User talk:Orchastrattor

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) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orchastrattor, per WP:INTDAB intentional links to disambiguation pages always go through an article title that contains '(disambiguation)', even if that is a redirect. This lets editors and readers know that the link is intentional and not a mistake that needs to be fixed. I don't know what "It. lit." is or what it meant by "piping is fine for other disambigs", as this clearly goes against MOS. Also, why does the unpiped version look uglier when they have the same text? Leschnei (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, MOS:DABREDIR states that "Redirecting may be appropriate when linking to another disambiguation page" and I meant that having the "redirected from example" at the top of such a small page makes it look really cluttered. Also INTDAB you shortcut specifically states that this rule only applies to mainspace articles so given the fact that we're talking about a "see also" section on a disambig I do not believe my solution directly violates any WP guidelines. Sorry for any confusion.

I see that you've further edited Bloody Sunday, but for the record, disambiguation pages are in mainspace (WP:MAINSPACE), and one of the examples listed at WP:INTDAB is specifically about disambiguation pages. MOS:DABSEEALSO also states that disambiguation links on a DAB page should go through '(disambiguation)'. Leschnei (talk) 12:56, 29 January 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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Megaman en m. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fugue state, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Megaman en m (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orchastrattor! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Copying within Wikipedia when creating a new article, 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 Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2022 (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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Team Fortress (series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Team Fortress".

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! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception of the American Loyalists by Great Britain in the Year 1783, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hoary (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Polygenism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Don't add your unsourced opinions, editorializing, and OR to articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Valjean: Thank you for your message but I do not see how my additions to the lead were unreflective of the article body, and I would be more than happy to provide the necessary sources to justify my edits given that they consisted of:

1. A minor grammatical change from "favor" to "find merit in", which means essentially the same thing but helps better position polygenism as a fringe theory in a modern scientific context to reflect the following;

2. Added mention of how Darwinian monogenism relates the Out of Africa hypothesis, with the conflict between polygenism and the Theory of Evolution presented in my edit being corroborated almost verbatim by the opening and closing paragraphs of Polygenism#Effect of evolutionary ideas and debates from the 1860s. Again I would be more than happy to re-cite the sources necessary for this in the lead itself, but I do not see why such an issue could not have been handled via a ^{[citation needed]} template and a user ping in place of assuming bad faith on my part.

3. Rewritten a sentence discussing racial inequality, changed to white supremacy instead. I would be willing to widen the scope to racial supremacy to avoid editorializing however I still feel that the original was confusing and inaccurate in its phrasing, as "advancing inequality" is something you would say of a social policy rather than a theoretical model; it can be used to justify certain actions but it doesn't make any sense to say it advances those actions itself (particularly given that the link in question lead to social inequality as a sociological reality rather than an ideological theory).

4. Specified the actual relation between racial supremacy and polygenism to give context for the above. I apologize if this specifically wasn't reflective of the body but my understanding of the relationship in question came from reading the articles serpent seed and Pre-Adamite, so it wouldn't have been that difficult to simply copy the citations over if I was made aware of the need for it.

5. Added a short explanation of the differences between Biblical polygenism, Co-Adamism, and Scientific polygenism (with all of the terms and definitions in question taken almost directly from the article body). Even if the specific way I framed the differences in question isn't to your satisfaction (something I would be happy to discuss further on assumption of good faith) the information itself is still crucial to include in one form or another given how much of the article body is spent distinguishing and discussing these differing theories.

