User talk:Orchastrattor

Welcome

Hello, Orchastrattor, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! paul2520 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Sunday

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

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

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

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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

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

Your thread has been archived

Hi Orchastrattor! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Copying within Wikipedia when creating a new article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Team Fortress (series)

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

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

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

Your draft article, Draft:Team Fortress (series)

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reception of the American Loyalists by Great Britain in the Year 1783 has been accepted

Reception of the American Loyalists by Great Britain in the Year 1783, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Vandalism at Polygenism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of James Tissot

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

Your GA nomination

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

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

Your GA nomination of James Tissot

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

Your GA nomination of James Tissot

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spectacle fighter (June 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

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

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Spectacle fighter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spectacle fighter (June 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The added source does not demonstrate reliable source coverage, nothing has changed.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Spectacle fighter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

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

DYK for James Tissot

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

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

Your draft article, Draft:Team Fortress (series)

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive reminder

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Currency of Armenia has been accepted

Currency of Armenia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cataclasm (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Milkk7 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cataclasm and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

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

Hello, Orchastrattor! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Milkk7 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mononormativity has been accepted

Mononormativity, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Reba McEntire

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

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

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

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

I've restored a neutral version of the description, with proper citations. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crywolf (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Many statements are unreferenced. Please see WP:BLP

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Crywolf and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Hells Angels allies and enemies (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

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

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Hells Angels allies and enemies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Martin Luther in Nazi Germany has been accepted

Martin Luther in Nazi Germany, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crywolf (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not enough independent, significant coverage.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Crywolf and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

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

Category:Murals by topic has been nominated for merging

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

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

Category:Paintings of black people has been nominated for renaming

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

November 2023

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

Concern regarding Draft:Spectacle fighter

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

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

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

Priddis?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't close community discussions in which you are involved

Hello,

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

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

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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mukokuseki has been accepted

Mukokuseki, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Why I reverted your tagging

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Women in prehistory has been accepted

Women in prehistory, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Please be more careful

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

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

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

Yeah sorry I always forget once in a while.

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

Concern regarding Draft:Bottom-to-top script

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

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

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

Concern regarding Draft:Top-to-bottom script

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

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

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

Concern regarding Draft:History of the Jews in Georgia

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

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

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

Conversion of years to fractional months

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

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

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

Unintentional reversion

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

Speedy deletion of Draft:Bottom-to-top script

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

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Women in prehistory

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

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

Third opinion

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

Stanisław Lem and robots

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

Concern regarding Draft:Index of topics prefixed with "pseudo-"

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

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Deconstructed cuisine has been accepted

Deconstructed cuisine, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Mukokuseki

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

Concern regarding Draft:Cataclasm

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

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

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

Concern regarding Draft:List of Hells Angels allies and enemies

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

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

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

Concern regarding Draft:Crywolf

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

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

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

criticism of amnesty

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

Concern regarding User:Orchastrattor/sandbox/Spectacle fighter

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Cataclasm

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at Mukokuseki shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 18:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each edit was accompanied by an extensive discussion on the talk page or DRN, failure to engage with community discussion does not make any opposing edits a case of edit warring. If you care about this topic so much, maybe go actually defend it on the RFC instead of abusing templates you clearly have no idea how to use, thank you. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring at Anime ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 19:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What indication do you have that I was planning on reverting "indefinitely"? We were having a constructive discussion through the edit summaries, I only did two reverts on assumption of a good-faith mistake on part of an inexperienced editor. If they had continued I was just going to ping them on the RFC and continue the discussion there. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should look over WP:POINT as well, there is absolutely no reason to template a regular you're already actively conversing with in another thread apart from wanting to feel big after how you completely failed to achieve anything of note with the RFC. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Southern chivalry has been accepted

Southern chivalry, 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 B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring issue.

