User talk:Hires an editor

Thanks for finding another reference - I would have but was busy. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Part of the reason I used the Frommer's reference is that I couldn't find a better reference, which I thought was worse than no reference at all, but you prompted me to look for a better one...which I found after a lot more looking. Cheers! Hires an editor (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article entitled, William Lewis Herndon, on Wikipedia I ask; why did you remove the following words and declare them as POVs? If you had read the book, as I have, then you would know it was a remarkable journey and you would know they were over 4,000 miles of danger as declared by Congress and Senate when it was ordered that 10,000 more copies of the book be published.

I disagree with the removal of those two words -- it was no cakewalk traveling through that jungle of fierce natives and animals as well as dire circumstances that kill men and especially white strangers passing through their many territories.

I ask that those two descriptive words be placed back where they came from uinless you think they are not descriptive nor the journey "remarkable" or those 4,366 miles "dangerous". It seems to me it is you that have an erroneous "POV".

QUOTE "After a [remarkable] journey of 4,366 [dangerous] miles ". These are descriptive words that lend aid in thought and visualization. They harm no person and are only two in number. Why were they removed? They had been there a long time before you finally saw and removed them and declared them as POV -- whose "POP"? Writing on Wikipedia and other areas are suppose to be neutral but yet you removed those two descriptive words -- why?  – Brother Officer^Talk 08:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's somebody's POV that it was dangerous. If we're supposed to look at it from a "universal point of view" then it wasn't dangerous for the Natives, now, was it? I propose that you simply place this sentence in quotes, the way you did on my talk page, to make that more clear. "From Herndon's point of view, it was a dangerous undertaking." (or whatever) Hires an editor (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally it is some person's point of view that the exploration was "dangerous" just as another person with their own POV would declare it not dangerous. But the latter would not know unless they made that trip or read the details of it. The FACTs are that the expeditions were highly dangerous. Yes, it was dangerous for the Natives because tribes fought one another and Herndon as well as Lardner Gibbon on those Explorations of the Valley of the Amazon constantly hired Natives as guides, hunters, and fishermen an knowledge as to what areas to avoid and why avoid those areas including whether another tribe that was war-like (there were and because of they canoed downstream on the right side of the river bank only. Natives had killed Natives and white men. There was even a massacre. The priests were able to provide these warnings as the USN men traveled))or natural dangers. Many Natives lost their life, as did one Priest on those Expeditions (Wm Lewis Herndon & Lardner Gibbion split up to cover more territory. Each had two helpers and the rest were hired Natives for over 4,000 miles of exploring unknown areas of jungle and a maze of rivers to seek the mouth of the Amazon River so the USA could trade via the Mississippi river and New Your ports.)

I have been through a lot and never would I want to go through the unknown dangers and foreign languages of Spanish, Quecha, and Portugese, and also a blend of any of those, that Herndon and Gibbon went through with fragile instruments for mapping and traveling and surviving to make a distance of over 4.000 miles from Lima, Peru, over the Andes mountains, down the Andes mountains, and then by canoe to Para, Brazil hoping all the way they were traveling in the correct direction through a maze of rivers to collect information, find the common rivers to the mouth of the Amazon. Each of them were very sick several times. It was "dangerous" -- doctors didn't make house calls with medical bags from the USA to those jungles and mountains.

Teddy Roosevelt tried it and came very close to dying. I do think he would declare the trip as "dangerous" but then that is his POV -- but he has that woeful experience for his POV.

Okay, I am open to your proposal and I do thank you. So does a United States Naval Officer who copied that piece of text posted originally by "MAURY" on "23:04, 15 June 2006 MAURY", the 1st message posted there over 3 years ago and remained until recently but apparently under no malice aforethought. I sincerely thank you for the mannerable conversation and your proposal.

