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.
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.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from International Women's Day into Draft:Criticism of International Women's Day. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum 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. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Hello, Memevietnam98!
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! Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 19:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to Draft:Criticism of International Women's Day has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Memevietnam98! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at TikTok 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. Thank you. QuietCicadachirp17:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tom Barrack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreigner. 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.)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:
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 for sports persons and athletes). 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:Owen Lloyd (swimmer) 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wikishovel 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)
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.
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:2024 Facebook outage 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbritti was:
Most of the sourcing is not from reliable sources. The lack of sustained coverage suggests that this was an incident which is worth recording on the History of Facebook article, but not its own article.
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:2024 Facebook outage 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WindTempos was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Backrooms (web series) instead.
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:The Backrooms (Found Footage) 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DrowssapSMM was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Backrooms (web series) instead.
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:The Backrooms (Found Footage) 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.
Again? My article page is actually independent from that, uh I mean you're not read all about that, there are many sources that doesn't belong from the main, so I'll resubmit about that. Memevietnam98 (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I think you might misunderstand the reason for the rejection. The proposed article and that article are about the same subject matter. It does not matter that your draft has more details on the Backrooms series - the article in the mainspace has, in my opinion, the correct title, and has been created earlier, so is a more appropriate source. In that case, you might like to improve that article using some of the information and sources you have drafted. This can be a bit disappointing but I'm sure some of the information you have looked into may help improve the article. Happy to chat if there's any confusion. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have three lines:
I have another sources that doesn't belong from the main
Respectfully but firmly: there is already an article for this, and there is no reason to create a new article when one already exists. It doesn't matter that you have drafted an article with more details. You can put those details in the existing article if you like. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2024 (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 Vrxces was:
This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Backrooms (web series), which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.
The comment the reviewer left was:
As already stated, there's an article on this. You might like to merge it there. Also check out the manual of style as you have very a productive and enthusiastic approach which is awesome, but there are some aspects to tone and tense that may improve your writing. Happy to chat on my talk page if you have any questions.
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:The Backrooms (Found Footage) 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vrxces was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Backrooms (web series) instead.
The comment the reviewer left was:
As below.
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:The Backrooms (Found Footage) 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.
I'm afraid that you are unwilling or unable to understand the reason these are being rejected. It has nothing to do with the content of your draft or its relationship to the other article: it is that there is already an article that exists, making the point of making a new article inappropriate. All the best. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would said that "you actually copied it" well, it should be used as "a half of information" because actually if you look again you will see the difference. Memevietnam98 (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that your attitude to this or maybe a potential language barrier between us is making it really hard to explain to you basic Wikipedia policy. Of course I think what you're doing is helpful, but you need to be able to listen to constructive criticism when multiple people are telling you that how you're going about it is not the best way to do things. You may keep running into roadblocks time and time again if you're not open to understanding how policies work. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Shewasafairy were:
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 websites). 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:
very few reliable sources (WP:YOUTUBE). other sources only have significant coverage of MatPat, a co-creator.
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:The Film Theorists 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.
There are less news or information (or even no information) about The Film Theorists, so I rather took from the main channel. During my research, I just saw The Game Theorists news. Memevietnam98 (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Utopes were:
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)
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:
No change since previous submission. Youtube is not a reliable source; there is honestly zero reason to be using Youtube as a reference here. Independent notability has not been established from the minimal references outside of the self-published videos present in the article.
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:The Film Theorists 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.
Number 1: No web site, no source, YouTube was the place The Film Theories created.
Number 2: Seriously, I have watched all of that and I can confirm.
Number 3: "No change since previous submission." My change since previous was: Episodes part, Format (minor edit)
Number 4: "Youtube is not a reliable source; there is honestly zero reason to be using Youtube as a reference here.", as my lines, "YouTube was the place The Film Theories created.", do you actually watched all The Film Theorist' videos?
Number 5: "Independent notability has not been established from the minimal references outside of the self-published videos present in the article." actually I'm inspired by MatPat so why not? Memevietnam98 (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just like ERB, the channel was made in YouTube, and the sources of channel must also get from YouTube channel, so "honestly zero reason to be using Youtube as a reference here" is meaningless. Memevietnam98 (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order for a topic to be notable enough to constitute an article, it must be extensively covered in reliable secondary sources such as news articles and the such. As the reviewer stated, reliable secondary sources independent of the subject were not used. (Discuss0nshore'scontributions!!!) 20:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content does not determine notability, only sources can establish notability so you can add as many sections, etc. as you want but it will not help without qualifying sources. Almost all the reliable sources were largely, if not entirely, about the series so notability was not met for The Backrooms (Found Footage). Please also be aware of WP:NOPAGE. Sometimes even when an article meets nobility, readers may be better served by the relevant content being included in an existing article rather it having its own article. S0091 (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:
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)
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.
