Hello, Judeobasquelanguage. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Judeo-Basque language".
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 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! CASSIOPEIA( talk) 08:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Ayn Rand. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you. –
Aranya (
talk)
21:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The article Pan-Goidelicism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
May be WP:MADEUP but, at any rate, Google turns up absolutely nothing for this term.
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.
Largoplazo (
talk)
22:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Although you have made one or two small good edits such as this one today, the majority of your contributions have had to be reverted as they are either out-and-out vandalism, or seem to be slightly more subtle attempts to disrupt, with obvious mis-readings of the text and addition of non-existent concepts. If you are truly here to help, please restrict yourself to uncontentious issues until you have read up on the basics. Please also don't add citations to templates. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 12:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on A-Chik Tok'birim requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://omniglot.com/writing/achiktokbirim.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. Onel5969 TT me 20:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Taking The Initiative Party, 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. —
Bilorv (
talk)
22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Breakthrough Party, 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.
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
05:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of political parties in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Gordon. 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) 06:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on English-Scots requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
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. Shirt58 ( talk) 11:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Judeobasquelanguage!
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! -
Rich
T|
C|
E-Mail
21:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
|
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taking the Initiative Party 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.
doktorb words deeds 06:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
At the bottom of the Forward Wales page there are Category:Left-wing nationalist parties and Category:Welsh nationalist parties. So for that reason, and the Welsh Devolution page hadn't been created, I undid your edit, see here. Had your edit was piped as Welsh Devolution (i.e. Devolution in the United Kingdom#Wales) in the first place, as you've now done, then there'd be no reason for me to revert your original edit. HLE ( talk) 19:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Norn language, it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.
Mutt Lunker (
talk)
11:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Norn language, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Mutt Lunker (
talk)
11:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Norn language, you may be
blocked from editing.
Mutt Lunker (
talk)
09:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
12:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Judeobasquelanguage. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about on the page
Breakthrough Party, you may have a
conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the
conflict of interest guideline and
FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 07:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Rejoin EU (Political Party) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
WP:PROMO, no credible assertion of notability on the page, my WP:BEFORE turns up only an interview in The London Economic and a similar interview in the Shropshire Star. Interviews are not significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.
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.
You have been blocked for violating our no personal attacks policy in addition to disruptive editing and edit warring. And performing person attacks while logged out in order to avoid scrutiny as User:92.40.179.17 is not acceptable. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. they are racist though
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harmony Party UK 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.
Curbon7 ( talk) 05:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Judeobasquelanguage! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
North Germanic languages that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. In addition, why do you seem to be editing logged out on IP 86.30.52.72?
TylerBurden (
talk)
05:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Slavic languages, it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
09:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
SamWilson989. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
List of cities in the United Kingdom, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
SamWilson989 (
talk)
22:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Manx language into
Southern Manx Dialect. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk)
00:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Agnean language, 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.
scope_creep
Talk
11:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Judeobasquelanguage: How goes it. I came across your Essex dialect and even though it was created about 4 minutes ago, I reverted it as I reviewing it as part of the WP:NPP review process. The thing didn't have a lede and looked half finished. I think it is probably. Would it perhaps be better creating the article in sandbox first, on your user page. I see I draftified your Draft:Agnean language article. The only think was that was wrong with it, is it had no proper references, the 2nd ref a couple of word with no context attached to then. It might be taking a look at WP:REFB, which explains how to create full size references. The bare urls references are not acceptable in 2022. Everybody expects to see full size references. I hope that help. If you can fix your Draft:Agnean language article, give me a shout and I will promote it back into mainspace for you. Hope that helps. scope_creep Talk 16:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It may be unfinished but I believe it shouldn't redirect to that page if any page, it should redirect to east anglian as the page it directs too, as the page it currently directs too doesn't talk much abut it and sort of implies its extinct when its not, I'm only trying to make my dialect more visible, its like one of the only english dialects not to have a page, I hope you can understand why I am so insistant and desperate to have my dialect put up on wikipedia, and I wouldn't mind some help with it, as someone with ADHD. cheers, Judeobasquelanguage ( talk) 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I couldnt find a proper link so i didnt know hoe to go about it, the only links i could get were straight to pdf downloads of it Judeobasquelanguage ( talk) 17:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
