User talk:Jacquesparker0

This is Jacquesparker0's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Casey McCann has been accepted

Casey McCann, 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!

Gusfriend (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HI

Hello Jacques. I'm Steve Dufour, first generation UC member. I've been working on the UC related articles, mainly to correct some of the negativity. Glad that you are here.I will look you up on Facebook too, if you are there PopSci (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve (@PopSci), it's good to hear from you. I think it's lovely that you're trying to make these articles more balanced, and I think you do a good job at that. I'm an undergraduate student at Lewis & Clark College studying history and religious studies. At the moment, I'm looking to specialize in "new religious movements" (which is just as vague and unhelpful as "cult"). Since I have access to databases through my college's library, I thought it would be fun to hop around some of the articles on this on my free time (which I have a lot of currently). I am especially trying to correct the "anti-cult" bias that a good chunk of articles have. I'm not on Facebook unfortunately, but I check WP frequently if you'd like to chat or discuss anything. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PopSci (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Graham Baldwin has been accepted

Graham Baldwin, 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!

DIVINE 📪 20:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hi Jacquesparker0! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Wayne Martin (Branch Davidian) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for letting me know! Jacquesparker0 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Unification Church, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unification Church

Hi. Thanks for working on the article. Lots of people are reading it I see from the pageview option in history. I just took off some confusing statements which you had marked as original research and so forth. The topic discussed in the section is important for people trying to understand the UC, including the controversies, and I don't think it helps to make them sort their way through material that isn't clear or up to Wikipedia's standards. I kind of think the normal thing to do here is leave material off until it is correctly sourced and expressed, not leave it in and hope someone improves it. Anyway thanks again and keep up the good work. 2601:648:8402:B950:0:0:0:D125 (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2601:648:8402:B950:0:0:0:D125! Thanks for the clarification about the edit I reversed (at least I think that's what you're referring to). That makes much more sense to me. Sorry about undoing that. The Unification Church article has given me lots of trouble and that this rate I'm going to forgo editing on it to pursue other editing projects. Thanks for the kind words and help on the article :) --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Place Called Waco: A Survivor's Story has been accepted

A Place Called Waco: A Survivor's Story, 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!

Spudlace (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Ashes of Waco: An Investigation has been accepted

The Ashes of Waco: An Investigation, 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!

97198 (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Armageddon at Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict has been accepted

Armageddon at Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict, 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!

97198 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: From the Ashes: Making Sense of Waco has been accepted

From the Ashes: Making Sense of Waco, 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!

asilvering (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Why Waco?: Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America has been accepted

Why Waco?: Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America, 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 21% 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!

asilvering (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion. Thanks! asilvering (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your progress to date

Hi there, Jacquesparker0, and congratulations on the articles you have been creating. As I am a member of WikiProject Women in Red, I came across your editing history as a result of my interest in Sheila J. Martin. As a result, I have been reviewing and re-rating many of your creations. You might be interested to know from here you now have 7 C-rated articles, 5 in Class B and 4 in Start. I have been particularly impressed by the depth of detail you provide in all your work, backed by sound sources. I am by no means a specialist in cults and religious movements but I certainly agree that they deserve to be covered on Wikipedia. Up to now, you have covered only one woman among your biographies. I hope you will find time to write about more as articles about women and their achievements are sadly lacking. In any case, keep up the good work and let me know if you think I can be of assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ipigott, thanks for the kind words and criticisms. I've made some attempts to write drafts on other women in cults/anti-cult groups (like Daphne Vane, a co-president of FAIR with Casey McCann and wife of John Vane), but unfortunately the databases I have access to through my college don't have nearly as many sources on the women in these new religions and their opponents compared to men. For Vane specifically, I don't even know if I have access to enough material to make even a stub-class article. I'm sure that the sources are out there for these women, but as of now I haven't been able to find much (though there are some sources). I've definitely noticed too that the work I've done so far is primarily about men, and I tried to alleviate that a bit with Sheila J. Martin's article. I will likely try to write more about Branch Davidian women, like Ruth Riddle -- a survivor of the Waco siege who carried out one of David Koresh's final pieces of writing and who was convicted with other survivors for the botched ATF raid. Unfortunately, this semester is rolling up on me fast and I will likely slow down quite a bit on article productions. Thanks for reviewing my articles, though, I really appreciate it. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed explanations. I realize that books and articles written by men are often preferred as holdings by academic libraries but there is increasing evidence that women have frequently made equally valid contributions. Even if your library does not have the necessary sources, you might be able to find pertinent material about women by searching on the internet and making use of inter-library collaboration. There's no rush to write biographies of women but we would welcome more attention as your studies allow. My remarks were not intended as criticism but rather as an incentive to look into the matter more deeply. You are already doing a great job on cults and I certainly do no wish to diminish your enthusiasm.--Ipigott (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, @Ipigott for the kind words, I appreciate them. I'll make an effort to find reliable sources outside my library for women's biographies. Thanks for the inspiration :) --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cultish has been accepted