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:Granny (2017 horror video game) 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.
You need "reliable sources" right? then check References and External links again.
You need to check what "reliable sources" means, it's mean how it believable to be appear in a article.
I was taken from DVloper's Twitter account, Google Play, Instagram
And about plot? I have watched YouTube videos, my experiences and fandom.
"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)
It's a generic response, the criteria they are referring to is about reliability. Reliable sources aren't wherever a game is mentioned by someone online, but been covered by a generally accepted mainstream source with an editorial process. You can find a list of the kind of secondary video game sources that we think are reliable at WP:VG/S. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2024 (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 DrowssapSMM 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)
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:
Almost none of this is supported by reliable sources.
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:Granny (2017 horror video game) 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vrxces 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)
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:
Non-notable article continually resubmitted without any substantive improvement on previous critiques of sourcing quality.
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:Granny (2017 horror video game) 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vrxces 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)
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:
Remains non-notable. Only additions since last submit are three paragraphs entirely from a single Bengali news source of unknown reliability and one paragraph from Times Now, a tabloid of dubious reliability per WP:NPPSG. The article still has the obvious and fundamental root problem of lacking any reviews from reliable sources, suggesting the game, for all its various appearances in random sources, is non-notable, and relies heavily on sources of low to no reliability. As ever, I understand the disappointment and am happy to help to find these sources.
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:Granny (2017 horror video game) 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.
Did you said Times Now "a tabloid of dubious reliability"??? Wow at this point I definitely you are hating on me, says Times Now a tabloid is definitely bullshit and no evidence.
"The article still has the obvious and fundamental root problem of lacking any reviews from reliable sources, suggesting the game, for all its various appearances in random sources"
Most of the sources are either primary and/or not reliable, such as Google Play, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Ask.com, Amazon, and blogs. User-reviews should not be used, only critics, including Metacritic. I suggest removing those sources and rewriting it summarizing what reliable sources have written about the game and be mindful of original research/WP:SYNTH. You cannot say things like "In 2018, the game became a big trend, when many people started playing, making fandom, especially on YouTube when where there are a lot of players." unless it is supported by secondary reliable sources. If no secondary reliable sources have not written about something, it does not warrant mentioning. S0091 (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't, here's why
1. User experience is random and "real"
2. Did you said "Google Play, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Ask.com, Amazon and blog" aren't reliability??? this is such a joke, I swear, Google Play is the place the game released, the place where the users can install and play, rating??? And YouTube is the place where its popularity went high, Instagram also I used for developer's, Ask.com is the place of critical game, Amazon are the same, thank you for Metacritic guess.
3. "You cannot say things like "In 2018, the game became a big trend, when many people started playing, making fandom, especially on YouTube when where there are a lot of players." unless it is supported by secondary reliable sources. If no secondary reliable sources have not written about something, it does not warrant mentioning", ok, you get a point but actually I can put it into the main top, if you continue to say it is non-reliable sources, just debate again. Memevietnam98 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can disagree with it, but the community has already come to consensus on these type of sources: see user-generated content and WP:RSPYT. There is no debate to be had. While primary sources, which includes self-published sources, can be used (i.e. DVlope's YouTube channel), they should only be used very sparingly and very carefully. Continuing to resubmit the draft without addressing the issues, is considered disruptive and may result in the draft being rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched WP:RSPYT and I saw that it used to said "most of", so the sources from YouTube actually can use in this case, also it said that "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." which is true in this case, from DVloper.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 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)
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:
If resubmitted again without addressing the issues, the draft my be rejected. See also your talk 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:Granny (2017 horror video game) 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.
Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Vrxces was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Article creator has continually resubmitted the article without substantive improvements to the concerns that several editors have raised about sourcing quality and notability. These concerns have also been discussed on the talk page in a way that the creator has consistently misunderstood or misrepresented. The article is at a state where due to the creator's approach and continual resubmission it is unlikely to reach a point of notability. I would strongly encourage the editor to gain greater familiarity with the standards around WP:GNG and WP:RS and what these mean in practice before drafting and submitting another article about media to avoid issues in future.
ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're very conservative, super conservative, just like Donald Trump, "Article creator has continually resubmitted the article without substantive improvements to the concerns that several editors have raised about sourcing quality and notability"??? this is such a joke, I'm confused when you're doing this with anyone, I hope the person who met you in Wikipedia be fine and not be crazy not like me. "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." read the rules again, buddy.
"These concerns have also been discussed on the talk page in a way that the creator has consistently misunderstood or misrepresented" This is what you're doing, you're never heard, never see the explain, reject with conservative and the message is just as same as, you're hating on me (with no reason) and rejected me 3 times with SAME REASONS.
