User talk:Qwexcxewq

This is Qwexcxewq's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paraleuctra alta has been accepted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

–Novem Linguae (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ceutorhynchus carteri has been accepted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celastrina sugitanii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Celastrina sugitanii. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celastrina ogasawaraensis moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Celastrina ogasawaraensis. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Celastrina ogasawaraensis has been accepted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jake Silverstein, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Do not add unsourced material to biographies of living people, especially when it regards a low-profile person such as a subject’s family member. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dynastor darius has been accepted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endemic birds of West and Central Africa moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Endemic birds of West and Central Africa. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Lightoil (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the article I for the most part used two sources, that being IUCN Red List and BirdLife International, however for both of these websites I used a different page of the site for each bird since that's how the site works. Do I only cite two sources linking to their main page or unique sources for each individual bird? Qwexcxewq (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Qwexcxewq. Thank you for your work on Beckmans Island. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I wish the same for you. Qwexcxewq (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Endemic birds of West and Central Africa has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Endemic birds of West and Central Africa. Thanks! NotAGenious (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the only problem with this is that I used the range descriptions for many different birds throughout the books and I used BirdLife International for almost all of the birds. Qwexcxewq (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sir Winston Churchill Provincial Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trembling aspen. 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) 06:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Endemic birds of West and Central Africa (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 Goldsztajn 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:

Appears to be original research, no sourcing to satisfy WP:NLIST. Why West *and* Central Africa? Texts at end of article only mention West Africa. As with comment, below, individual entries should be referenced. Regards

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:Endemic birds of West and Central Africa 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.

Goldsztajn (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

west and central africa because the link from the Lists of Endemic Birds page titles it as such. Qwexcxewq (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qwexcxewq! 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! Goldsztajn (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Celastrina sugitanii

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Celastrina sugitanii has been accepted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

NotAGenious (talk) 05:59, 3 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced information added to List of birds of Alberta

Hi Qwexcxewq, thanks for your recent edit at List of birds of Alberta. I appreciate your effort in trying to improve the article. Unfortunately I've had to revert it because the information you added wasn't appropriately sourced. The list, including accidental/breeding codes is from the Official List of the Birds of Alberta [[1]]. I agree with your observations, however in order to be added to the article they need to be reliably sourced.

If you're able to provide sources for the changes, please re-add them and tag them with the appropriate in-line citation. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be editing this and repeating my edit. I will add citations for those that I know of scholarly sources for. Other than that you'd be surprised how unremarkable and unworthy of an article or mention a breeding record is. So I will provide with you my reasoning for every single one as that's pretty much all I can provide.

American Black Duck: I added the Accidental tag because there have been exactly nine (9) records since 2000 of this bird in Alberta, for reference very rare birds like Snowy Egret, Northern Cardinal, and Dickcissel all have more. There has been only one breeding record that I am aware of and it is from some time in the mid or early 20th century. Alberta gets more Black scoters every year than we do black ducks.

Greater Scaup: While belief during the 20th century was that they didn't breed in Alberta and bred further north there is abundant evidence that they do. I've seen breeding greater scaups in Alberta on two separate occasions this summer (1)(2). They are regular in prairie pothole region.

Ring-necked Pheasant: they do breed in Alberta, even though there are regular releases. Here is a mother with chicks in Fish Creek PP.

Common poorwill: To call this bird accidental in Alberta in any way is ridiculous, they are regular in the Cypress Hills and have been reported there since 1945. They have also nested in Alberta (see this) luckily this one is citable so I will be doing that ;)

Lewis's woodpecker: I kept this one as accidental because while they are seen pretty much every year I didn't want to change too much. As for evidence that they breed? Here one with it's young in a nest I saw this summer.

Sage Thrasher: Uncommon to common bird in southeastern alberta. I have citations so I will provide them when i edit the page.

Great egrets aren't rare either, not that I can prove that. They've been seen in Alberta every year for over 10 years. They are uncommon but regular at places like Buffalo Lake and Frank Lake. But there is no citation that I can provide that will prove that so I hope you seeing this message will be enough proof for that specific claim. Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just be cautious to steer clear or WP:OR. Many of your statements are worded "I saw", or "I am aware of". Wikipedia is built on WP:RS, and not our own observations. Also, the general consensus is that eBird and iNaturalist aren't reliable except in very limited uses since they're crowdsourced. There's nothing to stop people from saying they saw a groove-billed ani [2] with no corroboration. If you're unsure about your sources, please start a thread at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. grungaloo (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that crowdsourced content is not citable on this crowdsourced wiki. Which is why I replied to you with evidence that I didn't think would be citable. I said "I am aware of" because I didn't feel like digging through Blue Jay articles from the 70s. I understand your caution, but it continues to bother me how a "reputable" news source like Vice or the Atlantic who are much more likely to get things wrong or skew things thanks to bias is allowed to be cited, where as first hand evidence (eg. I've seen breeding Greater Scaups in Alberta, here are two photos of evidence with the time and location as well as multiple people who agree with my identification) isn't. I understand the flaws of crowdsourcing (as i'm sure anyone on wikipedia is aware), but both iNat and eBird have admins, as the list you provided was flagged, information from iNaturalist obviously isn't fool-proof but 9 times out of 10 any incorrect information is corrected.

