes on absoluutses tipus (ehk midagi alla high määratluse oleks antud projekti piires lubamatu). Ivo (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kruusamägi: vahest kõige asjalikum on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Germany/Assessment#Importance_scale, mis toob sisse ka rahvusvahelisuse võtme. Nii et Eesti tippkunstnikud, kes pole rahvusvaheliselt tuntud, ikkagi MID-klassi

Ka natuke matemaatikat:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kui vaadata sakslaste juhendit, siis seal on top juures kirjas, et "This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members. Biographies should be limited to the top one or two Germans in a particular field or persons of the greatest historical importance". Aga mida ma siis siin väitnud olen? Seda sama asja, et top all võiks olla sadakond kõige olulisemat artiklit. Samuti seda, et mingi valdkonna absoluutne tipp peaks saama võimaluse sinna kuuluda. See ju kõik kinnitab minu väiteid.

Siin on oluline mõista, et kuidas suhestub siia see sama "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia". Kui meil on ühekäiteline (paber)entsüklopeedia, siis hoolimata sellest, kas teemaks on Venemaa, USA või Nauru, mahub sinna sama palju tähemärke. Füüsiline ruum lihtsalt annab selle piiri. Ehk valitud artiklite üldarv peaks olema eri projektide puhul väga sarnane (mis sest, et mõnel teemal on palju rohkem artikleid ja laiemalt tuntud mõisteid). Siit ka minu jutt selle kohta, et vaja oleks kokku leppida mingi kategooria artiklite üldarv ja siis saaks neid üksteisega kõrvutada ning oleks alust uusi juurde lisada või olemasolevaid välja praakida. Eelnev pakkumine mul oligi, et top 100 ja high 500, mis läheks üsna kenasti kokku tolle tabeliga.

Igaks juhuks märgin ära, et sa ise paigutad kohati suht suvakaid artikleid sinna mid klassi (näide). See ei jäta küll muljet, et mingi valdkonna Eesti absoluutseid tippe peaks sinna samma toppima. Nt Laikmaa on meil 20. sajandi üks väljapaisvamaid kunstnikke. Temaga sama kaliibri tegelane Eesti poliitikas oleks nt Ansip ja mitte mõni Riigikogu liige.

Ja Soome puhul paistab, et nad ei võta artiklite hindamist väga tõsiselt või ei pea seda oluliseks. Neil võiks hinnatud artiklite üldarv ikka vähemalt no 2x suurem olla. Nii sobiks Eestit võrrelda eelkõige Leeduga. (vast ka Lätiga, aga neid andmeid hetkel siin ei ole)

Ja mainin ka seda, et vistaksin top ja hight seast mingi hulga artikleid minema, mitte ainult ei tõstnud varem low sekka paigutatute hinnangut. Ivo (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kruusamägi: Lisasin Läti andmed ka. Raivo Aeg jt puhul lähtusin, et kui on praeguse Riigikogu liikmed, siis v-o pole LOW-klass. V-o väga ajatundlikud subjektid panna pigem LOW-klassi kohe. TOP-klass piirata ca 100ga ja HIGH ca 500ga tundub mõistlik--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siin oleks vast ka hea natuke seda Importance scale osa laiendada. Või on keegi vastu? (ja need lingid seal võiks vast otse Eesti enda kategooriate juurde olla) Ivo (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 11:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Estonian Award of National Merit is moved to User:Estopedist1--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FUI, per WP:DAB guidelines, the wikiproject tag is not placed on empty disambig talk pages. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of theatres in Estonia, does not have enough sources and citations 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. HeartGlow30797 (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of record labels from Estonia, does not have enough sources and citations 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. HeartGlow30797 (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please...

Did you have any justification for suggesting renaming the article on Jonah_Paffhausen, other than deference to the traditions of the Orthodox priesthood? Did you have any justification based on a wikipedia policy or guideline? If so, could you return there, and offer it?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tartu Department Store 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/Tartu Department Store 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. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 08:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Estopedist, I'm not familiar with Estonian names, but is it possible that the DAB pages Pikkjärv and Pikkjärve could be combined? If the names have the same origin, it would make sense to put the entries together with one section for lakes and another for places. What do you think? Leschnei (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: support. For Estonians not confusing, but in enwiki, rational should be one disambiguation page--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if "rational should be one disambiguation page" means one disambiguation page per name or one disambiguation page total. There are plenty of instances of name variations sharing a disambiguation page, and it is discussed in the DAB page guidelines (WP:DABCOMBINE). If there are many entries, it makes sense to split up the variations. But when there are only 5 entries, I think that it would be simpler for the reader to have them all on one page. Leschnei (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y @Leschnei:--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cyrano de Bergerac (Tamberg), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cyrano de Bergerac by Eino Tamberg was the first opera to be broadcast internationally from Estonia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cyrano de Bergerac (Tamberg). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cyrano de Bergerac (Tamberg)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian topics

Thank you for quality articles about culture in Estonia, such as Cyrano de Bergerac (Tamberg) and Vello Asi, for creating hundreds of stubs for Estonian places and people, and lists for features of Estonia such as List of wetlands of Estonia, - green citizen, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2405 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned me regarding a DYK, - that article is way too short at present. Will it grow? 1,500 characters of prose are the minimum. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just noticed your reversion on The Holocaust in Estonia. Even if there is a reference, it's false: there's no evidence of that number on the linked page. On the other hand, in the section named "number of victims" it is said: "15.000 soviet POW". Which is the truth, 15.000 or 25.000? Surfing on the Internet, I would say it's the first one: 1, 2, 3 (In addition, approximately 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war (POWs) and 6,500 foreign Jews were murdered or died in camps), 4 (p. 4). Let me know what we can do to fix this information. -X3SNW8 (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@X3SNW8: sorry, mate and thanks! I restored your improvement that 15,000. The reference says "A careful analysis of the sparse evidence available suggests that of some 30,000+ Soviet POWs held in Estonia about 15,000 died in captivity". And a side notice: next time just explain in more detail, when you are dealing with referenced statements--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Parvicardium hauniense, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1,

Thank you for creating Eesti Loodus.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Many more references for this magazine exist. The article *needs* further references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Parvicardium hauniense. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it says, essentially, that with just a reference to the database, the article is incomplete; it should be possible to find the actual paper describing it, and giving some more details. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: good work with draft-stuff! Good luck!--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated; sometimes I feel I need encouragement. DGG ( talk ) 10:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2 Quick Start".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "unlikely to be own work. See TinEye search "

The image of Cheo Feliciano is used on countless articles so I got to thinking that 'wow if this image were deleted it'd be really impossible to replace it'. So I want to let you know my opinion:

1) "unlikely to be own work" doesn't seem a good reason to nominate this file for deletion. Anytime I've marked something as a copyvio - I've done after finding the image somewhere else. "unlikely to be own work" is strange to me. Is it because it was the only uploader's contribution? That would not make me suspicious. This image is the only image available for this iconic Latin singer. It would be very dificult to find a picture of Cheo Feliciano. Please consider keeping this file unless someone can prove that this "work" is a copyvio. This phot looks like it was taken at a concert. It looks like a fan could have easily taken this or it could have been uploaded by a family member of Cheo. Any images of Cheo on flickr are copyright because people want to make money from 'em. Anyway, I took a picture of Yomo Toro years ago. I guess if this were the only image I ever uploaded, you would mark it "unlikely to be own work"? It doesn't seem like good rationale for nominating it for deletion or am I missing something?

2) You suggested we use the TinEye Internet site and I did. I checked the dates for when this image starts to show up on the internet. This file / image was first uploaded to Wiki Commons on April 18, 2014 and the results found on 94TinEye shows the image popping up 94 times but all of them show up on the internet after April, 2014. The first time it shows up according to TinEye is on May 12, 2014, which is after it shows up on Commons. So either way, it shows up on Wikipedia Commons first. Am I missing something? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Baltic News Network, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1

To answer your question from WS: 'Are you against reference templates in Wikispecies or against the current names of reference templates in Wikispecies?'

The answer to both options is 'no', I'm *not* against reference templates in Wikispecies or against the current names of reference templates in Wikispecies.