You've been asked before, but please stop adding unsourced material to Wikipedia. It seems you're adding a lot of information lately where you are the source, which doesn't meet WP:RS. If you're adding alternative names, dialects, other languages etc. they need to be sourced. You are persistently adding unsourced material despite being asked to do so on many occasions. Additionally this edit and the comment around it are not suitable for Wikipedia, comment on the edit not the person. It could constitute a personal attack and I know you've read the policies around this as you've been informed of them before. Canterbury Tail talk 15:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Because they are claiming to know more about the town i grew up in its history and all that than me, thats an attack to me, i will take that personally Judeobasquelanguage ( talk) 22:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This has been mentioned earlier on your page, while it is acceptable to reuse text from one article when creating or improving an article, it must be attributed. Using the {{ Copied}} template on the target article's talk page is a simple way to handle this. I have added that notice to Lycaonian language, but please be sure to include such notices on other articles where you have copied from one page to another. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 15:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Really? You have already been blocked once for calling other editors racist and making accusatory comments, and you make this edit summary? Coupled with other comments like this one it's starting to seem like you're unable to contribute in a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia. Add in edits such as this and this and it's clear you don't have the temperament for this. Then take into account your continued warnings for adding unsourced content and how many of your edits have been reverted by many many users I'm wondering if this is just a competence failure. So I'm giving you a final warning now as clear as I can
You will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Doric Greek. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
Demetrios1993 (
talk)
06:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I should have done my own research for a claim you tried to add in an article? No buddy, you ought to provide a reliable source for every claim you add, otherwise you violate the policy of WP:Verifiability. Having read some of the previous discussions, i see that you have been warned again. Therefore, please share with me the exact quotes that supposedly support the claim you tried to include in the article Doric Greek; that is, Italiot Greek (currently a stub without a single reference) being classified as a Doric Greek subgroup. You used the following two references:
On page 187 by Douri & De Santis (2015) we read the following about Griko, which doesn't say anything about a Doric classification:
2. Origins and history of Griko: A long-standing debate over the origins of Griko has produced two main theories for the origins of Griko. According to the first theory, developed by Giuseppe Morosi in 1870, Griko originated from the Hellenistic koine when, in the Byzantine era (around 1000 AD), waves of immigrants arrived from Greece in Salento. Some decades after Morosi, G. Rohlfs, in the wake of Hatzidakis (1892), claimed instead that Griko was a local variety of Greek evolved directly from the Ancient Greek spoken in the colonies of Magna Graecia.
You did share a quote from the 1986 "Summary Report", but it doesn't claim any Doric classification either:
In Italy, Greek (known locally as Griko) is spoken today in two small linguistic islands of southern Italy…The dialects of these two linguistic islands correspond for the most part, as regards morphology, phonetics, syntax and lexis to the neoclassical dialects of Greece, but they also present some interesting archaic characteristics. This has led to much discussion on the origins of the Greek-speaking community in southern Italy: according to some scholars (G. Morosi and C. Battisti), Greek in this area is not a direct continuation of the ancient Greek community but is due to Byzantine domination (535-1071); whereas for other scholars (Rohlfs, etc.), the Greek community of southern Italy is directly linked to the community of Magna Grecia.
As for the five additional sources that you shared above, let's review them quickly:
In summary, everything you add in Wikipedia has to be based on reliable sources, not on your own personal analysis or synthesis of published material in order to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Also, even if a linguistic variety might have been influenced by, let's say Doric Greek, it doesn't mean that it is classified as Doric Greek. Last, just because the current versions of Italiot Greek (again, without any reference) and Griko language mention a possible Doric classification, it doesn't mean that you can go to other articles and include similar information by making the assumption that these claims are factual. Both of these articles need some cleanup, and the latter needs factual verification, despite the fact that even its relevant section doesn't really mention anything about a Doric Greek classification; just some influence. Personally, i couldn't care less if the claim you make is correct after all. The main reason i am writing you all these is to help you understand the policies and guidelines you ought to be following. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 12:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Again, the "imgur.com" link you shared shows two excerpts that don't support what you claimed. Did i say anything about not believing what the two photographs show? The answer is no. Furthermore, you didn't even provide the title and page/pages of the book, that includes these excerpts. Are these from Μελέτες Νεοελληνικής Διαλεκτολογίας (2004) by Konstantinos M. Minas?