6. Bolded a term effectively synonymous with the article title, which I hope to be fairly self-explanatory per MOS:BOLDSYN. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article James Tissot you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:James Tissot for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ppt91 -- Ppt91 (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Orchastrattor. I wanted to let you know that, unfortunately, I had to quick-fail your recent GA nomination for James Tissot due to copyright violations. You will receive a separate automated notice about the nomination, but I wanted to clarify my reasoning. According to the Earwig report the article has a very high copyvio match, although it is clear that in at least one instance, it was the external site copying content from the Wikipedia article (i.e. false alarm). However, the report provides more than one source, which is particularly concerning considering how recent the nomination was. If you would like to renominate the article once these issues are addressed to make sure there is no copyright concerns, please feel free to do so. Ppt91^talk 20:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ppt91 All three of the top Earwig results appear to be false alarms. The Tate bio is attributed to WP and is the only one out of the three featuring text from after I began contributing to the article in February, however the other two match exceedingly closely to the 15th of February revision just before my first edit. The Hellenica World page goes as far as to lift the captions for different images without displaying the images themselves ("The Circle of the Rue Royale, a scene in Paris seen from the balcony of the Hôtel de Coislin overlooking the Place de la Concorde." and "Portrait of James Tissot by Edgar Degas, c.1866-67"). I went though the page history and Hellenica seems to be primarily drawing from around Around 10th of April 2015, when most of the body text started to get nailed down to what it was in the February 2023 version but still had some considerable changes left to be made, though there are a few other matches such as 30th October 2019 when someone in "Early life" changed "Catholic" to "Catholic christian" only to have it reverted an edit later, while the Harbor Creek page seems to be drawn from some point after 28th of January 2019, when someone awkwardly crowbarred in a very specific spiel about Partie Carree into a widely unrelated paragraph. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Tissot you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article James Tissot you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James Tissot for comments about the article, and Talk:James Tissot/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2023 (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 Zxcvbnm was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Action game#Subgenres. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

A single RPS article is not enough to demonstrate this genre passes WP:GNG. It still remains a neologism that is not widely used. A section in the action game article is all it merits right now.

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:Spectacle fighter 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.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 9 June 2023 (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 Zxcvbnm 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 added source does not demonstrate reliable source coverage, nothing has changed.

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:Spectacle fighter 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.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Tissot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that James Tissot is thought to have transgressed many Victorian sexual boundaries in his work, even setting a painting aboard the HMS Calcutta as a pun on a female subject's behind? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Tissot. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, James Tissot), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Team Fortress".

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. When 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!} 23:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive is at the halfway mark, and has seen incredible progress, dropping the backlog from 638 to 359 unreviewed articles -- a 43.7% reduction in only fifteen days! But we still have over two weeks to go, and there are plenty of articles left to review:

• We've gone from 14 nominations 270+ days old and 65 nominations 180+ days old to 2 and 0 respectively. No more articles will reach 270+ status during the drive, and only three more will reach 180+ if unreviewed, so this is your last chance to get the higher age bonuses!
• We still have plenty of articles in the 90+ range, but the list is shrinking fast.
• Some articles need new reviewers, either because they're officially on second opinion or because the original reviews were deleted or invalidated. You can help prevent these articles from waiting longer!
• While there are starting to be clear favourites for the Content Review Medal of Merit, the field is still very open. A late entrant can still pull an upset to get the most reviews in the drive!

And remember: if you've done reviews, you should log them at the backlog drive page for points, so they can be tracked towards your awards at the end.

Thanks for signing up for the drive, and I hope to see you reviewing! Vaticidalprophet 02:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this message as a participant in the August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive who has logged one or no reviews. This is a one-off massmessage. If you wish to opt out of all massmessages, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currency of Armenia, 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.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Besiege (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2023 (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 Milkk7 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 music-related topics). 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.

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:Cataclasm 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.