I'm not against anything! I'm simply trying to point out to you that you are wasting your time and energy doing something pointless, i.e. replacing one perfectly good convention with another, when the difference isn't even visible in articles! It is all simply the result of the political backlash against me from several years ago, when a significant group of other WS editors mobbed together and turned against me, deciding that all my conventions were somehow "wrong"! Before me, people weren't even using reference templates on WS (maybe very very rarely, but hardly at all). I set up the system and constructed it according to my chosen conventions. Any convention has pros and cons, and while these may differ between conventions, the end result is more or less the same. If anything, the Zt- naming convention for Zootaxa reference templates was more sensible than using author names (if people actually took time to think it through properly!), but, simply because I'm now persona non grata on WS, you and others spend hours replacing my conventions with equivalent ones that were chosen simply because they are not my conventions! It is "no skin off my nose", of course, but it is kind of sad to see so much effort wasted on this, instead of actually adding useful new content to WS.

Cheers, GruesomeBalls (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GruesomeBalls: WS is a Wikiproject, hence: collective cooperation. You did solo-work and if others criticized Your contributions, You just neglected. It is unacceptable and deserves banning. I have reverted, re-worked, deleted thousands and thousands Yours objectively bad solutions, like tl:auth, Pt-templates, specific Erratum-templates etc etc.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My ban was not the issue. If you want to waste time and effort on nothing more than revenge editing, then that is up to you, but I suspect you could be spending your limited time on this Earth a tad more constructively, that's all! GruesomeBalls (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It may also be noted that you are also spending a lot of time replacing the unilateral conventions of other users (e.g. Accassidy) who have never been banned. Again, these are conventions regarding merely the names of reference templates, the names of which aren't even visible in articles (only visible while editing). Why can't you see that this is not a productive use of your time and effort? You are simply replacing one invisible object with another equally invisible object! Madness!! GruesomeBalls (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GruesomeBalls: please read updated version of Wikispecies:Help:Reference section and comments in Wikispecies:Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Poll:_Zt-_and_Pt-templates_to_be_banned?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done. It is simply a result of revenge politics against me and a high level of pig-headedness on the part of others who didn't even bother to try to understand the system as I intended it to work*, but which would have made things a heck of a lot easier to make actual progress on WS, instead of replacing one invisible object with another equally invisible object! *I had set up pages and subpages for each journal so that any created reference template could be filed on the appropriate page, so users could look it up to see if a template for that reference already existed and, if so, what it was called. The actual name of the template is invisible and entirely unimportant. Oh well, you must have a lot of spare time on your hands to want to go through all the reference templates, pointlessly changing their names! GruesomeBalls (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GruesomeBalls: Pt- and Zt-templates topic are exhausted. But be free to share your's interesting and constructive ideas and approaches with me. Because, I am one of the leading figure in WS and I am also an information visionary--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, "Mr. Visionary" (cough!), I will: Another issue that the WS mob refuse to understand concerns identifiers which double as links to external websites. My view is that the identifier itself does not need to be visible, and only adds to distracting clutter and unnecessary complexity. So, my suggestion is that with, for example, dois, the doi itself does not need to be visible, just a hyperlink labelled "doi" which acts as a link to the external site with the article content. If someone does want to know the actual identifier, then they can very easily either (1) clink on the hyperlink and get the identifier from the external site, or (2) use their browser to "copy link address" and get it that way. Having long and meaningless identifiers all over articles is just distracting and pointless. GruesomeBalls (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GruesomeBalls: yes, Links or External links section is in most cases redundant in WS, because we should use tl:taxonbar, like enwiki or Commons does. Secondly: DOI topic is not WS-specific, you can ask it here: Template talk:doi--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your advice and posted my suggestion there. Sadly though, I expect to get immediately shouted down by the usual Wiki nay-sayers and contrarians! GruesomeBalls (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm blocked from WS, so I can't do it, but you might want to bring the following just published article to their attention on the Village Pump (it is potentially catastrophic for taxonomy!) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-01344-y Cheers, GruesomeBalls (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done mentioned in WS's Village Pump--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GruesomeBalls (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC) PS: It would have been better not to mention me! The first replier at least seems more concerned with petty wiki-politics than the threat to taxonomy from the cosmetic woke movement![reply]

If you will have good ideas for WS, you can contact me with e-mail: margus.magi3@gmail.com. If the idea is given, I will analyze it and will share it, if the idea is rational. Even deprecated users may still have some brilliant ideas :)--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parvicardium hauniense, 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!

KylieTastic (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Curbon7 were:

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.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2 Quick Start and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2 Quick Start, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: could you help here, mates User:Ymblanter, User:ExRat. It should be obvious that 2 Quick Start is now notable for enwiki. Already the fact that "best band of the year" should do this band notable for enwiki --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say it is notable. Are there more references available similar to 1 and 2?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: of course, one reference added. How many references do we need that ultrarigorous User:Curbon7 will be content?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'm not that rigorous! Three is a solid base as long as it covers a solid base of the article's content. Curbon7 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Discogs isn't a valid source per WP:RS, but I'll approve the draft without it as long as you find another source at some point. I'm sure there are plenty of Estonian news articles about this band. Curbon7 (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 Quick Start, 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!

Curbon7 (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eesti Kullafond 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/Eesti Kullafond 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. Richard3120 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Templates which says : "Please do not use to create talk pages that have no discussion". Lembit Staan (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May be the guideline was incorrect/confusing/misunderstood and I was wrong to revert you after all, wor which I apologize.. See discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#wikiproject template. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Estopedist1, I've been noticing all the new fungus-related articles you are creating, and thought I should let you know that fungi=plural and fungus=singular, so for example "Ascochyta agropyrina is a species of fungi" should be changed to "species of fungus". In contrast, "Ascochyta is a genus of fungi" would also be correct grammar. Have a good day! Esculenta (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure what happened, but you put the rank as "genus" in a number of family taxonomy templates, as here. I've corrected them. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, mate! My obvious mistake!--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Vladimir Velman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Little information. This article has not so much information for clear understanding.

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. Tanbirzx (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lemna turionifera, 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!

Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When it's necessary to use a disambiguated title for a taxonomy template, like Template:Taxonomy/Chaetoderma (fungus), because both a plant and an animal taxon have the same name, then the |link= field should always be set up to be something like |link=Chaetoderma (fungus)|Chaetoderma, because we don't want to see "Genus: Chaetoderma (fungus)" in the resulting taxobox.

Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating new articles. When you use italics in articles, e.g. for species names, please remember to close all italic formatting that you open, like this. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete the stub Conardia, which needs at least a speciesbox and a stub tag. If it is monotypic, please format accordingly. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 11:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: monotypy may be challenging (fossils, synonyms etc). I hope smarter ones will solve monotypy problems. If I am correct then automatic taxobox must be also used when dealing with monotypic genus?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two monotypic genera I created recently: Apodanthes, Zingela. Abductive (reasoning) 13:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speciesbox should be used for monotypic genera, not Automatic taxobox. Think of it this way: Speciesbox displays the taxonomic hierarchy for a species no matter what the title of the article is (e.g. a common name, or a genus name). The convention for an article title is to use the genus name when it's monotypic, but that doesn't have anything to do with which taxobox template to use; if the name of a species is to be displayed, Speciesbox is used. Plantdrew (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see all the articles you've created! Some minor points about formatting – consider Dolerocypris as an example:

• There's no need to repeat the source of a list of species after each species name. The convention is to put it once after the introduction (i.e. "Species:" in this example). You only need a separate reference if the species is from a different source.
• The authorities in a list of species are put into small font, either by enclosing them in <small> ... </small> or by using {{Small}}.
• The genus name in the GBIF reference should be italicized.
• Ideally also create the talk page. In this case it could contain {{WikiProject Arthropods |class=stub |importance=low |needs-image=yes}}.

