User talk:Lutitium

Welcome!

Hello, Lutitium!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 17:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips!

I am new to Wikipedia, so these are very helpful to me.

Thanks again!

Lutitium Lutitium (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles can’t be used as sources

Because it is crowd sourced. Read WP:RS Doug Weller talk 17:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello, I'm TompaDompa. An edit that you recently made to Martian canals seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TompaDompa (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So am I suppose to remove it or anything?

Will I get in some trouble or should i just let Wikipedia remove it? Lutitium (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 18)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Hanging instead.

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 User:Lutitium/sandbox 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.

qcne (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lutitium! 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! qcne (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 18)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: As already stated, there exists an article on hanging, so there is no point in resubmitting as we couldn't have two articles on the same topic.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 11:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you give more details about the issue?

Please leave a reply. Lutitium (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your anti-vandalism efforts, but you've twice reverted my cleanup of duplicate references at Fletcher Myers. Since you've only been editing for a week, might I suggest you switch to some other form of helpful cleanup task, while you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and procedures? Thanks. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:2008:D0F5:6012:D6DB (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that.

If I have done any mistake, I sincerely apologize to you Lutitium (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Is women empowerment still relevant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Is women empowerment still relevant 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/Is women empowerment still relevant 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.

TompaDompa (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Korea

Please don't edit war. Those sources were either old or desd. 221.146.36.98 (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was an accident. I sincerely apologize. I am very sorry that I have caused any amount of inconvenience to you. I did not mean to edit war you. It was an accident. Please forgive me. Lutitium (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was just removing some inactive sources. Also some sources were under "current status" but sources that covered what happened 20-25 years ago are hardly current. Thank you for your understanding. 221.146.36.98 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So all good?

Sorry again. Lutitium (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Hey Lutitium, I saw your thread at the Teahouse and am glad you are reverting unconstructive edits. However, please leave a message on their talk page to let them know what they did wrong. I highly recommend using the templates at WP:WARN, as they cover almost every case of unconstructive editing and contain useful links. I also recommend using a semi-automated tool like Twinkle to make reverting and warning much easier. Also, once you have gathered a bit more experience you may wish to get a mentor at the Counter-Vandalism Unit's training academy. Yerlo (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS!

This id valuable information, but my main issue is that sometimes an edit looks like vandalism, but isn't. Like in the Indians in Korea article, a whole section was deleted and looked exactly like vandalism but it was removing outdated information. How do I know which ones are actual vandalism???

Thanks again! Lutitium (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not sure about an edit, I recommend asking the editor about the edit on their talk page or the article's talk page, or watchlisting the page and seeing if another editor reverts it. Yerlo (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Night vison contact lens (August 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://www.dw.com/en/infrared-contact-lens-night-vision-see-in-dark/a-72749143. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

Draft:Night vison contact lens may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. 158.140.164.16 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which page/article? Lutitium (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Lutitium! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Should I move a page?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: TOI-6034 b (October 26)

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

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:

The author of the LinkedIn article does not appear to be a subject-matter expert (see WP:SPS). The rest of the sources do not contain significant coverage of TOI-6034 b.

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:TOI-6034 b 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.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Night vison contact lens (October 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pencilceaser123 was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Night vison contact lens 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.

Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: TOI-6034 b has been accepted

TOI-6034 b, 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Earth605^talk 17:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Night vison contact lens (November 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 Guninvalid was:

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:

Close, but not quite there. The Guardian article is good from a cursory glance, but the rest of your sources I'm skeptical.

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:Night vison contact lens 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.

guninvalid (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Night-vision contact lens has been accepted

Night-vision contact lens, 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]