User talk:Pcg111

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

I prefer to keep discussions together in one place:

I'd rather discuss the content of an article on the article Talk page.
If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, I'll be watching it for your reply.
I'll respond here to comments that are posted here, so you may want to watch this page until I respond.

I prefer to keep discussions tidy:

You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Add or respond to an existing discussion under the existing heading.
Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis (May 3)[edit]

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

See WP:INLINECITE.

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:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis 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.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pcg111! 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! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at Allan R. Bomhard[edit]

Hello, I'm Warrenmck. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Allan R. Bomhard in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your edit summary was that you “removed libellous material” and that the underlying author was not a nostraticist, but the source explicitly made the exact claim that you removed. The removed text was not libellous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:LEGAL. It is forbidden to make legal threats and continue to edit Wikipedia; your edit summary came close to that. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry a lot. It was a misunderstanding of mine, I speak Spanish natively and I didn't know that libelous was a so strong word. Thanks a lot for your revert. Excuse me for my enormous misunderstanding. Pcg111 𒂊 16:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Warrenmck I was referring that in the quoted there isn't any reference to nostraticists referring to Bomhard as a maximalist who casts his nets as widely as possible (Philologos isn't a nostraticist, see his Wikipedia article). Again, thank you for your clarification. Pcg111 𒂊 16:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein and Warrenmck: I'll stop editing on Allan Bomhard's article. Pcg111 𒂊 17:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a misinterpretation of the statement in the article. "Among nostratists" means "in comparison to other nostraticismizators" or whatever you think the correct suffix combination should be. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein Ok, thanks. I'm sorry Pcg111 𒂊 18:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]