Now, let's quickly review the two new sources you shared.
The website "wiki.mercator-research.eu" is a tertiary source; per WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." But that is not the main issue here. The quote you shared above gives as reference the article "Greek in contact with Romance" (2019) by Angela Ralli; it will appear in "The Oxford Encyclopedia of Romance Linguistics". It turns out that this quote fails verification. In fact, Ralli (2019) writes the following:
Alternative hypotheses on the origin of the Greek language in South Italy have been formulated: a) The continuity hypothesis, according to which Greek never stopped being spoken in South Italy (Rohlfs, 1974, 1977; Caratzas, 1958); b) the Byzantine hypothesis, which proposes that the origins of the language are to be found in Byzantine Greek (Battisti, 1927;Parlangeli, 1953); c) the revised continuity hypothesis, following which the archaic features of the language support the continuity hypothesis, but Greek and Romance in this area were in a situation of bilingualism resulting to an osmosis of the two languages (Fanciullo 1996, 2008). Today, the position accepted by most scholars is that Griko and Greko are essentially dialects of Modern Greek which emerged from the Hellenistic Koine, participated in the evolution of the language till the late medieval period, but the number of archaic features in their vocabulary and structure attest the uninterrupted presence of Greek since ancient times (Ledgeway, 1998; Manolessou, 2005; Horrocks, 2010).
There is no mention of any Doric classificaiton. Just so you know, the Ancient Greek of southern Italy or Magna Graecia wasn't just Doric, but Ionic as well. And besides that, the author clearly states that there is consensus among most modern scholars, that the dialects of Italiot Greek are Modern Greek, which emerged from Hellenistic Koine. This means that per WP:OLDSOURCES and WP:UNDUE, the classification that should be used is Modern Greek.
As for the second source, this is an article by Paris Zeikos, who is the same author that misinterpreted Ralli (2019); mentioned above. You can see his name listed here, as the contributor of that article. Furthermore, he doesn't give any reference to support the claim that Greek linguists support the theory of Italiot Greek being derived from the Doric of Magna Graecia. Douri & De Santis (2015), cited at the end of the paragraph, after the "Hellenistic Koine theory", make no mention of Doric. And even if that claim is correct, who are these Greek linguists, and are they modern? If they aren't, WP:OLDSOURCES applies. However, that is not main observation here. Zeikos himself doesn't support the Doric classification. In that very same essay you shared he concludes with the following:
In conclusion Griko seems to have retained a vast majority of the Modern Greek verbal morphology as verbs appear to work in the same way as Modern Greek, despite the long contact with Italian. This is based on Griko being obviously typologically closer to Modern Greek, which is due to both languages being derived from a common ancestor. The findings in this paper suggest that the only influence of Italian regarding verbal morphology on Griko is on the present perfect, where Griko either selects auxiliary verb éxo 'to have' or ime 'to be' following the Romance model of auxiliary verb selection and on the progressive aspect, where Griko uses the grammaticalized particle ste 'stand', which is borrowed from Italian from the verb stare 'to stay'. This suggest that language contact and language change can take place, but with different degrees of intensity as in Griko, which has maintained a lot of Modern Greek elements in the language, as it is seen in the verbal morphology.
So, his findings complement the aforementioned Modern Greek classification. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 12:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
So you continue to play the people are anti-language (anti-dialect now) and are calling things and side calling people racist again while logged out (and don't try the "it's my brother" card, it's quite clear it's you.) This is a pattern you've been warned about many times but continue with. You are clearly not capable of editing on collaborative project and have been blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia is clearly not a place you're capable of editing in a collaborative or competent way. Canterbury Tail talk 21:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Judeobasquelanguage. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Agnean language, 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) 09:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)