User talk:NoelveNoelve

NoelveNoelve, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi NoelveNoelve! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Keelan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I removed the content I added after reviewing it. I see you have been using your sandbox for writing formal requests. NoelveNoelve (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ignore the advice you have given. Proper names are capitalised. The vast majority are non-proper names of the same nouns, not capitalised, because the same nouns are not proper nouns. Thank you and your Wikipedia sandbox. NoelveNoelve (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NoelveNoelve, hi, you must be new here. I am the one giving you advice, because I know our policies and guidelines. Please review MOS:CAPS for an overview of how to capitalize words. You are not capitalizing proper nouns in this case. Elizium23 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The words capitalised reference proper names. "Not every noun or a noun phrase that refers to a unique entity is a proper name. Chastity, for instance, is a common noun, even if chastity is considered a unique abstract entity." I have left common nouns un-capitalised. I have left unique *abstract* entities uncapitalised. These are proper names of unique entities. The Metropolis... etc... references the unique entity of the Glasgow Metropolis without prefixing Glasgow to it. When metropolitans are referenced abstractly they all are non-capitalised. You've got your tail up because I removed content. No more. Thank you. NoelveNoelve (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've not disruptively edited anything. I removed the tags with the correct procedure. Let me post on the talk page! NoelveNoelve (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NoelveNoelve, you posted random crap on the talk page casting WP:ASPERSIONS on me personally. Try to be civil and stick to commenting on the content. If you have something to say about the need of a source, then talk about the need of a source, not my actions. Elizium23 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user is now moving from overly-formal language to bad language. NoelveNoelve (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on the talk page whilst I edited the original page informing you I was editing the talk page! Do you know what happens then? It doesn't post! NoelveNoelve (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow, you may be blocked from editing. DrKay (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this further. I'm sure following me from one page to another will do you a world of good! NoelveNoelve (talk)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow. DrKay (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NoelveNoelve (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The "admin" has anger issues, they have moved from one page to another. Deleting relevant content on Mary Queen of Scots in context then moved to Archdiocese of Glasgow ignoring current talk page discussion and being a pedant about location. There is no need for the attitude. NoelveNoelve (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request does not address your actions that led to the block. You were not blocked due to anyone's attitude, but due to your disruption. If you wish to argue that you were not disruptive, then do so, but don't discuss what you percieve as the attitude of others. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"If you wish to argue that you were not disruptive, then do so..."

I have done so within the edit logs. NoelveNoelve (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make another unblock request. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NoelveNoelve (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With the aid of the edit logs on Mary Queen of Scots and Archdiocese of Glasgow I'd challenge the claim I was disruptive. Not only in that I responded appropriately when asked for sources, but that I was followed from one page onto another. In the latter page there is ongoing talk page discussion about some of the content deleted, and further I have an edit and a talk page history of responding with dialogue and deletion when challenged on other topics. Subsequent editors on the former page have accepted my edits as pertinent and a new page on the content deleted is being created by multiple users after my establishing the stub. NoelveNoelve (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block appears to have expired. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 21:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You repeatedly added unsourced content to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow. You were repeatedly asked for a citation[1][2][3] and repeatedly warned about adding unsourced content[4][5] and removing maintenance templates.[6][7] You continued to add the content[8][9] and remove the maintenance templates[10][11] despite those warnings. You still have not produced any sources for that content either on the article itself or on the article talk page. DrKay (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Amended 05:35, 20 June 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

By the standards you have set there you've failed. You did not add a source request on Mary Queen of Scots. You immediately deleted the content and said it wasn't sourced. I added sources. You deleted it again. Not only did I provide sources but a completely new page, John Black (martyr) that has been edited by multiple users now with even more sources. Yet again, you've deleted content on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow, hounded me out in a hunt, on a completely separate topic, without asking for sources with a template, and deleted content. And what's more, there, there is talk page discussion on the topics with my having deleted content myself that I had previously added when asked by a user. I have not removed maintenance templates repeatedly, I have gone to the talk page, and asked that a user focus on one issue at a time, after accepting the removal of content on the first(!) occasion. Within that talk page discussion there is actually agreement that two-thirds of your deletion is commonly attributed and doesn't need sourced. Again, in the only novel element you've done, you've deleted content on non-talk page related content without adding any template, or discussion, and instead acted as if location is a basic concept. It's not. Glasgow is not within a United Kingdom Roman Catholic authority. It is in the United Kingdom. The only way of balancing the two elements of geographical location with authoritative location is via the Holy See.NoelveNoelve (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can add is that the user Elizium23 has consistently said I was removing maintenance tags when in fact I have removed other non-maintenance tags, and removed those tags with the correct procedure, merely requiring talk page discussion.NoelveNoelve (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the current user DrKay is now back editing their talk page discussion adding edit log references after the fact that don't reflect their initial post, or the adding of tags in the discussion with Elizium23, and makes it look like tags have been added on 3 occasions when they they were added twice. On the first occasion of the first tag deletion my edit log shows that I referred to the talk page, this is entirely in keeping with the procedure of removing that specific tag (not a maintenance tag). The user concerned did not go to the talk page. Instead they reverted. That is not in keeping with procedure. The second tag was added in that revert. It was not added by anyone else. It was not reverted after talk page discussion. I actually prefigured my talk page discussion by referencing the fact that the user was not keen on resolving a previous issue via the talk page, constructively, and had moved on elsewhere. The user then edited the talk page whilst I was editing a much larger post than you see now, that was chewed up because they added to the talk page after the revert (that they should not have done after my asking they refer to the talk page). An edit cannot be made when someone has added in between, because that overwrites their addition. So I asked for calm, and radically shortened my edit.