Milkk7 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor! 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! Milkk7 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mononormativity, 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.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Stuartyeates (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit at Reba McEntire, you removed the explanation of what "Reba's Ranch House" is, with the edit summary Why was this here? I would propose that the material was there to explain the nature of the charitable work that McEntire is doing at "Reba's Ranch House". That seems a logical bit of content for the article. Can I ask why you thought it needed to be removed? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unsourced piece of information violating WP:BLP and was written in a promotional tone violating WP:SOAPBOX, alongside a very poorly-written comparison to an unrelated (and un-linked) organization. If it is to be included it must have a reliable source that is either paraphrased in an encyclopedic tone or qualified as coming from a specific, potentially biased source. Thank you. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it's promotional to state the nature of the work that McEntire's charity performs. It is merely informative. And the comparison to Ronald McDonald House is given for context: people generally understand the nature of service that RMH provides, and this sentence merely presented "Reba's Ranch House" as a similar service. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The description hinged on unverified and arguably unverifiable buzzwords, namely "holistic", "sensitive", and "spiritual". Such a description must either be quoted directly from a properly cited source, or should be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's standards and match any of the sources cited. The RMcDH comparison will have to be verified separately as well, it's a piece of BLP information same as anything else. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored a neutral version of the description, with proper citations. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:08, 1 November 2023 (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 Vanderwaalforces 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 music-related topics). 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:

Many statements are unreferenced. Please see WP:BLP

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:Crywolf 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.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2023 (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 Timtrent was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This pair of lists within a list fail WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. The overall list may be interesting, but is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.

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:List of Hells Angels allies and enemies 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther in Nazi Germany, 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.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2023 (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 WikiOriginal-9 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 music-related topics). 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:

Not enough independent, significant coverage.

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:Crywolf 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.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murals by topic has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up! I've added a couple of categories Mason (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of black people has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Spectacle fighter, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Morgan's article 2603:7000:2101:AA00:516B:14A:BA7C:ACAA (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the citation over then. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look here - I followed convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Canadians#Politicians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2101:AA00:516B:14A:BA7C:ACAA (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a list of people who are Canadian, not people who are form a specific place. Place of birth or residence requires direct citations per the Wikipedia policy on biography of living persons. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you seem unfamiliar with convention. See List of people from Toronto. Are you inclined to delete all the names in that list? Of course not. Same at List of people from Montreal. So please respect convention here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2101:AA00:516B:14A:BA7C:ACAA (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments using four tildes, like so: ~~~~

That article includes sources, they simply aren't included in inline references, as noted by the large maintenance tag at the top of the page. Orchastrattor (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vast, overwhelming majority have sources only at the target page. Same as here. Are you about to as a result delete the vast majority that do not have sources on the page in question? Of course not. Dozens of editors who put those names there would all be visiting this page - saying what are you doing? Just as I am. Also, look at all the pages like List of people from Kingston, Ontario - which don't even have such a reference atop the page. Same at List of people from London, Ontario. Are you going to delete that entire page? And all the pages that look like that? If you are going to delete here, go ahead and delete the hundreds of thousands at all the other Canadian city pages. Otherwise, you are cherry picking, unfairly, for no good reason. Kindly self-revert. If you want to put the same reference atop the page, feel free. Though that may well be considered odd. But nobody deletes - that's not convention at all. Even on "people who are from a specific place." Look for yourself. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:516B:14A:BA7C:ACAA (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't have sources they should be tagged as such, just because one page isn't fully verified doesn't mean others should remain unverified as well. That is a complete violation of one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Orchastrattor (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go crazy. You have lots of tagging to do. You can start with the thousands of such entries on the Canadian location articles. The vast majority - as you can very well see - of the entries only have a ref at the target page. Go ahead. But don't delete them here. Unless you plan to delete all the others. Which of course you should not do. But feel free to restore and tag or leave a note atop the page. Though it's obviously silly. The reason convention is what you can see is because that is what is acceptable editing at the Project. What's not acceptable is deleting the entry, as you did, when you can very well see the ref at the target page. As is the case with the vast, vast majority of the pages I pointed you to. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:516B:14A:BA7C:ACAA (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I see an unregistered user adding unsourced BLP who then defends it by claiming universal convention across the website when they do not even know conventions as basic as signing comments then it's pretty natural for that to take precedence. Have a good day. Orchastrattor (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your reason - really, that I missed signing one of my messages? - that's not reason to delete. Because of all the reasons I point to above, I am reverting you. Feel free to tag if you wish. But do not revert. That would be against all the hundreds of entries I pointed you to above. And I did not "claim" - I provided you with the evidence. Also, please go gently with IPs - they have the same rights to add text as I have done here as you do. You are not supposed to treat them as second class citizens. Especially when they have been kind enough to point out to you that your misunderstanding (this is how we do it with locales) is .. just that. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:516B:14A:BA7C:ACAA (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)r[reply]