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and i dont know if this is the right place to report about edit warring. So i was editing something on this article called "light skin" by adding some factual information which is based on my extensive research and I also provide factual sources and links confirming it. This account named Biosaurt keeps reverting my edits and this seems like an "edit war" to me. and he thinks my sources are "subjective" or "sockpuppet/vandalism account" even though i provided links.

I never vandalized just added some additional info.

I kindly need help with this issue please. Rainbluetiful (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, most disputes like this are handled by experienced users called administrators. If you believe the user has violated the three-revert rule or a related guidelines you can report it at WP:AN3 for an admin to look over the incident, thank you. Orchastrattor (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try doing that. But if I do I'm worried that the user Biosaurt will know about it, he is also quite hostile to me. Rainbluetiful (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you will be required to notify other involved users when submitting to a noticeboard, but at that point the administrators will be involved so if they choose to continue to be disruptive it will just harm their case further. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Orchastrattor/sandbox/Spectacle fighter

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

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Southern chivalry

On 14 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Southern chivalry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American abolitionists co-opted the concept of Southern chivalry (caricature pictured) as an insult against pro-slavery white Southerners? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Southern chivalry. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Southern chivalry), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —Ingenuity (t • c) 16:19, 19 June 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

It was a deliberate removal of sourced content by an ip followed immediately by multiple personal attacks, while ignoring the warning I placed on their page in good faith. How does this not fall under the "obvious vandalism" provision of the EW guideline? Orchastrattor (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Content disagreements are not WP:VANDALISM. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 19 June 2024 (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.

@Jpgordon: The definition of vandalism includes the "removal of encyclopedic content [...] without any regard to [...] neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research", if they had a problem with the content would they not have been contesting the actual prose of the article where the claim is made instead of the imagebox? Orchastrattor (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith and guessing there may be a reading problem here. WP:VANDALISM defines vandalism as "the malicious removal of encyclopedic content" (emphasis mine), which rather changes what you quoted there. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were removing sourced information because they disagreed with it, without reference to any sort of discussion-admissable policy or guideline, how would you define that if not "intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose"? Orchastrattor (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's called a content dispute. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is also inconsistent with my previous experiences with how these guidelines are to be applied; Just last year I was closely involved with this dispute on Canadian values where both me and Moxy were free to continue reverting an ip with impunity due to their failure to have any meaningful engagement with the attached resolution attempts on the talk page, how was this any different? Orchastrattor (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just make a change, edit war it back in without explanation even though multiple people clearly disagree ([1][2]), and then call everyone who disagrees with you a vandal. You were blocked for violating 3RR, a rule which you are clearly aware of. You have also not made a single edit on the article's talk page. —Ingenuity (t • c) 20:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change anything, the flag was part of the imagebox for a long time before I ever even knew the page existed. All I did was help keep up the NPOV version other editors were already maintaining on assumption of consensus and then port in the already existing references from the body text to the caption. This ip is the only person across the article's history I've ever accused of bad faith because they were the only one to try and change the text after I added the references. That's also why I took the issue to their talk page rather than the article's own talk, I didn't escalate to AIV until they failed to respond to my warnings. None of the people opposed the inclusion gave any real reason to remove either, all they did was either accuse the article of antisemitism or appeal to WP:TRUTH so there's not much I could have done to discuss it apart from assuming ignorance to an exceptional degree. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed a different part of the caption to make it even clearer that the article wasn't taking any sort of stance on the issue, contesting whether or not Israel qualifies as herrenvolk was something I was fully prepared to assume good faith for but contesting whether or not they were "proposed as an example" of one when the references for said proposal are right there is just unreasonable. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jacob Geller has been accepted

Jacob Geller, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Queer manicure has been accepted

Queer manicure, 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!

gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lost in Cult (June 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:

See WP:NCORP for notability guidelines.