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another point on this, there are various templates you can use to make citations a bit easier, for example Template:GBIF, and there are more for Template:Cite WoRMS, Template:ITIS, Template:Inaturalist taxon, Template:Fossilworks and probably more. @Peter coxhead:, I think I am also guilty of not italicising on some things, but @Estopedist1: you can do that too through the templates. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireExpat: the bad thing is, that if eg WORMS, GBIF or IRMING will be closed due to financial problems, then it is hard or maybe even impossible to subsitute these so-called templated URLs with archieved ones --Estopedist1 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't having them in a regular format make them easier to substitute? Has this ever happened? YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you use one of these templates, say {{GBIF}}, rather than just one of the cite/citation templates, a big advantage is that if the URLs change their format, you only need to change the template, not every article. I used a lot of direct citations to the Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World, which used to be at https://worldplants.webarchiv.kit.edu/ferns/ but has moved to https://www.worldplants.de/world-ferns/ferns-and-lycophytes-list (and is called "World Ferns"). Fortunately the old URL redirects to the new one, so far, but if I'd instead created a template and used that, I could just have updated the template. Now there are a lot of articles with citations that need to be fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Karl Väli, 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. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 18:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted have proposed the deletion of Entypoma as it violates the rule A1, it has no context. You can contest it, but you could always make it longer before it is deleted. ~~Lovin'Politics (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovin'Politics (talk • contribs) 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lovin'Politics: please sign your comments correctly. Thanks, mate! --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of rule A1, too short. When it is moved back to the draftspace, you could always modify it, put more sources, and then resubmit it as a draft. User:Lovin'Politics (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovin'Politics (talk • contribs) 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lovin'Politics: please sign your comments correctly. Thanks, mate! --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Wikipedia:Article wizard before you start making a bunch of articles that are really low quality. Up your sources. User:Lovin'Politics— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovin'Politics (talk • contribs) 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lovin'Politics: please sign your comments correctly. Thanks, mate! --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could get blocked from editing from deleting processes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovin'Politics (talk • contribs) 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Estopedist1,

• I think it would be a good idea to start the articles on the Estonian language Wikipedia first. When I see a new article created about a politician outside - for lack of a better term, the Anglosphere - my first thought is to check the article in that language. Olev Toomet and Elmar Truu for example.
• Please do remember to "write for your audience". As someone in Australia, I might not be able to point out where Estonia is on a map of the world, let alone understand whether its current legislature is bicameral or unicameral.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58, Ymblanter, and Lovin'Politics: could you help please here, user:Ymblanter. Obviously, these Riigikogu's members are in scope of enwiki, and speedy-deletion requests (added by Shirt58) are quite nonsense here. NB! Riigikogu is most important (political) body in Estonia. IMHO, I don't see the bright future for Estonian Wikipedia, so I don't want to waste time there. So, my goal is to collect most important Estonia-related stuff to enwiki --Estopedist1 (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) There is no requirement to create the articles elsewhere first. The stubs are not eligible for deletion, but it would perhaps be more helpful to Wikipedia's readers if it were possible to add more than just the minimum of information from the start – anything about their life, career, etc. But again, that is not really a requirement, as long as the stubs are sourced and clearly about notable subjects. Wikipedia is better off having the stubs than not having them. --bonadea contributions talk 10:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estopedist1 I personally think it should be deleted but I won't contest Lovin'Politics (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the logs of all the new pages, and you have done abhorrently. all those are just extremely short stubs, so I really ask you to look at Article Wizard to learn how to do them. use at least 5 sources. don't just have one sentence. ~~ Lovin'Politics (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovin'Politics, it is not true that Estopedist1 has "done abhorrently", and their article stubs are not bad, only short. Fleshing some of them out more would be good (as I also commented above), but the stubs are sourced and neutrally written, so there's no policy based reason to complain about them. --bonadea contributions talk 11:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Amphidium requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 17:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y @Bop34: the DAB in question is corrected--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zonocerus variegatus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the variegated grasshopper can be de-winged, salted and fried to provide a tasty meal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zonocerus variegatus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Zonocerus variegatus), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you recently created Pompilus, is it a duplicate of Pompilus (wasp) or different? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: thanks for the valuable info. Pompilus is changed to DAB. Discussion about duplicate template is here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 14 --Estopedist1 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when I looked earlier, Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup had 12 entries. None of them should have been there, and they have now disappeared from the category. This can take a day or more, depending on how busy the system is. It is useful, though, if you can avoid articles getting into this category. It happens when you save an article with an automated taxobox or a taxonomy template before you finish creating all the necessary taxonomy templates in the taxonomic hierarchy. The temporary error puts the article/template in an error-tracking category. However, it doesn't get removed as soon as you finish creating the necessary taxonomy templates unless you force it by editing and saving the article/template.

So, given that you are now an experienced editor (and I applaud the number of stub taxon articles you are creating), can I ask you to:

• use "Preview" to see whether the taxobox/taxonomy template is complete
• if not, without saving, use the "fix" link to open the missing template in a new tab/window, and complete it
• repeat, without saving, until all the taxonomy templates exist
• then save top-down.

This really helps those of us who keep an eye on the taxobox error-tracking categories, since we don't have to open and check articles/templates that are really ok.

Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. I'll do like requested --Estopedist1 (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Trilepidea requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: what happened, colleague? We have thousands and thousands of DABs like Trigastrotheca or Trilepidea --Estopedist1 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are two problems with this dab page. 1/ It only disambiguates two articles, which should more easily be handled by hatnotes on top of the respective articles and 2/ one of the two articles doesn't even exist. Trilepidea is obviously the primary topic, the journal being named after the plant genus. As the pplant article at this point is the only one existing, it does not need a dab and could just be named "Trilepidea". If ever the journal turns out to be notable (see WP:NJournals), a hatnote can be placed in both articles referring to each other (see WP:ONEOTHER). Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are rapidly creating stubs for plant genera. Unfortunately, it seems that you are only listing the first two species for each genus, rather than the entire list from PoWO. Is this some sort of automation problem? Abductive (reasoning) 03:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: these stubs are manually done. I am only using program/gadget Hotkeys to create raw templates. If over 4 species, I am lazy. Sorry! --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All species should be listed. Please correct the stubs you have already created. Abductive (reasoning) 14:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{Format species list}}. You can copy a list of species from POWO, put it in the template, and the template does all the formatting. Plantdrew (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: excellent trick by user:Plantdrew. What do you think guys, lets cover all POWO genera from User:Abductive/missing genera from POWO? About 2800 genera to go --Estopedist1 (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I changed the interlanguage links you added to Ahti Kõo[3]. Per this RfC, there should be no links to Wikidata in the article text. It also adds another layer between the reader and the text he may want to see: linking directly is more efficient. I don't know if you used the same system in other articles as well: please consider changing them to the correct format. Thanks! Fram (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: thanks. But when dealing with suspicious Estonia-stuff for enwiki, I have used the following interwiki style: Special:Diff/1012411705. Is it acceptable? --Estopedist1 (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is an actual rule against it, but the "ill" template is preferred because that will link to the enwiki article as soon as that exists, and then a bot will remove the interlanguage link soon afterwards. The style you use will remain in the article until someone manually clears it out, which may be years later. Fram (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your creation Anetium has it down as a flowering plant, but it is a fern. Please repair it and any similar errors. Abductive (reasoning) 21:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the classification of ferns is still very unsettled – and indeed actively disputed. WP:PLANTS agreed to use the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group system (currently PPG I), which is used by World Ferns (formerly the Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World). Plants of the World Online uses a very different system for some fern taxa: see e.g. the discussion of classification/taxonomy at Blechnaceae. So please check any fern or lycophyte taxon you find in PoWO against World Ferns. In World Ferns, Anetium citrifolium (the only species PoWO puts in the genus Anetium) is a synonym of Polytaenium citrifolium, which is already listed in the article Polytaenium. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't appreciate your efforts to create all those stubs for plant genera, but there are a couple things that I think would be easy for you to implement so that the rest of us don't have to clean up behind you:

1. The Short Description template. At the top of every article on Wikipedia is supposed to be a Short Description template like this {{Short description|Genus of Examplaraceae plants}}.
2. Image. A photograph of at least one of the species for a given genus is usually already uploaded to the Commons, and should be added to the stub, with a caption simply naming the species depicted. An example is Atocion.
3. Synonyms. Using the same template as the list of species, the synonyms should be listed in the infobox. An example is Dolichandra.
4. Wikilinking the authority. In many cases, the abbreviation for the name of the describer, if it has a period in it, such as Poit., Rchb., A.Gray, etc., is already a redirect to the person. It is a simple matter to wikilink them. Those without a period usually need to be piped, which is a bit more work.
5. Monotypic taxa. As can be seen in my stub for Jailoloa, if there is only one species in the genus, it is handled a little bit differently. In any case, the sole species should not be a redlink on the genus page, because it should be a redirect, not an article of its own.
6. Italics. The generic name needs to be italicized everywhere, even in the references. I have been going through and doing this for you here and there, but it would be nice if you could make it happen with whatever automation system you are using.
7. Categories. Typically it is good to add some categories such as Category:Iridaceae genera, and some for where it is native from WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD. An example is my Diuranthera. I admit that I have been lax in always doing this, but it is worthwhile, especially if there aren't too many.
8. Stub-sorting. As can been also seen in Diuranthera, it is good to add a stub for the parent taxon at the bottom.
9. The talk page banner for Wikiproject Plants is easy to create as you create the stub. I use the Rater tool which automatically pops up an interface on any article with no talk page banners. In the case of your genera stubs, they are all Stub-class and Low-importance. The reason that they are all Low-importance is that I went through and created all of the possible Mid-importance ones already. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: only brilliancy, but I am bit too lazy to follow all of the notices above. Sorry! But because Wikipedia is teamwork, then lets do teamwork :) --Estopedist1 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Estopedist1! I saw you added {{WikiProject Biography}} and {{WikiProject Musicians}} to Talk:Hando Nahkur. {{WikiProject Musicians}} should always be substituted, since it is just customized wrapper for {{WikiProject Biography}}. AnomieBOT came afterwards and converted {{WikiProject Musicians}} to {{WikiProject Biography}}, and I removed the duplicate WikiProject. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bonplandia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion involving you on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants page. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: do the WikiProject Plants participators want that I stop to help botanists? I may move to eg zoology field. Visionary notice: for about 5-10 years we will have many new specialists in enwiki, because during this time Wikispecies will be merged into enwiki and Wikidata --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is that minimalist stubs are not helpful to the readers, and they will never be expanded to even the low level that I make mine. Google will also not return minimalist stubs very high in their rankings. That's why I try to make my stubs be better than a database listing, by adding details and at least one important fact drawn from the scholarly literature. In the natural world, and philosophically, every species and every genus and every higher taxa has something wonderful and unique about it. For example, the Caryophyllales and only the Caryophyllales produce betalains and not anthocyanins. So that red color of beets, betanin, which is a betalain, is special. When I made the list of redlinked genera from PoWO, I had no problem with it taking until 2027 to complete. Obviously, if more people were to help, it would get done faster. But creating lots of unfinished stubs and hoping that other people will complete them for you isn't optimal. As you can see, User:Starzoner made other people correct his/her stubs, only to see them all deleted, and everybody's work lost. Abductive (reasoning) 07:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. Monotypic genera that would need the genus name disambiguated if the title were the genus name are always put at the only species. So Bellardia trixago was correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Baltic News Network, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are consistently undoing the work of dozens of editors who have been trying to make disambiguation-related titles of articles as useful as possible to readers, by making them vastly more ambiguous. I see that you were doing this to botanical articles earlier, and the botanists objected. Speaking as one of the major zoological editors, I am also asking you to stop doing this to the zoology articles. Reverting and restoring your destructive edits is not at all enjoyable, and it would be far better if you would leave existing articles alone. In almost none of these cases have your edits actually improved anything. You are REMOVING INFORMATION, and in an encyclopedia, that is a bad thing to do. As I noted earlier today, you are threatening to undo all of our hard work. Let me propose a simple rule of thumb: a disambiguation should not refer to any rank higher than an order, UNLESS that order has no single, universal common name. So, for example, all beetle names would say "Xxxxx (beetle)" but if the order was Neuroptera, which has no single common name for all its members, then you would use "Yyyyy (insect)". NEVER use "(animal)". Yes, there are some older articles created that use "Zzzzz (genus)", but I and other editors are gradually replacing those with more refined titles, rather than making the titles LESS informative, as you are trying to do. Dyanega (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyanega: thanks, mate! Is there any official guideline for the disambiguation pages related to taxons? I just tried to be systematical and to avoid misleading (at least for me) solutions. If zoologists in enwiki have consensus said eg in Talk:Tenerus (beetle), then no problem, I will follow it. I also thought that we should use as few clarifying lemmas as possible (eg to remove proturan (two times); starfish (four times); sea star (four times) etc); I guess I was wrong then --Estopedist1 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm glad you are willing to discuss this. Usually, "official guidelines" (if any exist) are posted by groups related to specific Wikiprojects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Insects. Most such projects refer to the "Manual of Style" (e.g. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Animals,_plants,_and_other_organisms) and "Naming conventions" (e.g., Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)). The problem is that, if you look carefully through these guidelines, there are no explicit rules (at least none I have ever found) that discuss how to treat article titles that incorporate a disambiguation element. Those titles are, almost without exception, articles referring to the names of genera. However, since the Wikipedia general policies promote consistency in style an content, the overwhelming majority of zoological articles with such titles use common names of groups, mostly at the rank of order to phylum, sometimes lower, sometimes higher. Historically, there were a fair number of such articles which used the "Xxxx (genus)" format, but that created problems when a genus name existed for both plants and animals, so the trend has been to replace those with more specific titles. Given the massive number of zoological species compared to botanical species, while a title such as "Yyyyy (plant)" might be acceptable, the zoological equivalent ("Yyyyy (animal)") really is so ambiguous as to be worthless. I hope you can see the point here, and also recognize that the "official guidelines" leave this matter unresolved. I did not say in my previous message, but I want to be clear: so long as your edits are adding new content, as many of them are, they generally look to be fine. It is primarily cases where you are moving pages or changing disambiguation links that are problematic. Taking an article that says "(beetle)" or "(wasp)" and changing it to "(animal)" is removing information, and that is contrary to the goal of an encyclopedia. If you want to change existing content, then if you are not certain, it would be great if you would ask for guidance rather than simply going ahead with a page move. There is a good practical reason to avoid page moves that might not be merited: once a page has been moved, it is almost impossible to restore it without losing the entire page history. One other thing to bear in mind, and I say this as a professional taxonomist: there are approximately 2 million scientific names that are presently considered valid. There are over SIX million names that have been published. That means that for every valid name, there are at least three names that are NOT valid. I think other editors here will agree that we do not want to include all of those names that are NOT actively being used by the scientific community; including them in Wikipedia is not going to be helpful to the general public. My point here is that a disambiguation page like Peltarion_(disambiguation) really should NOT include the junior homonyms by Jacquinot & Lucas, or Eudes-Deslongchamps; it should ONLY list the valid genus name by Hombron & Jacquinot. Why? Because if anyone ever creates an article for the homonyms, they will be redirects to the valid genus names, and not actual links to articles; only the crab name will link directly to an article. Much of this is common sense, rather than something you will find a policy for in the official guidelines. Part of that common sense is seeing how other editors are treating things, and then following their practices, if there are no official policies in place. As I noted in the case of Peltarion, that there are 33 article titles using "(crab)" means that there is a LARGE consensus of other editors that this is what one should use instead of "(crustacean)", assuming the taxon is actually a crab. AGain, I see that many of your edits are positive contributions, and don't want to discourage you from adding new and worthwhile content, but please don't undo work by previous editors without considering the consequences. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyanega: thanks, mate! I am 600k Wikipedian and (taxon) disambiguation geek (many experiences from Wikispecies), also superfast learner. For global harmonization, I started this User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation --Estopedist1 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estopedist, you got a good start with your user subpages. The only official guidance regarding disambiguation of taxa is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gastropods/Guidelines#Names_and_titles. I believe the most recent ToL discussion of the issue was in 2015, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_34#Genus_name. I'd raised it for plants in 2013, and there was a thread regarding animals in late 2014. In all three threads, one editor (Stemonitis) strongly favored the (genus) convention, and Stemonitis is no longer very active. Since there was never a consensus established not to use (genus), there was never any discussion about other dab terms to use for various animals. I put some statistics together on use of dab terms in 2015 and 2018. Even in 2015, most of the taxa WikiProject were using a dab term that corresponded to the name of the project. WikiProject Arthropods was the only project that heavily favored (genus); that was where Stemonitis most actively edited, and when the existence of a plant made (genus) unavailable for the arthropod, it was (and still is?) totally inconsistent (I think there at least 5 different dab terms used for crab genera).