All four articles are now tagged with a lack of sources, one even includes a dedicated BLP warning. Plenty of other lists have individual citations for each entry, fixing them just isn't considered as important as mainline articles. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You recently closed a category move discussion in which you were involved, as having expressed an opinion and contributed the majority of the comments in the discussion. As a general rule, it is better to leave the closing of community discussions to uninvolved experienced editors (see WP:Non-admin closure) and closing a discussion in which you are involved is not considered to be very civil. Please also note that closing category discussions follow specific steps (WP:CfDClosings) due to being technically different, which you did not follow. In this case, I believe that more time should have been left for the discussion to develop as it was not unanimous enough for a 7-day closure.

Please revert your closing. Kindly consider this an amicable advice, as I don't think that any sanction of any type should be looked upon for this action taken alone. However, if you fail to revert it on your own, it is likely that I or another editor will report you to the Administrators' noticeboard, where editing restrictions could be applied to you eventually. Place Clichy (talk) 09:27, 21 November 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mukokuseki, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what you think of the article as a whole, any edit with a comment like "this article is ass" is going to be regarded as vandalism. What possible response did you expect from that edit summary? Orange Mike | Talk 02:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common expression and a simple, efficient way to communicate the obvious lack of quality in the writing of the article, how was my edit disruptive in any way? Orchastrattor (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in prehistory, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit both had a completely misleading edit summary, & was a clear breach of WP:ENGVAR. Not good. Happy Christmas! Johnbod (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orchastrattor! Thank you for your edits to Draft:Masters of Atlantis. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Masters of Atlantis into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry I always forget once in a while.

Though if it gets published it will have to replace the redirect and its history, is there a way to append the current page's history to the history of the draft, since I'm essentially working with what would have been in mainspace anyway if it hadn't gotten redirect-merged? Orchastrattor (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bottom-to-top script, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Top-to-bottom script, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:History of the Jews in Georgia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you were trying to do here? MartinPoulter (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was putting the years active into the lead sentence? Are talking to the correct editor? Orchastrattor (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! I was indeed looking at the wrong edit. Thanks for your improvement to the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tudor rose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sir Peter Blake.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make you aware that a couple of your edits on Black genocide in the United States were unintentionally reverted as part of a larger rollback for edits from a disruptive IP. I manually reapplied your edits, but wanted to let you know if you see a reversion notice in your toolbar, that's what occurred. If you have any questions or concerns, ping me. Sorry for any inconvenience. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Bottom-to-top script, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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, or 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Women in prehistory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that prehistoric women may have had unique advantages over men in endurance hunting due to the positive effects of estrogen on muscle development? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Women in prehistory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Women in prehistory), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I requested for a third opinion regarding the dispute in Mukokuseki here ☆SuperNinja2☆ 17:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didnt notice the move discussion. For me the title looks weird. The article is specifically about robots in works of Stanislaw Lem, not some imaginary relations of Lem with robots. But if you claim it is a kind of standard for titles, I am OK with it.- Altenmann >talk 04:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Index of topics prefixed with "pseudo-", a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructed cuisine, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BuySomeApples (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I filed for a dispute resolution regarding the dispute on Mukokuseki. Please provide your perspective here. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cataclasm, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Hells Angels allies and enemies, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orchastrattor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Crywolf, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why it's not important to mention that they called a convicted terrorist a "writer"? 84.110.218.178 (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]