KangarooGymnast

Links to draft articles

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Wilfred Beckerman. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I had no idea that was a rule violation. I appreciate you pointing that out to me. If my draft there gets accepted, am I permitted to reinstate the link? KangarooGymnast (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Poverty in Italy has been accepted

Poverty in Italy, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cerebellum (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Companions and Pets Party has been accepted

Companions and Pets Party, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Liance^talk 22:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That was fast. Thank you! KangarooGymnast (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for your contribution! ~Liance^talk 22:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Companions and Pets Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Companions and Pets Party 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/Companions and Pets 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 until the discussion has finished.

Fermiboson (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you nominating it for deletion. In all honesty, it's probably not notable to pass WP:NORG, and I probably would have voted to delete if it wasn't for the fact I created it myself. It's definitely not my best work compared to other articles I've submitted via AfC. However, I'm not sure what brought you to the conclusion of the article being promotional/NPOV, or, at the very least, I never intended to write the entry as such. What exactly brought that to your conclusion? KangarooGymnast (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your collegiality. To go into a bit more detail of what I said at the AfD page, I think a lot of the issues are caused by your largely primary sourcing, but they are issues nonetheless. For example, I'm not sure anyone but the party itself would ever describe it as an animal welfare advocate. (And just for full disclosure I don't really care that much about the politics here, but I think we can agree that when people say "animal welfare" people are not referring to the right of racehorse stables to breed the hell out of every stallion.) "Passionate about" is another typical promotional wording. You have the quotes, which present one (biased) point of view on the party. "Well-respected", "counterbalance... radicalism" etc are the more egregious examples that I have removed. And of course there is also the fact that "animal extremists" links to Animal Justice Party, which is definitely a big no-no unless you can find an RS that refers to the AJP as animal extremists. Normally, the way to resolve these kinds of issues is to put in secondary source descriptions of the party as opposed to its mission statement, and include criticism of the party (I assume there are people who wish to criticise them). The problem is, of course, that because the party is so fringe and small, nobody pays any attention to them in RS and hence nobody has written any usable criticism of them. This is a chronic problem I see in non-notable and barely notable political party pages, where the only POV we can present is a biased POV because the only source is the party itself and people who wish to promote them, and is generally a good sign that the party really shouldn't have a page in the first place. Fermiboson (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I have returned the article to mainspace with writing more in line with WP:NPOV, and deletion of the unreliable citations. I would hope that is sufficient for you for this to pass WP:NORG. KangarooGymnast (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

2015 Dutch water board elections moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to 2015 Dutch water board elections. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because most of the references don't work at all, and/or don't establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The entry's notability is inherited because it's an important provincial election, e.g the election recieved the turnout of over 40% of the Dutch voter population. It's especially disheartening to see that it immediately got moved within a minute of me moving the article into mainspace. KangarooGymnast (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Phillips Academy Poll

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Phillips Academy Poll, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use your sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. The subject failed an AFD last year and the draft-space article from which you copied was rejected this year. DMacks (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. Well, I was about to list it at technical requests in order to include the determiner. I can assure you I was not intending to bypass the rejection of the draft. KangarooGymnast (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No harm done. DMacks (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KangarooGymnast (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught under a CU block despite not being a sockpuppet. Please see here for an explanation as to why I am using an IP of a blocked account. Thanks.

Decline reason:

That request (several months ago, and declined at that) doesn't explain the much more recent direct CU block of this account. — Daniel Case (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

KangarooGymnast (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 DMacks (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #83312

is declined.  Confirmed to Stanmarsh97. I want to be very, very clear. This is not just a case of coincidentally sharing an IP address, despite claims to the contrary. --Yamla (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)