I'm more just trying to provide you enough with evidence to show that my edits were justified, whether those justifications could be cited or not. This is just a rare occasion where I happen to know a lot about a topic where there isn't a lot of scholarly articles on. In almost any circumstance where there is more references or that I know less on, I always make sure to cite as many sources as I can. Qwexcxewq (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murders of Nathan O'Brien, Kathryn Liknes and Alvin Liknes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... Hello I've gotten into a bit of an issue. So a month or two ago I accidentally clicked on a link that sent me to Swedish Wikipedia. When I got there I received a notification that when I translated said that I was "indefinitely blocked from Swedish Wikipedia for having a complicated username". I thought that was silly and just went back to English Wikipedia. But for a while now whenever I went to access the Wikipedia Library I had this pop-up that told me that I couldn't use it because I had an active block on my account. But when I would check the English Wikipedia list of blocked users I wouldn't be there. I only today made the connection between the two. I left a reply on my Swedish Wikipedia talk page but I don't think that anything will come of this, and even if something were to it would be difficult communicating since I don't speak the language. I don't want to change my username but besides from that I don't know what else I can do to get access to the Wikipedia Library again? Is there a way I can somehow delete my Swedish account or change my Swedish username? Or somehow have this resolved? I do a lot of editing on articles relating to Zoology so I use JSTOR a lot so this effects my editing a lot. Qwexcxewq (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your username wouldn't help unless you created a completely new account. Accounts are global across all Wikimedia Foundation projects, so you can't remove your account from the Swedish Wikipedia; it is not possible to delete an account. I think that you could email the Wikipedia Library email address and explain your situation(wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org). 331dot (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I posted a translated message there too, maybe it will help. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may have. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Qwexcxewq. Thank you for your work on Lea Park Bridge. Kencf0618, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice job!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kencf0618}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

kencf0618 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Qwexcxewq (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Endemic birds of West and Central Africa

Hello, Qwexcxewq. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Endemic birds of West and Central Africa, 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) 01:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Endemic birds of West and Central Africa

Hello, Qwexcxewq. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Endemic birds of West and Central Africa".

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!} 00:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. Qwexcxewq (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drag panic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cedar Springs.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits to Drag panic, May 1

Hello. I reverted your last edit to this page due to the following issues: original research, POV and editorialising. But I *have* used the reliable sources to add context to the United States section instead, rewording what you wrote. The first incident I've pretty much included as is. The second incident, about the pep rally, seems to have nothing explicitly to do with drag. It just seems like some kids dressed inappropriately at school? In which case, that would also be original research without sources clearly showing the link to drag queens.

Lewisguile (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to reword instead of completely reverting it. The Pep Rally did involve drag performers which is evident in the videos but not as much shared through the media. It's hard to find credible sources for this stuff since the majority of the outrage is shared by twitter accounts like Libs of TikTok and when it is reported on it's by news sites that aren't accepted as reliable by Wikipedia like Fox News and Daily Mail and other outrage sites. I don't really care if it is it's own section or not I just felt like it was important to include some of the catalysts for the panic in the Wikipedia article. I'm happy with how you edited it and it reads a lot more formal then my original edit. Qwexcxewq (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Qwexcxewq. Thank you for your work on Lawrey Gardens. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I hope you have a good day as well! Qwexcxewq (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War (short story) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to War (short story). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused, if it being written by a famous person and being taught in high schools in multiple countries isn't notable then what could I add that would make it notable to you? Qwexcxewq (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources to substantiate the claim that it's taught in high schools in multiple countries. Additionally, being written by a famous person does not contribute to notability because notability is not inherited. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article because I was given it for class so I'm sure I can find sources for that. I guess what I'm asking is would me providing those sources make it notable enough? Qwexcxewq (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to find at least two critical reviews of the story to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I added six more sources and have submitted it for review. Thanks for being patient with me and explaining some of the rules. ^^ Qwexcxewq (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: War (Luigi Pirandello short story) has been accepted