Again, the current user DrKay instead of seeing talk page discussion did not even revert to the template asking for sources. They deleted the content, as they had done elsewhere on Mary Queen of Scots a completely separate topic, and previously, without asking for sources via a template, but instead deleted the content with an edit log saying the content was unsourced. I sourced the content. They redeleted. Subsequently a completely new page was started by me on the topic John Black (martyr) that has now been edited by multiple users who have added even more sources, and the original content added on Mary Queen of Scots has gained consensus from multiple users.

I have not at any point been belligerent. I have requested talk page discussion. Not only that but the wrong inferences have been made about precisely what tags I removed, and what the procedure is for removing and reaching consensus via the talk page.

No account has been taken of how the debates unfolded. And it looks increasingly as if DrKay has thought there is no smoke without fire after seeing a conflagration and deduced one thing from an ongoing debate that others would not.NoelveNoelve (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, I may add, with a certain level of resentment over the article on Mary Queen of Scots, where they subsequently followed me onto Archdiocese of Glasgow seeking some kind of respite from not asking for sources correctly and engaging in an edit war deleting content, and redeleting it when they asked for sources and they were provided. And now those sources are provided superabundantly by multiple users other than myself. NoelveNoelve (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of detail here DrKay, Elizium23. Neither of you appear to agree with each other, nor do you appear interested in resolving a conflict when I haven't done anything wrong. If I have sought talk page resolution, it's been ignored, and you insist on ignoring the unblock request, how can I be said to have engaged in conflict? You're heading on a collision course with me, and one of you has already hounded me on several pages. Someone needs to bring in another admin. NoelveNoelve (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "ignoring the unblock request". I have clearly responded above. I am also not sure what you mean by "bring in another admin". As explained at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking, "the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party". DrKay (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have not "clearly responded above." You are citing an admin that disagrees with you. You are calling citation templates, maintenance templates. You are demanding sources via deletion that when provided are deleted. You are saying I did not seek talk page resolution appropriately for a citation template, when you clearly read it after the fact. Your whole demeanour in following me from another page and using someone elses ongoing discussion (who disagrees with you) is a betrayal of your angry response from the first page. You've not once addressed the facts. You've said someone else's facts are yours. NoelveNoelve (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And they are not even your facts from Mary Queen of Scots where you intially followed me in from! NoelveNoelve (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, NoelveNoelve. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye. I do not live in the area directly concerned. And if I did, and I don't, I just put it qualifiably second in a list of a complicated process of determining an order of precedence with multiple caveats. If you have nothing more to say on proper names please leave me alone. I left precisely the same word roots uncapitalised in the same paragraph... because they are not proper names. NoelveNoelve (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of John Black (martyr)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on John Black (martyr) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 07:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

John Black (martyr)