I'd welcome more consistency in taxon dab terms. Some things to keep in mind:

1. In rare cases, (genus) may be the best dab term. Asparagus is about the common vegetable produced by Asparagus officinalis; (plant) could be taken to mean the species that is the source of the vegetable, or the genus, so the genus article is Asparagus (genus). The article for the family Rhinocerotidae has the common name Rhinoceros as the title; Rhinoceros (genus) is appropriate.
2. Similarly, (animal) could be acceptable as a dab term for animals in small phyla that aren't well known to the general public (I'd prefer "Sagitta (animal)" over Sagitta (arrowworm)). Insects in small and poorly known orders (e.g. Strepsiptera, Zoraptera) might best be titled with (insect).
3. Wikipedia does have some articles on junior homonyms (under a single nomenclatural code) that are actively used in the relevant specialist literature, but which lack a published replacement name (Tridens is one example; the fungal name needs to replaced). Not much Wikipedia can do about that, other than checking periodically for publication of replacement names.
4. However, as Dyanega says, we don't need to exhaustively list homonyms on dab pages. I'm sure there are some cases out there where a genus is disambiguated against a junior homonym that is a synonym redirect. There is no need for a dab page; the senior homonym should be moved to the undisambiguated title, and the synonymy of the junior homonym can perhaps be mentioned in a hatnote (but isn't necessary if the junior homonym is very obscure).

Before changing the dab term in a red-link, open the red-link and check for any incoming links. At Argia (disambiguation), you changed a dab term from (genus) to (isopod), but the version with (genus) is still linked at Bopyridae. (Actually, there are a lot of family articles that ought to be checked for standardization of dab terms). Plantdrew (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Melania (disambiguation) and above, it seems several editors are in agreement that there's problematic edits, which done repeatedly are disruptive. This is even after being informed as such. Please abide by the above consensus, as from now on you may find that going against consensus leads to annoying action being needed to prevent further disruption. You should be aware that an edit comment like "format" isn't a sufficient explanation [4] compounded by a format that is bad. "invalid redirects to the same taxon, please don't do solo work, user:Widefox, especially if you are not familiar with taxons stuff. "See also" is unique section, compare other similar cases in DAB pages" . Are you aware I'm the creator of the dab Melania (disambiguation)? What does "please don't do solo work" mean in that context?! I agree a couple of redirects needed fixing, but until you have a better understanding of MOSDAB, you should refrain from making further edits to dabs in my opinion. For instance, 1. we do not put valid entries in the See also section, and 2. redirects are OK per MOSDAB - please stop removing them. Widefox; talk 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew and Dyanega: want to comment? User:Widefox, just please don't use plural forms in DABs, eg "Melania (moths)" is invalid, correct is singular. --Estopedist1 (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, at last I have a reason from you for your objection. I will speedy and recreate. Widefox; talk 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Melania (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
  • Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references

Whilst you were correct that the original two biology redirects used there were bad titles. They have been replaced with fixed redirects. Now, that's totally separate to repeatedly removing redirects [5] [6] from a dab (presumably under a misunderstanding of WP:MOSDAB that redirects are bad) and replacing the entries with a link at the end to avoid using redirects. Please note the message at the top of disambiguation pages to familiarise yourself with MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 17:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please never add any text of any kind to a taxonomy template. It causes an immediate template error and puts it in the error tracking categories. If there is an unused taxonomy template, replace all the text by [[Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates]]. If you really must nominate a taxonomy template for discussion, comment out the existing template or surround it by <nowiki>..</nowiki>. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: is it ethical to substitute info in the template in question (eg Template:Taxonomy/Leptonema (bacteria)) if it is nominated for deletion? --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's essential to render it inoperative. It's a feature of taxonomy templates that they cannot have any other text present. There are several ways of doing this, including HTML comments and nowiki tags. But the best way to nominate for deletion is as noted above, replace all the text by [[Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates]], which is what this category exists for. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This search attempts to list the templates and articles currently broken by deletion nominations. It may be incomplete, or contain errors with other causes. Certes (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When moving pages such as Bremia (protist) and leaving a different page (such as a disambiguation page) at the former title, please edit the pages which link to the former title, for example to replace the link by a piped link to the new title. Links which lead to disambiguation pages are normally errors. Thanks, Certes (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

eg. Talpa (genus) has suddenly become Talpa (mammal) but the DISPLAYTITLE has not been modified.

I feel this is disruptive; and I am not going to say whether I agree with this particular change or not = that is not the point.

When you wish to move a page I humbly submit that you should do the following:

• first look for consensus on the page's talk page, checking that it agrees with official guidance - this may take time when other editors are involved (as they usually are)
• if you obtain agreement, then carry out the change; if not, either let it drop or debate and eventually take the case to arbitration

In addition, given the number of recent comments and suggestions from numerous other editors (cf. the past ten days alone - see above), may I (again humbly) suggest that you stop trying to be superfast: slow down, and each time look for consistency and agreement with other editors, with official guidance, and with information content across w'pedia. -- jw (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwikip: Talpa (mammal) is cleaned up. "Genus" is generally not allowed. Explanations here: User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation --Estopedist1 (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwikip: moving "X (genus)" to "X (GROUP)", where GROUP = "plant", "bird", "spider", "mammal", etc. is in line with agreed guidelines and does not need discussion. But I agree that cleaning up is an essential part of moving a page. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a "how to" for moving "X (genus)" to "X (GROUP)"? If not then that could be a positive outcome from this discussion. Some consequential changes are required but not obvious, such as moving the associated taxonomy template and fixing the taxobox parameters in articles which use it. Others such as updating the dab entry are optional but useful.Certes (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So that I and others can better understand what is going on (-- jw (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• @Certes: agree : a general "how-to" would be good !
• @Peter coxhead: where are the agreed WP project guidelines ?

I don't think the discussions that certainly exist were ever written up – if they were, I can't find them. However, if you look at, for example, Category:Redirects from monotypic taxa of plants, or some of the large categories within Category:Plant genera, you'll see that although there may be some extra redirects, there is always (?) a redirect at "X (plant)". Peter coxhead (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I described it as a "how to", the first section should probably be a "when to"/"whether to". Certes (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moved to User:Estopedist1--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Controversial "genus" moves by Estopedist1. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you create a new talk page for the protected areas articles you are making, please automatically add "importance=low" to each page. None of these articles will likely have an importance for the project above low. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you are doing a mass redirect for certain taxonomic genera. I reverted one to show you what the problem is. Since this field is so poorly represented (and little information exists at all for most species) it makes sense to group at a higher level than normal. I can give you an example. Should a reader see this? [7] with each link redirecting to the link you broke? Or should they see this Moniliformidae. Which is more useful for the reader?