Cultish, 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!

Bennv123 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The New Vigilantes: Deprogrammers, Anti-Cultists, and the New Religions has been accepted

The New Vigilantes: Deprogrammers, Anti-Cultists, and the New Religions, 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!

asilvering (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare has been accepted

Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare, 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!

asilvering (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clive Doyle has been accepted

Clive Doyle, 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 21% 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!

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion

Hello, Jacquesparker0,

Thank you for creating A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

A very well-written page- solid and easily notable, with the reception section being excellent. However, the lede contains info, not in the rest of the article, I think we could move some of the contents covered in the lede into a synopsis section; see MOS:LEAD. Besides, the page is an orphan and needs links from other pages. But overall, well done!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

VickKiang (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve The Davidian Massacre: Disturbing Questions About Waco That Must Be Answered

Hello, Jacquesparker0,

Thank you for creating The Davidian Massacre: Disturbing Questions About Waco That Must Be Answered.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This is a good page, and well done! Though, the lede is confusingly written as it's far too long, covering both synopsis and reception details, see MOS:LEAD.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

VickKiang (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Hi, I would be grateful if you could explain the reason behind this revert. The content removal was unexplained because nothing the editor wrote in this edit summary was anything even close to a reason for removing reliably sourced information. They have noted details about another article, which is irrelevant to the article Cult, as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (and hence "unexplained" in the context). An irrelevant/unrelated explanation is no explanation at all in my book. What's your take on it? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323, since I have a background with what's going on, I'll explain why your edit was reverted. As you are well aware, there have been many debates (and disagreements) at the PMOI talk page about how to make the content relating to cult allegations more neutral. We even have a RFC running about this. Even though you are aware of other reliable sources that provide a different account from the one you have been trying to establish in the PMOI page, you have gone around all of those discussions and created a whole section in a different article based on the same one-sided narrative you have been pushing on the PMOI page. That seems like WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, and that is why you were reverted (this was also explained in my edit summary). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fad Ariff: Are you stalking my edits? We have rules against this. How did you arrive at Cult, and how did you arrive here? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iraniangal777: Same Q to you. Please explain how you arrived at Cult. It looks like you're both WP:HOUNDING. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iskandar323, upon further review of the material I have removed, I actually believe that I removed it erroneously. I realize that I, in part, believed that simple allegations of being a cult doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be on the page to begin with. I also agree that @Fad Ariff's explanation of why they removed the material is insufficient. I don't believe that the material Iskandar added was "one-sided" -- I believe it documents relatively well the controversy on this particular article. I can't speak for other articles, but that's not necessarily relevant to the Cult article. I will be reverting my edit on that page soon after I post this. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unification Church is not Christian

Unification Church is not Christian 2001:579:925C:660:8B6:F566:75B0:3A5A (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every reliable source says they are Christian. Just because they don't necessarily agree with Nicaean Christianity doesn't make them not Christian. And just because you disagree with it, it doesn't make it true. Show me a reliable source that says they're not Christian (i.e., not a Christian apologeticist), and I'll reconsider. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting accusation on it.wiki