You have never said you're hating me, but I'll not debate as a Wikipedia editor, I have read some rules and reflect my article, it is suitable for an article and two both (you and S0091) allied and tried to fucked up my article, this is unfair, UNFAIR ENOUGH. Memevietnam98 (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you feel upset about the closure of this article. Four separate editors have rejected the article for the same reason because the article has not rectified the consistent issue that there is no reliable coverage or reviews from sources like those discussed at WP:VG/S. Unfortunately the edits made to the article did not adjust this issue, and the article has not come closer to notability. It is a shame that we have not been able to come to an understanding but this is not from a place of malice or wanting to obstruct your efforts. I hope you are able to make other constructive edits to Wikipedia and in time create articles consistent with the rules around notability and reliability, but at this point there is a lot of work and understanding that needs to be done to get there. I understand you are upset but the accusations that I am doing this to hurt you or attack your article are not the case. I think that's about all I can say on this. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Four separate editors" you meant your four allies? I have mad at this one, closure of article for random reason is actually BULLSHIT! Yeah! I'm serious! I even edited parts that aren't even "minors" like you're hyping... Memevietnam98 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
My advice? Just publish it. Don’t go through the review process. All of my primary presidential articles never went through that yet they’re still up. WikiBunny2K1 (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
I do think think that it is not important. If you want to see things about me you can see my user page. And per your question on other talk page, I didn't care that you are a communist. Have a good day. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)12:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article rejection! Just a heads up that it may be helpful to review these policies before submission to avoid issues. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not plan on reviewing AfC articles outside my area of interest or experience, but yes, I would consider if this article were submitted for AfC, it would be declined (not rejected) on the basis of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
User-generated sources are not considered reliable.
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:A CN (YouTuber) 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.
Check a few sections down from the link you provided at WP:USERG to see what this user is discussing. They are referring to most of the sources in the article, including the YouTube and podcast sources. YouTube is not considered a reliable source as your link states unless it is affiliated with the official channel of a reliable organisation or news source. They are trying to help you by pointing you in the direction of adding secondary sources to the article, like reliable news sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2024 (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 Vrxces 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)
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:
Most of the article is still founded on user generated content such as YouTube videos, wiki entries and podcast sources. These are not reliable sources. The article needs reliable secondary sources to substantiate its information, especially because the article is about a person.
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:A CN (YouTuber) 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.
I mean you're not able to know what is a "user generated" means and would try to lock my article as same as Granny before, I have prepared about that. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have resubmitted again, removed some "unneccessary" links according to you, but I didn't remove citation like YouTube, Discord, Podcast because simply it's important personal information. If you continue to say that it's "not a reliable source", I'm afraid you'll have to look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources again. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we got there eventually. Well no, you don't have to necessarily remove primary sources (these are the ones by the subject) but you do have to find enough reliable news or secondary sources that are written by a journalist or someone credible to show that the person is notable enough to have an article about them. The article you wrote about the lady in the iron lung was notable because there were plenty of news stories about her. Is this the case here? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you see it that way. Anyway, if you want that article to progress, I'd see if you could find mainstream coverage of that YouTube user. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, because the sources are mainstream: Kotaku, LA Times, IGN and The Verge. These are reliable sources listed in WP:RS and WP:VG/S. Does that sort of coverage apply to the user in your article? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2024 (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 Pbrks 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:A CN (YouTuber) 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.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
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 think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and 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. GSS💬15:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 1984 Illinois Republican presidential primary instead.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion.
If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.
This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Werenka until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|BluePenguin18}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Taking Out The Trash was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Presidential eligibility of Donald Trump instead.
The comment the reviewer left was:
There's no need for a separate article here, and this submission isn't WP:NPOV.
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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity 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.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Unfortunately, this draft does not appear to meet notability guidelines. The first three sources are generally considered unreliable, and the remaining three do not demonstrate significant coverage of the subject, with only a brief mention.
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:Spence Monroe 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne 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.
The comment the reviewer left was:
I'm sorry, I do not see how this person meets notability. He is not notable just as father of a notable person.
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:Spence Monroe 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.
By this mile, then do you know who was Samuel Polk? Just because it don't get any notable doesn't mean it shouldn't be on. Don't try to put WP:NP again when some person who don't get attention still in some articles. Memevietnam98 (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"My sources"???, I took this from worldwide sources, not from mine?? I can prove that he was the father of a U.S. president, like Samuel Polk of James K. Polk, also he was appeared in some news, even son's ancestry news. That's it, if you don't know about him, then there are still some people knows about him, even in our Wikipedia now. Memevietnam98 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Memevietnam98. Sorry, I think you have misunderstood me. Sorry if I was not clear. I should have phrased it as the sources you have used do not show notability. I agree that Spence Monroe is the father of James Monroe- that fact is not in dispute. But just because he is the father of a U.S. President does not make him notable by himself. We would need to see significant coverage in reliable sources of Spence independently of James.
