KateriSinensis

Hi this is my talk page. Please feel free to leave me a message.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eagleash was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Rzcortes/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Rzcortes/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Eagleash (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rzcortes! Having an article 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! Eagleash (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of The Polis Method for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Polis Method 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/The Polis Method 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.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Language teaching methodology

A tag has been placed on Category:Language teaching methodology indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Polis Institute, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Horse Eye's Back,

May I know which specific content I changed or added? I haven't touched that article in - I think - more than a month. Thanks. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

GAR Opus Dei

Opus Dei has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

COI The Polis Institute

I strongly believe you have a flagrant COI with the topic of The Polis Institute. I dont believe this is necessarily wrong, but please do disclose it (see WP:COI. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello A.C. Santacruz - may I ask why, as you say, you "strongly believe" that I have such a "flagrant COI" with the topic of the Polis Institute? Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that you don’t have a COI when it comes to the Polis Institute? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not know. The COI statement says: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." The "other relationships" seems overly broad. I took a certificate course in Polis through Zoom, found that their system of teaching ancient languages quite interesting, and thought it was a pity they did not have an item in Wikipedia such as other respectable institutions like Harvard and Columbia. I don't know if such a connection would be one of those considered as "other relationship" that would count as COI. And if it did, was that "flagrant"? Or is it the policy of Wikipedia that anyone who has ever been in an institution may not write about that institution without risking COI? If that's the case, I have not problems following these standards. I'm only seeking clarification, having been surprised by the words used by @A. C. Santacruz - i.e. those of which I sought clarification - in calling my attention. Thank you. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)