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:Lost in Cult and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Hello, looking over the subject again I found this fairly in-depth bit of independent coverage, I wanted to ask if any of the sources already present met the same standard for the new source to then push the article past GNG. The other thing I wanted to bring up though is that while I was aware of NCORP I was actually evaluating the subject moreso off of WP:NCREATIVE, all of the RS effectively credit or co-credit the group's works directly to "Lost in Cult" as a whole, would it not be more accurate to evaluate them as a collective of creative professionals? Lock-On actually seems to pass GNG all by itself and their other works have a fair amount of indie coverage as well, would that not count for "co-creating a significant or well-known [...] collective body of work[;] The primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? Orchastrattor (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how is it SIGCOV of the company exactly? It appears to be an article on stylized games. The articles have to be more than just a trivial mention, and all of them so far appear to be trivial mentions or primary sources.

This wouldn't be bad for an article on Lock-On magazine itself, but still insufficient on its own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and NCREATIVE does NOT involve groups or companies. It's only for single individuals. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's some extensive material on LiC way down towards the bottom, though its unclear if there's a COI or not.

Specific N criteria aren't meant to be exhaustive, I'd argue there is already a precedent for collective notability with how WP:NMUSIC lists "musicians" and "ensembles" as beholden to effectively identical criteria, I think it makes sense to have a similar amount of flexibility for creatives in general. In fact I think there's already a case of this for authors and writers with the duo of James S. A. Corey getting their own page independent of the two individual authors involved, they don't have much significant coverage in the sources they just seem to have inherited it as a collective from coverage of The Expanse.

I think WP:PAGEDECIDE could ultimately speak in favor of the draft here, even if all of their works could pass GNG it would just be trading in one higher-quality article for two or three lower-quality articles. They would only present the same info already present in the draft as is so having all of them under a single bibliography here is better for the encyclopedia overall. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: respond to the above, please. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this is a creative ensemble? It's a company plain and simple. A company without notability is advertising. Given that nearly every new company attempts to gain a Wikipedia presence notable or not, veteran editors are very familiar with such situations. And NCORP is more discerning than other guidelines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: As I said, all of the sources credit the work they write and publish directly to Lost in Cult as they would to an established author or artist, some occasionally highlight a member or guest but for the majority of cases its just treated as an indie writers' collective without further distinctions. NCREATIVE is also well within the purview of BLP, NCORP does not cover any potential soapboxing NCREATIVE is not also already concerned with. Orchastrattor (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Time loop. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jacob Geller

On 22 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jacob Geller, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jewish video essayist Jacob Geller cited Jewish traditions of study and scholarship as an inspiration behind his analysis of popular culture? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jacob Geller. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jacob Geller), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

^Complex/_Rational 00:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Queer manicure

Hello! Your submission of Queer manicure at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emesis Blue has been accepted

Emesis Blue, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

λ NegativeMP1 17:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Queer manicure

On 22 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Queer manicure, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some LGBT people wear shorter nails on their middle and index fingers to allow for easier manual sex and to express a queer identity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Queer manicure. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Queer manicure), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 16,534 views (688.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Book of Longings has been accepted

The Book of Longings, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Perceptronium (September 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by OhHaiMark was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Perceptronium and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

OhHaiMark (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Great Powers by entry into World War I

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Orchastrattor/Sandbox/List of Hells Angels allies and enemies

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Orchastrattor/Sandbox/Crywolf

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

Hello, Orchastrattor,

It looks like you have received reminders but this is another one to remind you that these User pages are due for speedy deletion CSD G13 unless you are working on them and making edits to the page. This time is approaching. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Book of Longings

On 21 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Book of Longings, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that novelist Sue Monk Kidd spent fourteen months researching New Testament–era Egypt and the Levant for The Book of Longings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Book of Longings. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Book of Longings), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please double check

[3] - I hope I am correct _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the author's website, yes. I've added a citation for it under "Writing". Orchastrattor (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Orchastrattor/Sandbox/List of Hells Angels allies and enemies

Hello, Orchastrattor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sandbox/List of Hells Angels allies and enemies".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Orchastrattor/Sandbox/Crywolf

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

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vehicle-building video games has been nominated for merging

Category:Vehicle-building video games has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]