It's important not to apply policies without thinking critically about them. If in the future more information is gained, that warrants separating out specific genera then that would be the time to split. Not making a bunch of stub articles as you have been doing. At the very least it's worth discussing before making more changes. Mattximus (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew, Dyanega, Peter coxhead, and Mattximus: if I read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Monotypic_taxa, I understand, that we always do an individual article, unless we are dealing with some kind of monotypy (genus-, family- etc level) --Estopedist1 (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been agreed for many years that, except for fossils, species are inherently notable, so, yes, we have always created articles for extant species, even if stubs. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the arrangement of the Moniiformidae article, where it goes down to the species level, is frankly awful, and extremely anomalous relative to the overwhelming majority of family-rank articles throughout Wikipedia. Individual genera and species should have their own articles, even if they are redlinks, and not redirect to a family-rank article unless the family is monotypic. Dyanega (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew, Dyanega, and Peter coxhead: I just got a vaguely threatening message from Estopedist1 about "mass deleting" my work unless I have a very good reason not to. I have tried to bring up several of these to featured article status, and have done so several times. But when the attitude where a million stub articles created by bots is preferable to featured articles on genera or families such as Moniliformidae will make me want to retire from the entire project. Also the threatening attitude will just push even more editors away from wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: the issue is how to organize articles, not the content. The content of Moniliformidae seems very good to me, but to conform to the general practice in the English Wikipedia, it should now be split up, ideally into a family article + genus and species articles. It's simply a matter of taking the content and putting it in a set of articles, instead of all in one article. The article is currently almost 60kB, which is above the size recommended at Wikipedia:Splitting, so editors will certainly split it at some point in the future. It would be better if you did it yourself, since you clearly understand the material. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: My issue is more about how it was done. The article is large, and it could be split certainly now that there is enough content to warrant it. But is it better for an editor to receive your comment above, or this message: "I hope you give valuable info because mass-deleting will be in progres". Wikipedia should be fun and collaborative, not push editors away, no? Mattximus (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: I don't want to comment any further on this particular case, but I have discovered over the years I have been editing here that the process of communicating by typed exchanges of messages often makes interaction appear more confrontational than it is intended to be. It's not always easy, but WP:assume good faith. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Estopedist1: How are you? I'd say the first three artists are pretty notable and could do with an article. The last one would need a proper article as I think might be borderline, but the first three definently. These are steller. scope_creep^Talk 10:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Baltic News Network".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Union of Estonian Architects 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/Union of Estonian Architects 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.

nearlyevil665 06:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't delete Rulle as no WP:CSD criteria apply. Please go to WP:RFD instead. Fences&Windows 00:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reconsidered after seeing it was due to a recent move by a user warned for disruption. R3 applies. Fences&Windows 00:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I somehow read the diff backwards and thought you added this[8]. I have reverted myself, you were obviously correct here. Fram (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you work in helping to clear my "to do" list of Estonian actresses. I appreciate it very much! I have been far too busy for a long time to get around to creating articles. ExRat (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've created a number of stubs on Estonian entomologists, zoologists, etc. Villu Soon is one of them; I see that there's only one reference here, and it is just his CV, which I don't think justifies an article. However, there are a lot of news articles that seem to mention him: if you can read Estonian, it'd be nice if you could add some of them as references. jp×g 20:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I came across Vladimir Mironov (entomologist). There's just one source (apparently primary?) and it seems that all we know about this person is that he described one species. So as far as I can see, this person doesn't remotely satisfy any applicable notability guideline. But I figured it would be good to ask for your thoughts before possibly nominating the article for deletion. So what do you think? Lennart97 (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lennart97: he is in scope. See Wikispecies:Category:Vladimir Georgievich Mironov taxa --Estopedist1 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so not just one species. But could you point me to the relevant notability guideline he passes because of that? Lennart97 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lennart97: if you describe the new species to the science community and your colleagues acknowledge this, so you should be automatically in scope of enwiki. See eg Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria, point 1 --Estopedist1 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But this bit seems important: as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. It doesn't look like there are any such sources. On top of that, it's not obvious to me that describing new species by default has a significant impact, as there are many millions of bug species. If anyone who described any new species were inherently notable regardless of that, there really should be a guideline stating that explicitly, but I don't think that is the case. Lennart97 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lennart97, Plantdrew, Dyanega, and Peter coxhead: do you guys want to comment? Is it possible that a person who describes at least one new species for the world is not automatically notable for enwiki? I even think that if a scientist describes eg a new subtribe for the world, then s/he is automatically notable for enwiki (eg Vilma Kuusk) --Estopedist1 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in the academic sense is a slippery concept. I am largely inclined towards the conservative end of the spectrum; that is, an academic is not truly notable until and unless they have produced works that are substantial in number and/or significant in their impact upon their respective fields. Mironov satisfies neither of these criteria, so I would never have added him to Wikipedia, myself. But that's just my personal take on notability, not the officially-sanctioned definition. The explicit criterion cited above, about independent reliable sources, does also lean towards the conservative treatment, however, though it's a somewhat difficult criterion to apply because most scientists don't write about other scientists, so that's a rather high bar to set. That being said, I doubt you will find anyone who has published reviews of Mironov's research and claimed that it is exceptional in its impact upon the science of entomology. It's just another guy describing moths, of which there are hundreds more who are not listed in Wikipedia. I know dozens of people who have each published hundreds of new species, and not one of whom appears in Wikipedia, and I see this as perfectly reasonable. My two cents. Dyanega (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having described a single species does not make a person pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. I'm not really sure what the threshold of notability SHOULD be for a taxonomist. Wikipedia has many articles on taxonomists that clearly don't pass Wikipedia:Notability_(academics); I'm not eager to see theses articles deleted, but I'd be hard-pressed to argue that they pass notability if somebody else nominated them for deletion. That said, the current academic notability guidelines are far from; there have been various discussions about revising them that have gone nowhere. See the "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" section at Talk:Donna Strickland for one case where Wikipedia's academic notability guidelines failed prominently. Plantdrew (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that describing a few species or erecting a few new supra-specific taxonomic groups does not make a biologist notable. I also agree that we have articles on biologists who wouldn't meet reasonable criteria for being included in a encyclopedia, but like Plantdrew I wouldn't push for their deletion. I used to be more inclusionist (e.g. I created Joseph Edward Laferrière on the grounds that there are about 120 distinct taxa in IPNI with his name attached), but I would now take a harder line. I don't think that the work has to be "exceptional" (to quote Dyanega), but there has to be evidence of significant impact, e.g. a substantial monograph or series of papers. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estopedist, is it okay if I PROD the article? AFD would probably be a waste of time given the consensus above, although I wouldn't mind if you do prefer it. Lennart97 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lennart97: definitely AFD, not PROD. Soon, I am trying to dig in this topic because something big is out there. Thanks to you! Similar questions are also up in Wikispecies --Estopedist1 (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, no problem. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Mironov (entomologist). Lennart97 (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged a large number of these stubs into List of Estonian entomologists; a couple of them seemed like they had enough references to pass GNG, but the rest very much did not. I think the same may be appropriate to do in other cases, as well. jp×g 01:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: thanks! I guess massive taxon authorities lists will be coming in enwiki, because after every taxon name we also give link to the authority himself/herself also (eg Leplaea Vermoesen) --Estopedist1 (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, when you create these stubs, italicize the generic and species names in the references (example). They are to be italicized everywhere. Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: this tedious manual work should be done by the bots --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you are used a semi-automated methods, right? Just add the and to it. Abductive (reasoning) 05:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: the framework of the article is created by AutoHotkey. All data from POWO is added manually to Wikipedia article (of course species of a genus are autoformated via subst:Format species list). Citations are created by RefToolbar, and unfortunately I cannot automatize so that RefToolbar can italicize the genus name --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Abductive (reasoning) 05:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please consider linking the pages you're bulk-creating to Wikidata, so I don't have to. Example: [9]. Thanks. 10:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel, Succu, and William Avery: no, definitely the work for the bots. What happened to William Avery Bot which automatically did this tedious work for months? --Estopedist1 (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging this. I think Pywikibot version 6 has been installed on the toolserver and broke my code. Catching up now. William Avery (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2021 (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 Bilorv 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 films). 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:

Film festival participation doesn't contribute towards notability, but the other sets of awards look good. Can you provide references directly to the organisations themselves, or news reports about the film receiving these awards? An alternative to show notability would be to add some reviews of the film in national newspapers.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rain (2020 film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rain (2020 film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

— Bilorv (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikispecies project dead? Lembit Staan (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lembit Staan: for the visionaries, yes, Wikispecies is dead. Why do you ask? --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of sheer curiosity; I see you are creating numerous plant articles, and I thought Wikispecies is being moved here. Never mind. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Reedia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Only one item listed in disambig page. Useless.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} (please ping on reply) 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@-Zai-: restored. Don't rush please. DAB should be best solution for Reedia --Estopedist1 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Vladimir Mironov requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Lennart97 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I've been able to tell, most of these taxon articles you are creating lately are bare-minimum stubs at best with only one species listed using just GBIF as source. GBIF isn't totally reliable for up-to-date information on taxa, it may have mistakes after all, and it completely omits any information on family-group ranks besides family in its own base taxonomy (so it gives you only family, no subfamily or tribe etc.). Please don't just create these articles for creation's sake, unfortunately people like me end up having to chase up after your work to make them more "complete". I can't be the only one that feels this way. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: creating stubs are allowed in enwiki. Some of my stubs will collect other species which are scattered in enwiki, eg Chondromorpha. These stubs are also very useful when the progress of moving Wikispecies articles to enwiki will be in progress in (near) future --Estopedist1 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to assume there are plans to move Wikispecies in its entirety to enwiki, whereas I do not know of such plans. This seemingly misunderstands the whole purpose of Wikispecies, which is used as a taxonomy/nomenclature database, not as an encyclopedia. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you create a stub for a monotypic genus, like Pseudoselinum, you should use a different structure for the article, including:

• use {{Speciesbox}} not {{Automatic taxobox}}, including both |authority= for the species and |parent_authority= for the genus
• say in the lead that the genus is monotypic (with the wikilink) and include the species name in bold as well, since there won't be a separate article.

