Sleuthman

Welcome!

Hi Sleuthman! 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 🇺🇦 22:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Rape chant moved to draftspace

Thanks for creating Rape chant. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because Conscious of WP:NOTCENSORED this needs more time in Draft to develop a fuller view. The topic seems to be notable and even important, but is presented sensationally. There is, for example no need to link irrelevant prior alumni with the instances of are chant. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it 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. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rape chant (January 30)

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

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my comments seriously. I want there to be no chance that your work is deleted when it arrives in main space. Time taken now will be an excellent investment 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sleuthman! 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! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I wish you had not felt the need to move it to main space a second time

You are entitled to do so, but this is likely to be unwise with a topic of this nature. Doing so means:

1. It cannot now be sent back to draft for further work, assuming such work is needed. See WP:DRAFTOBJECT
2. You have exposed it to the risk of being sent to WP:AFD, potentially as a non notable neologism. A still broader base of referencing is needed.

Should it be sent to AFD and deleted, you have restricted any ability to re-create an article. Articles deleted by community consensus have set rules about re-creation. You may, if you choose, move it back to Draft yourself to avoid this. Then submitting it for review and awaiting that review will give the article the best chance of succeeding in main space 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It was a bold strategy, Sleuthman, let's see how it works out for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As creating editor, you may now not move it back to Draft yourself. But you may offer an opinion in the deletion discussion that you wish for it to be returned to draft so that you may work on it further. Your call. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Rape chant for deletion

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

Chris Troutman (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiktionary, advice

Adding knowledge to wiktionary is also something that you may wish to consider. https://en.wiktionary.org/

Welcome to Wikipedia. We do need more people willing to create articles about important topics. My advice is that getting articles to a high standard before moving from draft to main space is a better way to avoid the hassle of people proposing to delete them.

My analysis is that you are writing about a notable topic, but have not ticked all the boxes needed yet on the article. In some ways, that's OK, wikipedia is always a work in progress. In other ways, you might be creating headaches for yourself.

If you have other articles that you want to create and need some help getting them to meet wikipedia norms, feel free to let me know. CT55555(talk) 01:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Post-secondary enrolment figures

I've removed the table you've added in the University of Toronto and restructured its content into a single sentence that is about the article topic itself (i.e. University of Toronto's enrolment figures only), and what is explicitly stated in the source.

Keep in mind, the section/article topic is specific to the university (and is not an appropriate place to compare the institution with a selected group of others... nor is it a place to showcase how its "relative position has increased," and how "Manitoba was one of the pre-eminent universities in Canada"). This is hardly appropriate for a single-institution article. If such content should exist on Wikipedia, the article in which this should be added is Higher education in Canada, as that is the article that covers the wider topic (and is not just a topic for one institution).

Also, while we are on the topic, I should also note that what you're inferring in your edit summary is seemingly original research on your part (not to say that your edit summary was the edit you made, just making note for future edits). Doing a cursory look at your source, the University of Toronto is only mentioned once in your source when listing enrolment figures on page 14, and no such statement on "relative position" is made in comparison with other institutions outside that year (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming your position is based on the stats inferred from page 14 and the unis listed [which per the source is just a listing of select universities, not a listing of preeminence], and would be original research - something not permitted on Wikipedia). Anyhow happy editing. Leventio (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)