Desley Robinson, 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.
Hi Anxioustoavoid. Thank you for your work on Izzy Asif. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Thanks for creating the biography for Asif, best know as boxing promoter, leading GBM Sports; a quick rise to fame, but has generated significant coverage over the course of a few years.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
I do not know the context of what is going on between you and Hitiste2023, and I honestly don't care to get involved. I am simply writing to inform you that your comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianluca Cadenasso are inappropriate, and should not continue. If you do not understand why, I recommend taking a moment to review WP:CIVIL, and I can try to answer any questions you may still have.
@Ike Lek Thanks for your message. There is nothing going on between this person and myself as far as I know. I don't think me pointing out (as you will see if you look at their edits and the comments of others regarding them) that their standard of English is not up to the level that should be editing Wikipedia is inappropriate. I didn't call them any names or make any allegations or say anything which I cannot back up. Also pointing out that they tried to summon another editor at a different AFD to support their view and skew the vote (which is against the rules to my understanding) doesn't seem uncivil either. In conclusion I again thank you for your message but I will politely agree to disagree with its content. Kind regards. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You saying their English was below the standards of Wikipedia is a personal attack in this context, as it is not relevant to the reasons for deletion given in the AfD, which are about notability of the article subject. If you feel that another editor's quality of writing presents a repeated issue, there are other venues to address that, but in the context of the AfD, it is inappropriate if it only serves to criticize the editor without addressing how such criticism is relevant to the subject of the AfD.
As for pinging other editors, it isn't explicitly against the rules in all cases, and in fact is encouraged in certain context; however it absolutely can be considered canvassing if done to stack a vote, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case in this situation. I don't know whether what was done was canvassing or not because I have not looked at it, but a separate AfD is still the wrong place to address it in most cases if you feel another editor has broken a rule.
If you believe an editor is breaking a rule or acting in a way that is damaging to Wikipedia, good places to start a conversation are on the user's talk page, the talk page of an affected article, or in the case of perceived AfD canvassing, in that AfD discussion. If you decide an issue still requires escalation, WP:ANI could be the place to go next, but make sure you have gathered all your evidence and information and organized your thoughts before taking anything there.
You haven't acted egregiously, but you crossed a line, and I'm trying to give a kinder and more personal warning than the more hostile template messages often used. I wish you the best in your future editing. Ike Lek (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ike Lek I did raise the canvassing issue on the AFD in question but, as yet, no admin has been done or said anything about it. I wasn't aware that there were venues at which to raise another editor's standard of writing and this is something I will perhaps look into as this editor's first language is clearly not English, they don't seem to have even a working understanding of it and are obviously relying on Google translate or something similar. I genuinely appreciate your cautioning and I will certainly bear in mind your advice in the future. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anxioustoavoid, your comments at AfD were entirely inappropriate and a personal attack. I'll second @Ike Lek:'s comments and kudos to them for approaching the issue this way. --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn I'm not the first person to question this editor's grasp of English (see their talk page) and anybody looking at their contributions objectively can see my observations are correct. I accept @Ike Lek's point that AFD wasn't the right place to raise this, but until they messaged me I didn't know their was a venue to raise such matters. I think we have a different view of what is a "personal attack" and I'm not going to debate that with you. I've moved on from this and taken the valuable learning given to me by @Ike Lek. I don't really see the need for you to second anything but whatever makes you happy I guess. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message here because your response to Ike Lek was of a sort: you might see it this way, I don't. Querying an editor's contributions is different from querying their personal capacities. To be clear - what you wrote was a personal attack; what you could have written without it being a personal attack would have been along the lines of: "your contributions frequently contain grammatical errors, they need to be better copy edited before being published." Hope you can understand the difference. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Purpose of Wikipedia
"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Purpose_of_Wikipedia, Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There are many versions but they all say the same thing. This means we are all here for the same reason. To make a book. The biggest book you can imagine. A book so gigantic it will never be complete. A book which lists everything a human being needs to know about every topic. A book written in every language. A book which is free to everyone who can find it. One of the most important books ever written. And you are making contributions to it. BusterD (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Treatment of new editors
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, an important guideline, reminds us that "Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers. Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once.... New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing...".
The fourth pillar is respect and civility. We demonstrate respect to others because it is their due. We act kindly to each other because manifesting such trust is a superior platform to help us write our book. It's always about the book. Nothing is more important here. Plus, none of us knows when "our great gettin' up mornin'" is gonna be. I can only speak for myself, but I prefer to be treated as a person, not as an objective, a tool, a data point, an anecdote. As a wikipedian, I'm a serious person doing serious work. In my seriousness, sometimes I get over focussed and need a friend to remind me I am mortal and all glory is fleeting.
Needing a friend involves having friends to count on. Some folks keep their own company, and I've been that guy. On Wikipedia, you will meet people. You can't avoid it. Some of them will be kind and others will not. For me making true wikifriends is one of my stronger motivations for staying. I have noticed that not everyone who tries to edit Wikipedia is great at it. Twenty years ago, nobody was an expert here. I choose to assume good faith. I choose to believe I'm helping a wikipedian who hasn't found their voice quite yet.
I'm helping you because it's the right thing to do. And that's how me and my friends roll. Call me naive, but just sign your post with four tildes. BusterD (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
