User talk:Drg2010

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Doc Martin, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please provide a published reference for your claim that the next series will be filmed and broadcast in 2013. Halsteadk (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Drake concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Drake, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Drake (November 20)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Drake.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Miniapolis 14:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Drg2010, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Drake concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Drake, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Drake concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Drake, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Drake concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Drake, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Robert Drake concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Robert Drake, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Robert Drake

Hello, Drg2010. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Robert Drake".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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}} 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Robert Drake

Hello, Drg2010. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Robert Drake".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Robert Drake has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Robert Drake. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Drake (martyr) has been accepted

Robert Drake (martyr), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender

Regarding your recent edits at Transgender, please join the discussion at Talk:Transgender#Medical assistance in transitioning. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a related topic, I see that in this edit at Sex reassignment surgery, you stated that the surgery is "cosmetic", without providing any support for this. Furthermore, the lead is not the place to introduce new information to an article; the lead merely introduces and summarizes what's already in the body of the article and the term "cosmetic" is mentioned nowhere. If you wish to add new information, please add it to the body of the article first, and include a reliable source which supports the content. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing User talk:Drg2010 - by Drg2010 - This is the first time I have edited a User talk page, and I don't know if you will read, or act, on it. I used the term "cosmetic" because it affects the appearance of people who undergo sexual surgery - that is the purpose. It does not change their sex, which is something *nature* assigns them! Reproductively, men are still not able go give birth, nor are women able to inseminate eggs. Your moderators advise me to use "Discretion" - not to disturbe the politically correct Left wing tendency on Wikipedia? I trusted it once; now I read Wikipedia then Encylopedia Dramatica and divide by 2. Remember, you Wikipedia moderators hold hegemonic power.

Editing User talk:Drg2010 - by Drg2010 20180916 - I used my term "cosmetic" advisedly. Mutilation of sexual organs does not change sex, it changes appearance, ie it is cosmetic. Please include my edit now. Do you want Wikipedia to be objective or the plaything of trangender activists?

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:TMay.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:TMay.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 10:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gender dysphoria

I've reverted your changes to the lead at Gender dysphoria. The first sentence is the defining sentence of the article; furthermore, the lead merely introduces and summarizes what's already in the body of the article. If you wish to change the lead to this extent, please change the body of the article first, and include a reliable source which supports the content.

I see that you've done this before, and been previously advised against it above. Additionally, the entire area of Transgender topics is under Discretionary sanctions by ArbCom. I'll add the standard message about this for you, below. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretion Sanctions notice regarding gender-related articles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For Britain

Your proposed change has been discussed several times on the article talk page, if you have something new to contribute, please do so there. You would need independent reliable sources that describe this party in different terms; all current sources describe the party as the article states. If they want sources to describe them differently, they need to adopt policies and leaders to cause sources to describe them differently. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you are now in danger of edit waring, take this to the talk page before reverting again and please read wp:3rr.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on For Britain. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AusLondonder (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at For Britain shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sourcing at Tower of Babel

Hello. In the future, please be careful to ensure that the sources to add to articles meet the WP:RS policy. It's a long read, but one of the upshots is that, generally speaking, we don't use people's YouTube videos as sources. Generally we stick to books and articles published by reliable publishing houses or that have gone through peer review or a similar process. The various ins and outs of all that are better explained at WP:RS. Alephb (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRG: I will contribute a smaller edit = "Seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg was inspired by Brueghel's portrayal." - which I consider uncontroversial as a statement of fact. In addition I would *like* to include the YouTube David Hathaway video. Your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source states that you permit audio-vidual sources. Regarding the latter I find my life too short at the moment to persist with it. Sometimes I find Wikipedia's pro-Left political bias such that I am reaching the stage where if I want to find out about something I will read the Wikipedia article, then the Encyclopedia Dramatica one, and divide by 2! What do you think?

December 2018

Hello, I'm DanielRigal. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tower of Babel, 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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]