So basically you need a different template for a monotypic genus. You should also create a redirect from the species name to the genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: yes, but there should be extended/professional research to identify whether a genera is monotypic or not. I rather hope other botanists do this job --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you use only PoWO as the reference, then you must follow what it says. The only reference in the article says that the genus is monotypic, so the article must as well.

Others you've just created which need fixing are Pycnoplinthus, Pyramidoptera, Registaniella, Radlkofera, Raphanorhyncha, Raulinoa, Registaniella. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead and Plantdrew: is Stelmagonum monotypic? Or is current solution acceptable? --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you follow through the subordinate taxa in Tropicos (via the taxonbar), it agrees with PoWO that the accepted name for Stelmagonum holtonii is Ibatia holtonii. So I would treat it as a monotypic genus, but of course mentioning that a species formerly placed in Stelmagonum is now in Ibatia. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind Sculpted Land, 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!

Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you create disambiguation pages, would you mind taking some time to fix links to that disambiguation page? For example, 15 pages link to Batrachopus which you created yesterday. I'm sure you'll be able to fix these more easily than someone less well-versed in taxonomy :) Lennart97 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gravesia, Phyllopodium, Diplosoma, Reticularia, and Hemiphragma are a few others with many incoming links. Lennart97 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look at these? They're still all over the DPL report. Lennart97 (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lennart97: you can use {{dn}}. Correcting may be difficult, needing a lot of research. Luckily, Wikipedia is teamwork :)--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know all about {{dn}}, as I'm the type of editor that spends a lot of time fixing those dn's. I just thought someone who does a lot of taxonomy-related editing would have a much easier time fixing these specific ones than someone who knows nothing about it, but maybe not. I hope you're willing to at least take a look at these and see if they really are difficult to fix for you, if you haven't already. Thanks for the reply, anyway. Lennart97 (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of marine heterobranch gastropods of South Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elysia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the content is moved to my main page--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all your new pages for taxa, is there a reason you aren’t tagging them with an appropriate stub category or designating which WikiProjects they page falls under in the talk page? Umimmak (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Estopedist1, when you start a new article page, don't forget to create an associated talk page with a WikiProject Projectbox as well. These are useful to allow other interested editors to find and add to the articles. This has been requested of you before, and raised as a discussion point on WP:TOL but you continue to omit this info. Please help other editors find your stubs! Loopy30 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are merching miss Grand international 2021 it is not about miss Grand pageant it is only about miss grand international 2021 I will complaining you reply Boboraks (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot Boboraks (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a stub on Kuldar Sink which I saw was linked in User:Estopedist1/Estonian Music Information Center. It's currently an orphan, and could be expanded further. Best.4meter4 (talk)

@4meter4: well done, mate!--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions. Please, don't forget to add a taxobox to the article you created recently, Anoecia. I hope nobody decides to delete the page for being so incomplete. Thanks again. --Polinizador (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2021 (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 TheBirdsShedTears 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 films). 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Taevalaul and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Taevalaul, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of marine animals of Australia (temperate waters), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scintilla and Elysia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lendurid koduteel, 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!

Bogger (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2021 (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 TheBirdsShedTears 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 films). 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rain (2020 film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rain (2020 film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2021 (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 TheBirdsShedTears 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 films). 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Teesklejad and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Teesklejad, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2021 (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 TheBirdsShedTears 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 films). 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Secret Society of Souptown and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Secret Society of Souptown, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Given the awards, and the fact that Estonian films necessarily have a smaller market and the bar is therefore lower, I imagine this could warrant a Wikipedia article. However, we need more information about reviews and public response to show it really was a hit in Estonia. Above all, though, we need references, probably to the national if not the international press, and preferably some of them in English. While it is OK to have IMDb as an external link, it is not an acceptable source for verification of data. By the way, what is meant by "In consideration of spectacles"?

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:A Lady in Paris and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:A Lady in Paris, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Doric Loon (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2021 (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 DoubleGrazing 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 films). 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:

Not sure whether, and if so why, this has been submitted for review, as it's clearly unfinished, but all the same, the sources cited aren't enough to establish notability. Needs more work.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lumekuninganna and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lumekuninganna, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2021 (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 TheBirdsShedTears was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kertu (film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kertu (film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have extensive knowledge of Estonia related topics. Can you figure out historic address of long gone Tartu Linna-tütarlastekool ? Thank you for your contribution ! User:Abune (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abune: I did a little searching.

• • 1804-? = the school located at Rüütli tänav ('Rüütli Street')
  • ?-1857 = the school located at Raekoja plats 12 ('Town Hall Square 12', or so called Bokovnev's House)
  • 1857-1893 = the school located at the corner of Rüütli Street and Gildi Street
    • source (not checked): Allan Liim. Saksa koolidest Tartus 19. sajandil. "Tartu, baltisakslased ja Saksamaa". Artiklite kogumik. Koostajad: Helmut Piirimäe, Claus Sommerhage. Tartu Ülikool, saksa filoloogia õppetool. Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 1998.

--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is excellent find !!! With your permission I'm going to put it into Tartu Linna-tütarlastekool.

Unfortunately I do not have access to original source of this information either ! Again thank you for your help ! User:Abune (talk)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 2pou 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 films). 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:

The second source from Sirp provides a good review to use, but the other two sources do not provide in-depth coverage. The first is just a plot summary, and the third announces a DVD release on top of a plot summary with some credits. If another film review can be sourced, then this will meet the film notability guidelines at WP:NFILM for English Wikipedia. Not required, but building a "Reception" section from the existing review and another one (or more), will streamline article acceptance. --

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cherry Tobacco and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cherry Tobacco, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

2pou (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for all your contributions. For the future, could you please note that in biography articles, the places of birth and death do not go between the brackets with the dates? I realise this is different from some of the other Wikipedia projects, but it avoids confusion. See WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates of birth and death. Deb (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Villem Lüüs, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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!

Deb (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looking more closely, I remember what I was trying to clean up.

Look at the nav-box for municipalities in Estonia -- e.g., at the top of Category:Narva.

• Only three municipalities don't have their own category: Kiviõli, Kohtla-Nõmme, and Narva-Jõesuu.
• A couple of them, like Lüganuse Parish and Toila Parish, list many of their villages as being in their category (as well as being in the 'viilages of X county' category).
• Many of them simply have a long list of the villages within each municipality, on the article for that municipality.

In trying to normalize this, I thought it was most informative to add the missing categories, not to delete those that were already in use. I do think that either the villages should be in the category of the municipality, or that the list of villages should be on the municipality page, but not both.

