User talk:Zxilef

Hi Zxilef! I noticed your contributions to Talk:Newtown High School of the Performing Arts 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! Tacyarg (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Zxilef (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, Zxilef, and welcome to Women in Red. When you feel ready to create your first biography, you'll find some useful tips in our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I just copied and pasted someone elses page sorry; I'm not a part of women in red. Zxilef (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:User pig latin, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it should be deleted. It only isn't because I couldn't find out how to myself. Zxilef (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Women in STEM | Halloween Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Sister wikiproject Women in Green October 2025 Good Article Edit-a-thon focuses on What Women Do Tip of the Month: Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period: 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I'm not in women in red Zxilef (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

To stop receiving these messages, remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/O-Z. It was added by Ipigott for some reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I've removed your name from the mailing list. In future, please be more careful when adding wikiprojects to your user page.--Ipigott (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See specifically MOS:OVERLINK concerning these edits. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as User:Zxilef/sandbox2, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been deleted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ChrysGalley 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 people). 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:

The obituary is a very good and useful source. However we need one more like that to confirm notability. The BBC and Gloucester Live are useful to the article but aren't into significant depth of the subject's life to give the "multiple" sources aspect to notability. The book company bio isn't independent or significant coverage. But one more profile like the obituary will change this decline.

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:William Riches 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.

ChrysGalley (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to find another source for the book other than the obituary, and I found this. It's his publications on the Amazon website and has the book there. Can this be used? Zxilef (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

If you have an ISBN you don't need to rely on Amazon, just use:

https://citer.toolforge.org/

or the OCLC number in Worldcat.org.

So that source can give you this reference:

<ref>{{cite book | last=Riches | first=William | title=The Civil Rights Movement | year=2017 | isbn=978-1-137-56483-2 | oclc=1480419428 | language=en-GB}}</ref>

However the point here is that the important sources are not what he says, writes or does - what matters is what other people say or write about the subject, which is why the obituary is very good. A second obituary or similar written by someone else can give you grounds to articulate anything mentioned by both since that would be considered a reliable source. The Daily Mail indeed isn't good for this. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!

Regarding the Daily Mail and other unreliable sources, I think it still shows notability. Zxilef (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Daily Mail won't get over the "reliable source" issue, it's true (with a few exceptions). But for notability the key issue is "multiple sources" plus "significant coverage". Also there is a caution to "one event" issues such as his stance on Britain's exit from the European Union. His life as an academic is the story, of which Brexit was one part, but the sourcing needs to go over that whole life. The other option here is if his books got reviews, since that is in the "what other people say" category. There is a two-books-two-reviews-each scenario under WP:NAUTHOR, so if you find book reviews or academic reviews of his work, effectively 4 of them, then you have a different notability grounds. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

hey, if you're still interested, I resubmitted the article. Link here Zxilef (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Zxilef (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

HELLOOO HAPPY NEW YEAR YOUR ARTICLE WAS SO GOOD HAHA ~2026-12690-82 (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Do I know you irl? Zxilef (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

yeah i just dont have an account ~2026-12764-96 (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

actually im not sure. ~2026-12764-96 (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

wait this might be the wrong person sorry! your article really was good tho ~2026-12764-96 (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I am probally the right person but I've asked almost everyone who I think might've typed this and no one has said they did Zxilef (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

They might be lying wink wink ~2026-13078-80 (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

wowwww Zxilef (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Haha its still a mystery ~2026-13911-46 (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's a clue: I'm covering for someone... ~2026-13911-46 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Zxilef, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Volten001 ☎ 19:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ☎ 19:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

On 25 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Riches, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that former academic William Riches declared his home an independent nation in 2017, in protest against Brexit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Riches. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Riches), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 00:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)