Hello. FYI, an admin of the Italian Wikipedia called Ignis claims that you may have engaged in "POV pushing" on their project using my IP address just because we edited the same article about Margaret Singer. They seem to think that I'm a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of yours. Here you can find the discussion. I'd be happy if you could clarify the point. Thanks. 151.31.243.65 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. Considering that I (the owner of this account) has never edited Italian Wikipedia because I don't speak Italian. I've only ever opened Italian Wikipedia to check if links to some scholars who do not have corresponding articles in English worked. This shouldn't be hard to resolve, but thanks for letting me know. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My duty. As for me, the situation couldn't be any clearer: the Italian admin acted in total bad faith by using the sockpuppet accusation to ban me as I didn't match his POV, but that's not all: he didn't limit to link your account to mine, but also to another Italian account who spontaneously left Italian Wikipedia just after having a strong argument by chance with the same admin. I was wondering if the policies allow to make a sockpuppet investigation between users from different countries so to have some solid evidence. Otherwise, I would like you to share with me the reasons why you consider this not hard to resolve as I've never faced anything like this before. Once we have some kind of solid evidence, feel free to get in touch with me for translation assistance if you want to intervene on Italian Wikipedia, even though I think they would perfectly understand you even if you write in English. Cheers! 151.31.243.65 (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly familiar with sockpuppeting policies on WP since I've only been editing since May 2022. Though, I doubt that noting some edits -- especially on different language sites -- are similar is probably not enough to constitute evidence of sockpuppeting. That's why I believe it would be easy to resolve, since if you're correct that the admin is acting in bad faith, then having no evidence other than similar edits and acting in bad faith will not amount to anything. But that's just my opinion. Thanks for offering help and looping me into this discussion, especially with any translations that will need to happen. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who has even an ounce of common sense it would be obvious that we're two separate users, but for who's acting in bad faith everything is an "evidence".... Perhaps there's one thing you could do: if you replied on that page with your IP address, then it would be possible to make a check and establish once and for all that we are two separate users. 151.31.243.65 (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think just for my own security, I'm going to wait for another admin who could be monitoring the situation or analyzing the case to ask for my IP address. Since, as far as I am aware, there isn't an official investigation yet, I would not want to release that private information just yet. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that there will be no investigation as the English Wikipedia has no influence over what happens on the Italian Wikipedia so I don't think they will ask you to intervene, especially if the Italian admin is acting in bad faith. You should do it spontaneously, just to let them check that you're a foreign IP, and that my one comes from Italy, so we cannot be the same person. 151.31.243.65 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how safe it would be for me to release my IP address on a public platform like this, so at the very least I would rather provide them my IP through a secure network rather than through a talk page. I hope you understand since I apparently now have some enemies on WP (see the topic below). Jacquesparker0 (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't see that, and you're perfectly right in this case. Anyway, I think you can intervene only with your username also on the Italian Wikipedia since the only thing they'd need to check from your user is that you're not Italian. Apart from the page I've shown you, you should do this also here. Thanks. 151.31.243.65 (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very alarming thread to come across. No one should ever ask for your IP on wikipedia. Have a look at WP:CHECK. -- asilvering (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking that CheckUser page. Last thing I was going to do was post my IP address anywhere on here. Hopefully that will help clear things up. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacque Parker

I’m going to hunt you down. All you’re doing is making God angry by insisting that the Unification Church is Christian.

Quit hiding behind nicean this nicean that. There is a proper way to conceive God, and these Koreans will never understand it. I don’t care how many credentials and sources you’ll put out of your ass. You’re done 2001:579:925C:660:5171:AF72:548A:1BC (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2001:579:925C:660:5171:AF72:548A:1BC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) WP:NPA and WP:Disruptive editing on Unification Church. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs additional citations for verification

Hi, as suggested by you, I added more citations to ''Podgorica club'' article. Is ok now? DanielCro (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you for helping me to make better article. I'm still new and learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielCro (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just looked through and its definitely much more well-sourced. I don't have the time right now to verify the sources, but I did just go through and fixed some of the formatting. Let me know if you want additional help on it! Jacquesparker0 (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements has been accepted

Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spicy (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elisabeth Arweck (October 23)

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

Greenman (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jacquesparker0! 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! Greenman (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Let Our Children Go! has been accepted

Let Our Children Go!, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bennv123 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Branch Davidians of Waco: The History and Beliefs of an Apocalyptic Sect has been accepted

The Branch Davidians of Waco: The History and Beliefs of an Apocalyptic Sect, 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!

asilvering (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History has been accepted

Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History, 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!

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brad Branch has been accepted

Brad Branch, 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!

Jamiebuba (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1996 Zambezi River hippopotamus attack has been accepted

1996 Zambezi River hippopotamus attack, 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!

Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Pace has been accepted

Charles Pace, 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!