Warmly, – SJ + 22:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sj: we are missing all categories for urban municipalities which were formed in 2017 (see Administrative reform in Estonia). Besides, Kiviõli is not a municipality but belongs to Lüganuse Parish, and Kohtla-Nõmme is not a municipality but belongs to Toila Parish. But Narva-Jõesuu is both: the town and the urban municipality (Narva-Jõesuu (urban municipality)), and etwiki has also the respective category: et:Kategooria:Narva-Jõesuu linn. So next time if you will do major re- and new categorizings, please don't rush! --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you. I was just trying to fill in the list that I came across, but it is harder than it looks!  :) I'll have to study the region more closely before I can be helpful in this area. – SJ + 16:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elections in Latvia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electorate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1,

If you come across an empty category, please tag it for deletion as an empty category, CSD C1. Please do not empty out categories out-of-process. If you think a category should be deleted, renamed or merged, please nominate it at Categories for Discussion. Speedy deletion is only meant for categories that are empty and after they are tagged, they sit for a week in case they have been emptied out-of-process. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please could you stop removing the definite article ('The') from start of articles. I've had to revert this on multiple articles that I've seen you do this to on my watchlist, and I'm guessing you've probably done it to dozens or possibly hundreds of others given the speed with which you're editing. If an article already has one, it probably needs one. Thanks, Number 57 16:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To explain more, the definite article is needed for any party that contains a noun like Bloc, Democrats, Greens, Group, League Movement, Party, Union etc in its name. Generally the only ones that wouldn't need one are party names that aren't English like Isamaa (unless that word has become commonly referred to in English with a definite article), plus a few exceptions like Estonia 200 or Libertas Estonia. Hard to explain why, but I think it's to do with specific/particular nouns and the latter two don't have a 'thing' in their names. Cheers, Number 57 16:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: no problem I will stop. For me, the article "the" is in these cases redundant clutter, but I am not native speaker. More info also User:Estopedist1#General_view_to_and_principles_of_Neo-English--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you added template:more footnotes to Polydora in this edit recently. Did you intend to add a different template? As far as I can see, every claim made in that article has a footnote! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto I removed the template, but I added there the section "Bibliography" Estopedist1 (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acropora clathrata, 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!

Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you have been doing a bunch of changes to articles (such as here), where you are mostly changing the templates to use capital-first letters. According to MOS:VAR, an acceptable style choice (which include template capitalization, reference formatting etc.) should not be changed unless there is some substantial reason for the change. Similarly, there's no reason to change "&ndash;" for "–", such as here. As you seem to be using AWB, please note that 1) MOS:VAR explicitly states "enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable." and 2) WP:AWBRULES point 4 states "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit." -Ljleppan (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ljleppan: yeah, sorry for being too systematic.--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi do you have a bot to creat sub species of genus Amirh123 (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirh123: no, but I am using AutoHotkey script to automatically create templates for any taxon (family, genus, species)--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Estopedist1, when describing range distributions such as at Austromacoma constricta, please avoid using the term "America" as it is ambiguous. It is not clear if you mean the continent North America (and please do not use "Northern America" as in some of your edits), the Americas (both North and South America), or the country United States. Take care, Loopy30 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[10] I apparently thought it's such a small thing that I don't need to bother to source it, hehe. Was probably fixing some red link. It's good someone does care of the quality here. Vihmane ja tormiline sügis! --J. Sketter (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Barclay Hotel, Estonia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 3#Barclay Hotel, Estonia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Today while going through Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, in the "H" articles, I notice a number of Bio Talk pages you created with "importance=" included. For example: Talk:Heldur Jõgioja. Because WP Biography is "different", the "importance=" parameter is not needed/used, so please do not add. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Erysimum hieracifolium 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/Erysimum hieracifolium 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.

~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the redirect Derner (disambiguation), it was both valid and necessary per WP:INTDABLINK and WP:HOWTODAB.

I agree with you that it should now be deleted, because Derner is now a {{surname}} page. I agree with you that (disambiguation) redirects to anything other than WP:DAB pages (and all subtypes) are unnecessary and unstylish, no matter what WP:CHEAP says. However - good luck! at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 9#Derner (disambiguation), because my experience is that WP:RFD discussions about such redirects always end up as WP:KEEP or WP:NOCONSENSUS. Typically, editors refer to WP:INTDAB (misapplying it) or WP:G14 (which, as I have pointed out at RFD, contradicts itself) or WP:TWODABS/WP:ONEOTHER (citing the wrong one of those two guidelines). It's difficult enough to get misspellings such as (disambigaution) deleted, even though they do cause problems for other editors (User:DPL bot reports links through such misspellings as errors - which they are).

IMO, the only way forward would be to open a WP:DISCUSSION about G14 at WT:CSD. If you do, please {{ping}} me, because I would be happy to contribute; even though I am not optimistic that the result would be anything like my preferred one.

For a country next to yours - Laimīgā dzimšanas diena, Misha! Narky Blert (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Creagdhubhia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Zippy (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Estopedist1, you have removed the Estonian participant trees from the category "Tree of the Year (Estonia)"! Is there a special reason for this or are you working on the European Tree of the Year project? If not, please add them back to the category. This wiki project was initiated by me and is done in collaboration with the organization "https://www.treeoftheyear.org/", it spans the wikipedia articles, the categories and images in wikimedia and the related wikidata objects. You are welcome to join and add or edit local and other language articles, images and objects accordingly. Thanks for your understanding--Cookroach (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookroach: please read again Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Category:Tree of the Year (Estonia). These three individual trees are not "Tree of the Year (Estonia)", because the latter honorable name is given to species/genus and not for an individual trees. Try to use Google translate to understand the situation.--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: thank you for your reply, I have read and understood the discussion in question, I do not understand why then nothing has been changed for three quarters of a year and you have now removed the categories! For clarification, the nominee of Estonia was not selected as a single tree "Tree of the Year of Estonia", right ! So in Estonia, as in Germany, a tree species or genus is declared the tree of the year, right ? then my sorting is chosen correctly, because the upper category is called "European Tree of the Year" and in it are only the individual trees of each country. Also in Germany, the participants 2016 and 2017 were not elected, but declared by other organization as participants, so it can be determined for Estonia so. I see no reason to change a more general category, which works for most countries in Europe for 2 countries and cancel their designation. If you have another solution I am ready to accept it. best regards--Cookroach (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

small addition: for example, you or another specialist of the Estonian language could add to the article: https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroopa_aasta_puu similar to the description in the German article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A4ischer_Baum_des_Jahres and clarify the facts accordingly that the choice of the European Tree of the Year is different in Estonia (with reference to the correct article =>https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aasta_puu). This would allow both articles in the Estonian wiki to be upgraded accordingly. This is only a recommendation from me - with kind regards --Cookroach (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Estonian Modern Pagans indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Estopedist. Why have you restored the enormous image sizes I corrected in this article? I'm sure you have a good reason but I don't know what it is. Tammbeck^talk 20:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tammbeck: every user has setted preferences (dab Preferences: Image size limit on file description pages) how images are rendered. In general, these "upright 1.1", "upright 0.8" etc is just clutter--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a tiny minority of people reading the article have set image size limiting preferences. However I will not edit war and I respect that your contributions to Estonia-related articles are often valuable. Tammbeck^talk 21:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Potamophylax 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/Potamophylax 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.

Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 03:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Taevalaul, 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) 10:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page pointed to enwiki. I'm fine with the category being kept as a meta category for other categories, without files. Out of the 6 files currently in the category, File:NRCSAK97002 - Alaska (134)(NRCS Photo Gallery).jpg has no obvious JPEG artifacts (but I created phab:T297065 for the funky thumbnail), File:SignedShortLosslessBug (PNG).png probably doesn't belong in category or could fit in one of the subcategories and the remaining four can be moved to "JPG compression artifact example images". In 2018 I might not have realized the possibility of a meta category. Hope this answers any questions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

discussion takes places here: Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:JPEG artifacts--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rain (2020 film), 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) 13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Teesklejad, 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) 13:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Secret Society of Souptown, 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) 14:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:A Lady in Paris, 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) 13:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Abietinella requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 12:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever found tagging a random article as belonging to a random project to be useful in improving the article? Unless it's some vital bleeding-edge core topic, I've never noticed a Wikiproject tag ever attract useful attention to improve an article. The Physics project is probably the worst in this regard - everything is part of physics, but the small squad of editors that participte in that project wisely confine their attentions to core areas. Oh well, drive-by tagging of an article is a harmless recreation, I suppose. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lumekuninganna, 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) 20:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kertu (film), 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) 20:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Taxonomy/Potamophylax (insect) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

per A10

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 10:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cherry Tobacco, 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) 21:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]