User talk:Sqorg

November 2020
Hello, I'm Gsquaredxc. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Freedom for Palestine—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Gsquaredxc (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It was constructive. I was fixing the quote as an anonymous IP address removed that part from it. The website includes the under Israeli occupation part in the quote so not having it there would be misquoting it. Sqorg (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Your changes in the article on Vietnam
Hello! I just reverted the substantial edits you made in the article on Vietnam, specifically to the list of provinces. I explained it in some detail on the talk page. It seems to me that some of your changes in that edit were not a problem; unfortunately the ones that seemed problematic to me were also the ones that involved most of the editing. So rather than change the problematic ones back, I reverted the whole thing--with the idea that the less substantial (in terms of editing work needed) points could then be changed back. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ståvatn moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Ståvatn, does not have enough sources and citations 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 " " 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. Mccapra (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ståvatn
Hello, Sqorg. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ståvatn, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ståvatn


Hello, Sqorg. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ståvatn".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Rip. I am not good at Wikipedia templates and nobody really helped with it so I’ll leave it for now as long as it’s always recoverable Sqorg (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

LPNH
Hello. I removed your comment at Talk:Libertarian Party of New Hampshire accusing a named living person of pedophilia. Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding how we talk about living people. If this allegation is backed by reliable sources, then we can discuss it and potentially add it to the article. You did not back your allegation up with sources, though. I'm requesting that your comment be removed from the page history through WP:OVERSIGHT as it is potentially seriously defamatory. If you have a reliable source, feel free to reopen the section on the talk page with said source, and we can discuss further. Please note that Twitter is not a reliable source. Thank you. ― Tartan357  Talk 20:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Why aren’t the tweets in which he did it not a reliable source for the claim that he sexually harassed a minor on twitter? Sqorg (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Because we do not do our own analysis on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's articles are intended to be intelligent summaries of what reliable, secondary sources have written about a topic. This is especially important when writing about living persons; see WP:BLP. If a reliable source comes to the conclusion that this was sexual harassment, then we can include that. For what it's worth, I've seen the tweets in question. ―  Tartan357  Talk 21:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks. I was just confused because I know for the child labor stuff the source is just a source citing the tweet. Sqorg (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, a Boston Globe article is cited for that content. ― Tartan357  Talk 23:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I’m saying that it’s just citing the tweet though, so it’s citing the same info just less directly. Sqorg (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not at all the same. The Boston Globe, as a reliable source, has determined both the authenticity and the significance of the tweet, which determines if and how we can talk about it. We cannot make that determination based on primary sources ourselves. ― Tartan357  Talk 04:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice
― Tartan357  Talk 20:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)