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Baldwin & Ian Haworth

Hello Jacques. I wish to request information about your interest in these two characters. Have you ever been a client of theirs? I am concerned there is a potential CoI. I know that other clients of theirs have issued "Statements" online on behalf of them. Would you get back to me to follow this up? Nofoolie (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nofoolie, thanks for your inquiry. I am not a previous client of Haworth's or Baldwin's. I am an undergraduate researcher in America who is interested in the anti-cult movement in Britain and America, and they are big players in the anti-cult movement in Britain. That's why I have an interest in their biographies and wrote their articles for WP.

If there was a particular bias in either of their articles that may have seemed like I have a CoI, could you note that either here or on the articles' talk pages so I or someone else could address it? Thanks! --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I am curious; who has stated they are "big players"? Can you confirm how you came to know about these two in particular? You know about what happened with their association with Fecris in 2012? And you know about what Audrey Chaytor wrote? Please respond accordingly. I am not convinced you have no connection. Nofoolie (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nofoolie If you look on the articles, I believe that most if not everything is cited with either academic or newspaper sources. There's a surprising amount of coverage of these two anti-cultists. Some of the news sources were found on a digital database through my college, so I don't have permanent links for many of them. Of course, if there's an issue with the sources' verifiability, you're welcome to make edits to reflect that.

I don't recall off the top of my head what happened with their formal or informal association with FECRIS in 2012, nor do I know much about Audrey Chaytor (only that she was part of FAIR/FST). If you information you'd like to add or bring up, please do so.

Again, I don't have any formal or informal relationship with Baldwin or Haworth. I am an undergraduate researcher, so I have access to a lot of sources of information on these people. That's why I know so much about them. Frankly, I found it comical that ask me to "confirm how you [I] came to know about these two in particular" when you can answer it yourself by looking at the sources of the WP articles. Almost all of those sources are ones I put there. That's how I know about these two. Please go take a look if you're curious. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer why you describe them as "big players". Please respond. Nofoolie (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I described them as big players because many of the academic sources I pulled from discuss them a lot. I don't see why that is a huge sticking point. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide citations. This is nonsense. If you wish to "stand-up" this claim and refer to "academic sources" you must provide some citations. If there are "many" then supply 3. The "sticking point" is that your claims of "big-players" does not stack up and I am concerned you have a CoI which is a serious matter. Please respond. Nofoolie (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, look at the citations on Graham Baldwin and Ian Haworth. Most of those citations are mine; you can check their editing history to see that it was me that added them. The "big players" comment is mine; I reasoned that since academics discuss them and there work in literature, then they are probably important players in the anti-cult movement. I said that "many of the academic source I pulled from discuss them a lot"; that doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of academic sources on this very niche topic.

Since you're so persistent, here's a small bibliography on anti-cultism in Britain, where I believe these people are mentioned (if my memory serves me): George D. Chryssides, "Britain's Anti-cult Movement", in New Religious Movements: Changes and Responses, eds. Jamie Cresswell and Bryan Wilson, 257–73 (London and New York: Routledge, 1999); James A. Beckford, Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements (London and New York: Tavistock, 1985); Beckford's chapter in David G. Bromley and James T. Richardson, eds., The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy: Sociological, Psychological, Legal and Historical Perspectives, Studies in Religion and Society (Toronto and New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1983). If you want more specifics, go the articles. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly asked for citations for your claim that academics "discuss [Ian Haworth & Graham Baldwin] and there work in literature" and you fail repeatedly to provide citations. You "believe" they are mentioned? Please, for goodness sake, provide citations! Page numbers are required. You have said this is "comical" and claim I am "persistent". I am asking the same question which you are avoiding responding to. This is a simple query that is often asked on Wikipedia. This is a serious matter. Please respond with citations which satisfies the simple question; Why are they "Big players"? Nofoolie (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's really funny to me that as soon as I provide citations, say that page numbers are "required". Who says that? Which CoI WP policy requires you to request citations with page numbers? I don't have access to the works right now, so I can't provide the page numbers; I only have them through a personal research bibliography. You changed the goal posts as soon as I provided what you asked for. And I didn't "fail" to provide citations repeatedly; I referred you to my work that does have them, you just didn't (as far as I know) look for yourself.