Well, then prove a source that is not notability? I used the sources that is secondary and clearly, as I said, if that applies, then why Samuel Polk article is still exist (sorry if I mentioned for 3 times, but I should do that)? I even make a external links part of it, so don't say it non-reliable sources again. Memevietnam98 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Memevietnam98. The fact you put External Links has no bearing on the notability of sources. Let's go through your sources one by one so you can understand:
monroefoundation.org: This source talks about his land, but does not convey much information.
biography.com: This mentions Spence once, briefly. No significant coverage or any other information.
newspapers.com: This references his wife, but doesn't convey much information.
monroenews: This mentions Spence once, briefly. No significant coverage or any other information.
millercenter.org: This mentions Spence once, briefly. No significant coverage or any other information.
highland.org: This mentions Spence once, briefly. No significant coverage or any other information.
thoughtco.com: This mentions Spence once, briefly. No significant coverage or any other information.
libraries.psu.edu: This mentions Spence twice! But is still not significant coverage.
geni.com: This is a database entry and we usually do not use geni.com as it is considered a generally unreliable source.
I hope you agree, therefore, that although most of the sources are reliable and secondary they do not provide significant coverage of Spence. As such you have not proven he is notable by the notability standards for people.
We review articles on their own merit and do not compare to existing articles. There are unfortunately many tens of thousands of poor quality articles on Wikipedia. I have had a look at the Samuel Polk article, and to be honest I would not have accepted it either.
I don't think English is your first language, and I wonder if you might be better served improving your native-tongue Wikipedia project? I notice you have had some issues submitting articles in the past.
Wow, I just now realized that you use people who are having difficulty with English as a tool to argue and "bully", anyways, if Samuel Polk was already up there, then this article should be too. so (for sure), the third thing in the source you mentioned IS RELATED TO HIM, if you read it from beginning to end, you will see. And you keep repeating, "This mentions Spence once, briefly. No significant coverage or any other information." in most of your sentences, do you mean "not trustworthy enough"? And fortunately, these two things helped me avoid this trouble: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, you can watch it. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, looking at my name is enough for you to understand, but don't use my shortcomings to make something considered "debate" on Wikipedia. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Memevietnam98. I am really sorry if you feel bullied - I am merely pointing out that you seem to have had some issues understanding Wikipedia's very complex policies and guidelines.
I specifically never said the sources were not trustworthy enough: I said they did not provide significant coverage. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Alternatively, if you feel I have made some sort of gross error here: please do give me three sources that you think meet WP:BASIC and prove that Spence meets the following critiera:
First: I have achieved independence (for sure), second, there is a whole pdf about his career (I explain quickly because I have seen a significant gain), thank you . Memevietnam98 (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I mean "in my opinion" (important reason in reading), I don't agree with most all of your arguments – it's not correct and neither are you described it incorrectly, so don't say that to me again, I've got my strong argument. Memevietnam98 (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Memevietnam98. I have reviewed 3,000 drafts over the last 10 months and feel fairly confident in my assessment, but if you think I have made a gross error in my judgement, feel free to make a post at WP:AFCHD and ask for a second opinion (maybe linking to this thread to provide extra context). Qcne(talk)10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Draft:2024 Facebook outage requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Worked on this article to move it to the main space then discovered that it has been redirected to Criticism of Facebook. The argument against it is that it is not suitable for a standalone article because of short media coverage
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and 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. Museveni1700 (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Memevietnam98. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Criticism of International Women's Day, 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.
Your edit to SAFETY Act (California law) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Memevietnam98, as mentioned in an earlier message you received in March, you need to attribute when you copy text from one Wikipedia article to another. Some content at Presidency of Thomas Jefferson is the same as what you added to Presidential transition of Thomas Jefferson. Just using the edit summary content copied from Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, see its history for attribution would be enough. These aren't your first copyright warnings. Copyright is something you need to take seriously, because it's one of the fastest ways to get your account blocked. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the {{copyvio/core}} template from articles. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at a temporary subpage linked from the article. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators and/or removers of the copyright notice templates will be blocked from editing. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Memevietnam98. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:A CN (YouTuber), 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.
Hello, Memevietnam98. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Toxic feminism (Internet affects), 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.
Hello, Memevietnam98. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Attempted disqualification of Donald Trump, 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.
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.
Getting Started
Tips
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from International Women's Day into Draft:Criticism of International Women's Day. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., 
Your edit to Draft:Criticism of International Women's Day has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Safety Act (California law). You're already in trouble for multiple copyright violations. Don't increase your risk you're blocked by removing templates. ⸺(Random)staplers 02:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Please do not remove the {{copyvio/core}} template from articles. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at a temporary subpage linked from the article. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators and/or removers of the copyright notice templates will be blocked from editing. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.⸺(Random)staplers 17:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
