User talk:Adelbeighou

This is Adelbeighou's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hi Adelbeighou! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniele Santarelli (June 8)

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 for sports persons and athletes). 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:

Absent a volleyball-specific notability guideline, notability must be established per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Arguably none of the sources cited meets this standard.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daniele Santarelli 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:Daniele Santarelli, 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 the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adelbeighou! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Adelbeighou! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniele Santarelli (July 11)

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

There is a problem, the same problem, with all the references except https://hos-cvf.hr/2022/01/18/hrvatski-odbojkaski-savez-nije-produzio-ugovore-s-izbornicima-reprezentacije-santarellijem-i-zaninijem/ whcih can be consiodered to be about Santarelli. The others are announcements pretty much the same announcement three times. We call this churnalism and it adds no value to verification of notability LIke DoubleGrazing I can't find a particularly useful sports notability to guide you. But have a look at WP:NATHLETE which covers coaches. It ought to prove a useful model

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daniele Santarelli 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:Daniele Santarelli, 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 the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Daniele Santarelli has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Daniele Santarelli. Thanks! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniele Santarelli (September 28)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Daniele Santarelli instead.

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 for sports persons and athletes). 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:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion.

If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that the appropriate notability criterion is satisfied. In particular, this draft does not appear to indicate that WP:NSPORT is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the notability criteria at the Teahouse.

In particular, see and refer to WP:NSPORT for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daniele Santarelli and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This site is useless dump and I'm done wasting my time here. Adelbeighou (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniele Santarelli has been accepted

Daniele Santarelli, 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!

No such user (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess all this monkey business isn't useless after all. Adelbeighou (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit at FIBA 3x3 Europe Cup

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edit of the medal table of the article concerning the Latvian women's team winning bronze in 2019. Why is that, since it is confirmed by data in the Results section? Ivario (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake. Adelbeighou (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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

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

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

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

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

You've engaged me in a weird edit war at Ivo Andrić, so here's a reminder of the expected standard of behavior in case you haven't noticed this elsewhere. --Joy (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who started it so stop with this unreasonable behaviour. Adelbeighou (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring sentences to not be truncated is not unreasonable behavior, especially on an article that has already been reviewed as a good article and especially not in a topic area where we need to pay attention. --Joy (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are again and deliberately ignoring my arguments which I mentioned in edit summaries. His place of origin has nothing to do with note that explains which literary circle he belongs to. If you wish to make a change, and someone opposes it, you need to start discussion on talk page before implementing that change. Adelbeighou (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we're talking past each other here. You made a change. It was reverted. Per WP:BRD, it's your task to explain it. --Joy (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking past each other because you are ignoring my arguments. And if someone questions your change and reverts you, you are suppose to explain yourself and your arguments on talk page. Adelbeighou (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Bosnian"

Hey there. I've seen some of your edits regarding Nemanja Bilbija, Toni Karačić, Lana Pudar etc. Now look. "Bosnian" has been used as a description for anything having to do with Bosnia and Herzegovina for countless of years on Wikipedia. While I am not exactly sure if there's a wider consensus, using "Bosnian" instead of "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is a more preferable way as it is short enough but also encompases the basis of what it means. "Bosnian" is also the most common demonym in the English language. At the end of the day, the main Wikipedia article about the nationality itself is called Bosnians, not Bosnians-Herzegovinians. I hope you understand. Bakir123 (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand and I disagree. Full name of the country is Bosnia and Herzegovina. Just because a term was used for countless years does not mean it's the right term. Should we also shorten name of a country in these examples as well? [1] [2] [3] Adelbeighou (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It can't be coined as just a term. I feel like you skipped on the part referring to "Bosnian" being the demonym in the English language, and it being widely used and accepted as one on the English Wikipedia. Changing thousands of articles just because you have a different opinion is really not feasible. Bakir123 (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not skip on the "Bosnian" part. It is widely used and accepted on English Wikipedia but I have yet to see rule or discussion which settled that issue. I have already pointed out other examples of countries where fulll name is used. Changing thousands of articles would not be an issue if it follows established rule (full name of country), and not my opinion. Adelbeighou (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adelbeighou, I'm here from that WP:ANI thread. You appear to be correct that there is no rule or discussion that has settled the issue. However, the rule we do have is MOS:VAR; that is, in the absence of some substantial reason, changes of this sort are not acceptable and can be reverted. Since people are indeed frequently referred to as Bosnian, we have no such substantial reason. We also have clear instructions for what to do if you disagree: If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with other editors about what the correct wording should be. It isn't perfectly fine to edit-war about this. Please don't change any more articles to say "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" or similar without first discussing on the talk page. If you think we need a general rule about this, yothu are welcome to start a WP:RFC about it.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm saying this with my admin hat on. If you continue to make these changes without discussion, or revert other editors who are undoing them, you will be blocked from editing. -- asilvering (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vey nice. Thank you for warning me, if I knew about MOS:VAR I would have followed it, but even the user who so diligently reported me did not know about it apparently. I see you did not warn other users who were involed in "edit war". And nice non-solution you all reached in that WP:ANI thread. If it's broken (or wrong) don't fix it. Very nice. I love Wikipedia.

FYI term "Bosnian" is used exclusively/pushed by only one of three ethnicities in BiH and it is seen by other two as an attack on them to diminish or even assimilate them. That is why (per all state documents) true citizens insist on use of full name of country and full name of institutions (that mentions both Bosnia and Herzegovina).

Since you are already here, in this discussion, mind telling me am I going to get reported again if I put proper name of the league like I did here or not? Explanation is in edit summary. Adelbeighou (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The solution isn't to leave things that are broken, no. I've given you the two options for fixing it: going individually, article by article, and starting talk page discussions (probably more trouble than it's worth), or starting a WP:RFC that establishes a broader consensus. If you aim to do the second, which is the better way in my opinion, you should probably solicit opinions on the issue in a few different places first - WP:BOSNIA and WT:MOS, for example.

That kind of change should be fine - since it's right in the name of the league. You shouldn't edit-war about it, though. Take the question to the talk page for the other editor to give their reasons, and give your own reasons as well, then post the issue on WP:3O for an uninvolved opinion from someone else to break the deadlock. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I won't be using any of solutions you provided because it's not worth my time, and if people here want things to stay broken and untrue so be it. I am not going to go into endless argument with such people who are, I believe, dishonest.

As for my question about being reported and proper name of the league (or cup) - you can see in these examples [4], [5] the dishonesty I am talking about. First user is the one who reported me in WP:ANI thread, and here he is, making up names. Second one was here, discussed "Bosnian" issue, stopped and just continued editing in wrong name and he has done so in probably hundreds of pages. Because you are here with admin hat as you say, I am bringing your attention to this problem. If you won't bother with this as admin, I REALLY won't. Just not worth my time. Adelbeighou (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you start a talk page discussion asking why they've reverted your reasonable change? I actually can't get involved with this editorially if I'm going to be able to use admin tools in this area - that's a rule we have to prevent admins from using their userrights to win arguments about content. I agree that it's not reasonable to revert your change without providing any kind of reason, so I've given them a warning message about that.

As for whether any of this is worth your time, well, that's up to you. I agree that this kind of dispute is very annoying, which is why I tend to avoid them myself as an editor. The minimally annoying way to fix it, imo, is to make a RFC about it. -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]