War (Luigi Pirandello short story), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

AntientNestor (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

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.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coalbanks

You likely saw my revert. I am particularly interested in a secondary reliable source that confirms Coalbanks was designated a hamlet. One trouble we have is some people, even authors, assume an unincorporated community was a hamlet simply due to it never being incorporated as a village, town, or city. That isn’t necessarily the case. If an official provincial government documents a community as a hamlet somewhere, then we are usually good to go. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this and I probably can't fine a secondary source, there seems to be some confusion on whether Coalbanks was another settlement or simply Lethbridge prior to a name change. Have a good day ^^ Qwexcxewq (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kennedy Road.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is intentional Qwexcxewq (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Sitar family murders

Should the article be moved to "Sitar family murder" because it wasn't multiple Sitar families that were hurt? Loymdayddaud (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Richardson family murders, Watts family murders, Todt family murders, Hart family murders, Walker family murders, Robison family murders and others. Qwexcxewq (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:D1C0:6AEA:8527:FA98. I noticed that you recently removed all content from a page. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:D1C0:6AEA:8527:FA98 (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 3 hours for making copy-paste moves. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but I have to block you for a moment as it seams to me that you are currently making a mess (See my comment at Talk:Christmas Island thrush). You are making a series of improper WP:copy-paste moves. You are also creating a series of new pages with improper titles (for example "Fiji island-thrush" instead of "Fiji island thrush"). I will unblock you immediately if you agree to stop it and make the proper edits. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is called Fiji island-thrush by the Clements checklist. See [3]https://ebird.org/news/2024-taxonomy-update and [4]https://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?lang=EN&avibaseid=14BDF7A6F18850ED. The only source I could find that calls them "Island thrush" is the IOC World Bird List. This also just doesn't make sense as a common name since things such as "Solomon Island Thrush" is a confusing and misconstruing name. I would have also prefered you just message me before blocking me for one improper move. Qwexcxewq (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I don't know much about birds, but I checked the source you cited ([5]), and it says "Christmas Island Thrush". Also, we have an existing article titled "Island thrush" (not "Island-thrush"). All the sources listed in that article ([6][7][8]) use "Island thrush". I am unblocking you now, just be sure to read WP:copy paste and not to make such edits again. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the name for the former species "Island thrush" is unanimously used. But because it has been split the Clements checklist appears to be using the name with the hyphen. Here is another source for the Clements checklist using Island-thrush rather than island thrush [9]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iybsy3ZZ_B1_pYhGG8rNytY1aNvQo1ytLMfvoestRHc/edit?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3bxjLOHfOP9v6bbrNMqYUbaAdLCDj2HAxnVUpi9G2k1XCySdJ7N8y9Ss0_aem_aVRBNYeX_HdjDDaI5FZGog&pli=1&tab=t.0

The source I cited (5) is the IOC World Bird List, which is different from the Clements checklist. Thank you for unblocking me, I will not make anymore "moving" edits however I will continue to make articles with "island-thrush" in the name if that is alright. I apologize for the improper move. Qwexcxewq (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is alright, as there is indeed a reliable source that uses such names. Still, it seams strange to me that the island thrush is named so, while the species derived from that one are named "xy island-thrush". Vanjagenije (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I believe it is to make it so that people understand that it is not "Solomon Island" thrush but "Solomon" island thrush and not "Papuan Island" thrush but "Papuan" island thrush. Have a good day and I'm sorry for the mess I made. Qwexcxewq (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Qwexcxewq. Thank you for your work on Michael Eugene Oros. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please add citations to the notes and make them complete sentences.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited multiple grammar/typo fixes on Oct. 18, so I'm not sure what else needs copyediting on the article. It would be helpful to know what specifically you are referring to. As for the note citations, every source mentioned in them is referenced somewhere else in the article, and I don't really feel like finding them. Qwexcxewq (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning for the removal of mentions of "homosexuality" on Robert J. O'Niell

> "There is no way for him to "come out as Homosexual" since he had a wife (who knows maybe he's bisexual). Since there's no way to determine someones sexuality from that tweet I'm removing that section."

If you read the article on beards you learn that there have been numerous instances of gay men having wives or girlfriends throughout history. Your removal would have been spot on if you'd kept it to the last sentence - even though he has made subsequent tweets that certainly hint at his taste for boys/men, so I guess time will tell how accurate an edit it was - but the claim that it would be impossible for him to be gay because he had a wife 11 years ago is just silly. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]