 – Brother Officer^Talk 13:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I'm looking for information on how to move images from wikipedia to the commons. Is there information on this anywhere? Or do I just have to upload the images again? Thanks. Hires an editor (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Algebraist 19:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can write an essay, basically it would just be expanding on what you said previously, yes. I don't actually know much about essays but my understanding is that you should start the essay in your userspace, as a personal essay cannot be created in the project space, however, if you leave the essay open to be edited by anyone then it will eventually be eligible to be moved into the project space, I think. see WP:ESSAYS, if you have any other questions then please feel free to ask me, or you could try and find someone who know a little more about it! Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Hello. I'm looking for information on how to get an essay out of userspace and into a more general area of WP, like some of the other essays. The reason I'm asking is because I came up with a Motto of the Day (Wikipedia: A change in the way you think") that got accepted, and after some discussion with a fellow editor or two, I thought an essay on this topic might be useful or fun for other editors. I just don't know how to get it more widely viewed, commented, and/or changed by others. I've looked through the info on essays, and there's a dearth of information on this subject. Thanks for your help! !!!

I don't think there are any formal requirements for putting your essay in Wikipedia space. If the essay is Wikipedia-related and potentially useful to other editors in the context of editing Wikipedia, you can just put it in Wikipedia space and tag it with {{Essay}}. But if it's not really directly relevant to Wikipedia, it should stay in your userspace. +Angr 12:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.B., S.B. and S.M. were the degrees that Sagan had. That was the reason that they were written that way. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.149.187 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! I'm making your suggested changes. How do I respond to particular points? For example, the low quality primary source from the high school teacher is how I got some of the major organization of the article, and ideas on what to put. Where would I put that instead? Or how do I cite that? Hires an editor (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You can respond on the peer review page although it is probably preferable to respond on the talk page for the article.

Regarding crediting somebody who helped you out ... Wikipedia really isn't designed to credit authors or contributors. Even with respect to citing sources the purpose is not to "credit" the source but simply to provide evidence that the statements in the article are factually accurate. So while I applaud your efforts to give credit where credit is due I don't think that there is really a way to do what you are asking. If you want you could provide a mention on the talk page for other editors to see. Up to you.

BTW, if you believe that you have gotten enough feedback you should close the peer review so that it does not appear on the list of open cases (since the backlog is significant). You, of course, are welcome to leave it open a little while longer to see if anybody else offers an additional review (I wouldn't hold my breath given the backlog).

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI if you want to move consensus on all Honduras/Constitutional crisis/Zelaya/coup/Micheletti related stuff, you might want to look at this discussion pages. You will have to work at it and may face pushback from certain editors because those articles are highly disputed... just a friendly notice from Moogwrench (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contributions. -- Rico 03:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering what image exactly had led to the page protection on the Lima article. If it's the photo of the slums, then I am fully aware of the situation. If it's another image, let me know. I ask because I see that another photo of the San Isidro financial district was added, and it is redundant, (i.e. the same three buildings are featured, including the unmistakable "Chocavento."), so I wanted to delete it. Thanks. Rafajs77 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the slums picture. If one picture is redundant, it makes sense to delete it. I'd make it clear on the talk page, though. Which two pictures? Hires an editor (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply, it is the pictures in the section on the economy. The top photo was there before, someone added a second one. I will go ahead and remove it. The second photo is of the same part of town, except it features one less building, so it's just completely pointless. Rafajs77 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be knowledgeable and actively helping with Cold War Legacies. In my User space I have posted a number of unanswered questions that you might be able to address, as Wikipedia practices have gotten far beyond my experience level.

As a small example, I notice you removed Amazon.com as the publisher in the reference that I thought I was making more correct. I'd appreciate an explanation.

More importantly, can I assume you or someone else is working on recovering the other four main contributions that are still missing: Cold War Military Legacies, Cold War Security Legacies, Cold War Institutional Legacies, and Cold War Economic Legacies.

Even though I've posted related questions for help on my talk page, the answers have not been forthcoming.

waterfox1 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the response you posted. It is just what I needed: Some remedial action with a dose of reality. As you’ve explained, it can be quite intimidating to someone not in the loop.

With those normative issues mostly out of the way, I’d like to address others that you brought up.

I understand, expect, and appreciate the wikifying process to go forth. Indeed, I can provide more references as called for. The root work is the two-volume Nuclear Shadowboxing which has about 2500 citations that can be drawn upon as needed. I tried to take advantage of internal hyperlinked citations available in wikipedia. I also took a short-hand route that simply referred to several comprehensive books as appropriate, and I recognize that such an indirect citation process might not be sufficient.

I have been working on providing some illustrations, but submitting images to Wikipedia has its own learning curve.

