User talk:Annamaria.dmrt

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Eagleash (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lottery Office (October 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 331dot 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 organizations and companies). 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:

Needs to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this organization itself, not just tell what they do.

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 Lottery Office 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 Lottery Office, 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.

331dot (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Annamaria.dmrt! 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! 331dot (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lottery Office has been accepted

The Lottery Office, 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!

Rusalkii (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lottery Office

Please do not unilaterally tag an article as featured; Featured articles are designated via a Featured article candidacy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Greystanes, New South Wales. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not editing or redistributing content, but instead, deleting. What gives you the right to remove content that is factually correct, numerous times. Why don't you contact these people on Linkedin? Or why don't you research your actions. Deleting facts is actually against what Wikipedia stands for. I am going to report what you are doing here, it's unacceptable. Instead of taking the facts of this page and updating the notable people's respective articles, you instead claim that those articles need to form the basis of this article. Why is that?

Also, I don't appreciate your tone. Ownership is not being assumed, I have taken alot of time to edit this article and have done an incredible job here. And you think you have the right to come and delete content that is correct.

I totally agree with all the referencing and citations, even though it's annoying and you have asked for citations for the same thing multiple times. But that's ok. But again, deleting content without getting your facts checked, is unacceptable. And I have asked you to stop 3 times now. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Greystanes, New South Wales shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Greystanes, New South Wales, 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. Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and what about having Amanda Farrugia removed as a notable person on Greystanes, New South Wales, even though her article mentions it specifically?

Block me and I will raise this further, because I totally disagree with you.

Citing throughout the article is fine, but these notable people are:

from sydney (greystanes is their suburb in sydney)
their articles should be updated, not them being removed from this suburb's new content. It is not my responsibility to update their articles. And notable people do not need to be referenced (unless they do not have a wiki article). That's how I have always seen it on all of these articles.

I am not in an edit war. The citations needed on the page, I will address. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

having read the comments on the Admin Notice page, I will agree to disagree, and just do what you guys are all asking, no worries.

Thanks for your patience, and sorry for the loss of time Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot agree to disagree over sourcing your content, it is an absolutely fundamental part of editing here! Theroadislong (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i agree to disagree with here in general. Because you should not be deleting in my opinion, but instead telling me what to cite. Like in the other parts of the article.

noone here is mentioning Amanda Farrugia and why she was removed, when her article clearly says she is from greystanes, and the reason for deletion, was that it doesnt.

Also, you have asked for citations, UserLibStar, didn't.

So, i think you should try and see where I am coming from here, and also have some greatitude to people trying to contribute here. Instead of being so aggressive. I get it. I need to cite notable people too. I will do it.

Next time, say so from the start, add a citation tag and don't delete content.

Thanks! All the best Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Amanda Farrugia article actually says "she attended Our Lady Queen of Peace Primary School, Greystanes" it does NOT say that "she is from Greystanes". Thank you for finding a source that actually does confirm that she lived there. Theroadislong (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]