added links pointing to Dominican, Itinerant, Thomas Randolph and John Craig

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion, AND no one agreeing or disagreeing with your block. And you know why! NoelveNoelve (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NoelveNoelve (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You keep saying it's not sourced or original research. There is an entire wikipedia page of sources now added. Do you know what a private secretary is? Do you know what a confessor is? One is more intensely private than the other! It's biographical. It's sourced. It's not original research. I think you have some other motive for deleting. Possibly sectarian. NoelveNoelve (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I count five reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I don't see where you obtained consensus for those changes. That's a pretty clear violation of WP:3RR and WP:EW. Yamla (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And after you are all over the shock of the indignity of being sectarian and called out for being so. DrKay, Celia Homeford, Surtsicna, Martinevans123. Mary Queen of Scots is an obvious case of WP:SOURCETYPES. Popular historians are being favoured over academics. Of course you'll deny the signs of your guilt in favour of popularity and in groups again. NoelveNoelve (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is how wikipedia reach consensus? Say you disagree, put undue weight on popular historians, ignore academics, and then exclude what you personally can't emotionally or personally believe in for selfish reasons, abiding by a selfish in-group that promotes how you selfishly think about yourself? You would all be ashamed if you didn't already know what you are doing. NoelveNoelve (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If all the academic source types and imprimatur religious texts (validified views of a church) were put before people and not popular historians, they might disagree with your opinion! Quick deletion. Invite to talk. Block and unblock request and... Silence! NoelveNoelve (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I count 5 people all saying they disagree with no valid reason. You call that consensus , I call it breaking the rules. But because it's an English language wikipedia article, even if properly sourced, with a proper academic source type, and another with an imprimatur, YOU say it's a minority view as if it' a badge of honour to shut a different reading down because you can't handle academics(!) and other religions(!) reading it differently. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, its a census. NoelveNoelve (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main sources for the article are Fraser, Guy and Wormald. Fraser is a Catholic who has been awarded many honors for her historical work. Guy took a first in history from Cambridge, and since then has held multiple distinguished posts at universities, including Professor of Modern History, Head of the School of History, and Provost and Vice-Principal for Research at the University of St Andrews. Wormald did a PhD in History at the University of Glasgow and was a Fellow and Tutor of History at St Hilda's College, University of Oxford, for twenty years. All three have written critically acclaimed biographies of Mary. The claims that we're ignoring academics in favor of popular books or sectarian sources cannot be substantiated. Your two sources are a general work edited by Michael Lynch, which is fine but it is a general history not a biography of Mary. The other source is over 100 years old and is written by someone whose main work appears to be on the birdlife and history of the Eastern Caribbean[12] not early modern Scotland. DrKay (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay: You can't even substantiate the claim that the three are academics! Only Guy has a peer-reviewed structure, both Lynch and "the other source", betraying your sectarian intent again, are peer reviewed by academics (Can you dare write it? His name?). Theology is an academic degree if I am not mistaken for a sectarian minded serial eraser such as you, and the imprimatur has survived readings from peers and beyond that is authoritative view because of that of what the church permits as teaching. As for "Fraser is a Catholic", a divorced Catholic given as a tokenistic non-peer reviewed source. You can't even substantiate the claim that you are not being sectarian without tokenism avoiding the main thrust of my argument.

The whole make-up of your hunt on me has been deletion. Never, not once, even though on multiple occasions you have seen the talk page mentioned as an amicable route out of dealing with a situation. You have deleted elements I have written even where there are obvious, clear, and unambiguous peer-reviewed sources for my additions. Never, not once, have you put a template up. You have being overriding other admins in their dealings with me, against their wishes, and have reported yourself because you knew you were breaking the rules.

There are several ways of dealing with a forceful phrasing of an article that is common in peer-reviewed works (that you would know about if you read them, and included them as an accepted valid source type not in conjunction with popular histories) including footnotes explaining other views being prevalent, even though your "consensus" is an artificial "biography" creation I've never read anywhere in Wikipedia guidelines: "if it's not in the direct biographies it's not true". The nearest I can see is undue weight, but even that doesn't elicit a biography = source type mathematical equation as you are doing.

I do wish you would properly reference YOURSELF to fellow Wikipedia administrators in all of your actions and not merely your bans. Your actions include deletion, and contempt, and the exclusion of the talk page, and covertly hiding until someone disagrees with me and then pouncing on it for your own purposes. Anything I said has been challenged, even when you knew that it was not a valid challenge that others must suffer for the same reasons because the facts were obvious and would need challenging elsewhere on a page if it were not so. NoelveNoelve (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have other peer reviewed academics such as John Durkan, writing on the timeframe, on the figures involved, on the importance of John Black in the biographies (lower case) of those involved. But your anti-wikipedia-like Biography = Authoritative (upper case) stance is beyond you again, before even talking about it.NoelveNoelve (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Primrose moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Patrick Primrose, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Patrick Primrose (August 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 TheBirdsShedTears 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:

Read WP:REFB

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Patrick Primrose and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Patrick Primrose, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have 3 sources, from a mere glimpse at the sources available, including 1 journal article. What would characterise sufficient coverage? I wrote a stub of a recent similarly themed article that once got going was added further references by others. I do not imagine that the amount of time I spent on this won't provide further references.

NoelveNoelve (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Patrick Primrose has been accepted

Patrick Primrose, 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!

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP Address

Why does it say I have a problem editing from my IP address? NoelveNoelve (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2022 (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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]