Somehow, the Legacy section from Cold War has been copied by someone else almost in its entirety into my lead-in to the six-article series, so that now Cold War Legacies is almost all duplication of Legacy with nearly nothing of my original lead-in. I don’t think the complete duplication is desirable or necessary, inasmuch as the exact text resides in the main article. The introduction I had prepared did not have such duplication, and it was intended to make a smooth transition to the new series of articles about each of the six delineated legacies. Is it possible for you, since you seem so experienced, to revert to the original lead-in that I supplied, and then reset the editing/revision process from that starting point? In fact, I had tried to emulate the other sections under Cold War such that Cold War Legacies would be treated similarly as a “main article” referenced at the beginning (or end) of Legacy.

Regarding content, I have had considerable (and subject-matter relevant) professional experience in both technical research and analysis. This wikipedia contribution contains material from a comprehensive winnowing of the literature: Of the three volumes I published in 2009, the first dealt with Cold War history, the second with Cold War legacies, and the third with what might well be considered “prescriptions” for the future. Thus, the Wikipedia Cold War Legacies topic is drawn largely from the second volume because I noticed that the topic was quite incomplete and understated in Wikipedia. (As for the Cold War “history” treatment in Wikipedia, it is certainly comprehensive; my Volume 1 differs in that it looks more at technical than just political history). My Volume 3 is largely prescriptive.) For anything in the submitted Cold War Legacies articles that might be prescriptive or speculative, rather than descriptive or reflective, I would be among those welcoming appropriate revisions. waterfox1 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is using the Encyclopedia Brittanica a "no-no" as you put it?--Macarenses (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I just put in a dangling reference you took out. There was an edit conflict which said nothing about it. I'm sorry, but it's not my fault. Dualus (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, somebody apparently either didn't realize that messages to a user should go on the user's talk page or didn't care. You might want to remove this comment or move it to your talk page. Guy Harris (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of towns and cities with names derived from the word salt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an editor or administrator involved with the cold war project, to assist with a page? 24.251.41.161 (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Depending on the type of help that you need, will determine where to ask the question...And what page? Hires an editor (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT do more editing on the page. You deleted the introductory paragraph that was a "teaser" and synopsis of the page. It has been on the page since it got approved in March. I just received today, edits and additional copy from one of the Washington D.C. coordinators, that I need to add to the page. Susan Macafee (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hires an editor. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 23:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of towns and cities with names derived from the word salt 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/List of towns and cities with names derived from the word salt until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here Lbertolotti (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Rivalry
Image caption
SectionA
FieldNameA1	FieldParameterA1
FieldNameA2	FieldParameterA2
FieldNameA3	FieldParameterA3
SectionB
FieldNameB1	FieldParameterB1
FieldNameB2	FieldParameterB2

Edit this revision to see the differences between transcluding, subst-ing, and linking, and view the revision to see the differences. I can't simply leave those versions of the template there: because talkpage message templates are always supposed to be subst-ed (if the template gets edited, we don't want the message to change long after it was left), there's a bot that goes around subst-ing them if they're merely transcluded. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hires an editor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hires an editor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hires an editor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Cold War, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cold War and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Cold War during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. We cannot accept articles that are little more than definitions of words or abbreviations as entries. A good article should begin with a good definition, but expand on the subject. You might try creating a definition for this instead at Wiktionary, which is a dictionary. Please only do so if it meets that sister project's criteria for inclusion. These require among others, attestation for the word or phrase, as verified through clear widespread use, or its use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

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 Draft:Senior Royal 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 Draft:Senior Royal, 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, 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hires an editor! 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! -- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about moving the Chris Gragg article to WP:FAR and posted this section on the talk page. I noticed your comment on the day it was TFA and thought I would notify you. Any feedback you have would be much appreciated. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Chris Gragg for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Much more content will be needed. And see WP:MEDRS for the kind of sources necessary.

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 Draft:Halo-Gravity Traction 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 Draft:Halo-Gravity Traction, 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.

DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hires an editor. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Senior Royal, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hires an editor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Senior Royal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —Belwine (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hires an editor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Halo-Gravity Traction, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hires an editor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Halo-Gravity Traction".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with WP:BRD, when an edit you make is reverted, please initiate a discussion to form a consensus rather than merely reinserting your preferred version of an article. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]