Even if I was wrong or slightly off about the "big players" comment, what does that have to do with a potential CoI investigation? How would me being wrong about saying that on my own talk page be evidence of me having a CoI. I've only ever written that they are "big players" after you inquired about my potential relationship with Baldwin and Haworth, and even if you think that that has influenced the ways I wrote the articles, that doesn't automatically mean I have a CoI. All it means is that I have a bias that might need to be corrected -- which is fair enough, but this isn't the way to go about it.

What evidence do you have that I have a CoI? If you have every right to demand citations of me, then I have every right to demand evidence from you. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're being avoidant. If you are going to cite online material you give the url; if you are going to cite these academic-sources you mention but do not refer to you must provide something to show you are not making something up. Do you really expect me to source these books and read every page? What nonsense. You are being avoidant; have refused to answer the questions and I am taking this further. I tried to work with you to determine why you are promoting two of the least trusted in this community in the UK and you have refused outright to respond to a query.

Good day! Nofoolie (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and take it further, because frankly you have been very rude to me. You can look up these books and essays to see if they're real; it's not my job to prove to you they are real. I am not "promoting" anyone by writing a WP article on them if they fit general notability requirements (see WP:N). You have given no evidence to show that my articles on Baldwin and Haworth are promotional, nor have you provided any evidence that I have a CoI with either or both of them. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Elisabeth Arweck

Hello, Jacquesparker0. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Elisabeth Arweck, 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) 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Elisabeth Arweck

Hello, Jacquesparker0. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Elisabeth Arweck".

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!} 22:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Corpse01.mdl has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Corpse01.mdl. Thanks! - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2006 Dreamspace V Incident has been accepted

2006 Dreamspace V Incident, 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!

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Corpse01.mdl (June 23)

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 Half-Life 2. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This likely has far more of a place as a sidenote in the HL2 article than as its own article, as it may go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a standalone page.

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:Corpse01.mdl 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) 04:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on reverts made to Steven Hassan's wikipedia page

Dear sir, Hope you are well. Thank you for editing the page and trying to help.However, your comments for the revert is : Jacquesparker0 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1175797320 by Sh fom (talk) Just saying that there is criticism isn't disinformation. I'll find a good source for Shupe and Bromley sentence or I'll remove it, but the others have sources

Can you please help to let me know how can we best resolve this. Let me know if you have some time for quick call and sort this out. I think discussing and mutually sorting this out would be good. let me know. waiting. thanks Sh fom (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sir following up on my previous request, how much time do you need to revert or can we remove it? Let me know. Thank you Sh fom (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I haven't been able to search for a source yet as I am working full time. I was going to remove that sentence the other day but I forgot, so I'll get rid of it now. I'll see if I can find a source for the claim still though. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok sir, thank you for your prompt reply and help. I saw that your edit on the page was undid by another user, what do you think is required now? why was it undone Sh fom (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other user found a citation from a book by the authors that backs it up. You are welcome to verify the source, but I am relatively confident (having read that book) that that is an accurate citation for that sentence. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2022 Paria diving disaster (November 1)

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 appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event for more information.

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:2022 Paria diving disaster 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) 22:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Corpse01.mdl

Hello, Jacquesparker0. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Corpse01.mdl, 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) 05:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Waco Rising: David Koresh, the FBI, and the Birth of America's Modern Militias has been accepted

Waco Rising: David Koresh, the FBI, and the Birth of America's Modern Militias, 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!

Lopifalko (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Waco: David Koresh, the Branch Davidians, and a Legacy of Rage has been accepted

Waco: David Koresh, the Branch Davidians, and a Legacy of Rage, 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!

Rusalkii (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Corpse01.mdl

Hello, Jacquesparker0. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Corpse01.mdl".

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!} 04:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:2022 Paria diving disaster

Hello, Jacquesparker0. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2022 Paria diving disaster, 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) 23:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:2022 Paria diving disaster

Hello, Jacquesparker0. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2022 Paria diving disaster".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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!} 23:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on all the cult book articles

I very much enjoy reading them. Have a good day :) PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Unkulunkulu, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kowal2701, thanks for reaching out! I do not have a general interest in oral tradition beyond general interest in anything academic; I just remember having read about Unkulunkulu for a different project. But I'll definitely keep it in mind if I come across more oral tradition material/things of interest! --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]