Jump to content

User talk:Roggenwolf/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 2    Archive 3   
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  ... (up to 100)


Your submission at Articles for creation: Progress Studies (September 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:
Please remove the external links from the body. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Manuel Custódia has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Manuel Custódia. Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff

Please read this. Ewan Birney, Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford and Aylwyn Scally wrote it. Polygnotus (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Polygnotus. Thanks for the recommendation, interesting read. I have to say that I do not trust anybody in this debate, none of the camps; there are simply too many political implications to every single aspect of these constructs. And I believe a serious measure of care must be applied when using quick and easy political labels to describe any of these, their publications or concepts. That's all. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On an unrelated note, Polygnotus, you have the coolest talk page customization I've ever seen. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I stole it from User:Frostly (of The Signpost). Polygnotus (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gyat on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good bot, I'm always up for commenting on some gyatts. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan Schlatt (September 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Dexerto generally can't be used to establish notability for biographies (WP:DEXERTO)
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.
~Liancetalk 22:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Biohistorian15! 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! ~Liancetalk 22:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on genocide article

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

Points to note:

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

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

If I'm going to improve an article, it happens in mainspace so that readers can benefit right away instead of needing to merge in a sandboxed version later. There is no requirement to use a sandbox. All wikipedia articles are a work in progress and thus no excuse for a blanket revert that doesn't address the problems I identified with your edit. (t · c) buidhe 14:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@buidhe, we both know that I was not edit warring.
You have absolutely been making great contributions to this article over the years, but are now demonstrating some very clear WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to re-revert, You need to address why the revert rationale is wrong (like I did in my edit) and preferably use the talk page where we are already discussing the images. You can edit war without going over 3RR. (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. One additional flaw with your rationale was that I have, in fact, moved the image(s) to a section they more accurately belong to.
Seriously though, buidhe, the article has 7000+ edits, there is no special protection for "works in progress." Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ideology and Utopia has been accepted

Ideology and Utopia, 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!

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brandon Herrera (September 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
We don't need four sources to verify that he has announced his candidacy. We do, however, need to know where eg. his DOB comes from, as well as the information in the 'Early Life' section. Refs 1–6 and 8–9 are his sites, meaning that fuly ¾ of the citations are to sources that are not independent and may or may not be reliable. I haven't evaluated this specifically for notability, and am not declining for that reason, but I do have doubts because of the extensive use of such close primary sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Truth and Method, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brandon Herrera (September 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice about frivolous SPIs

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 90.255.65.51 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:French Communist Party on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics alert

Information icon You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour 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. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

revision as of 17:28, 19 September 2024

I get that the source is criticism of Lynn work. But they did an analysis of his data sets and found his conclusions to be faulty. I'm not certain if those were all his data sets (I say because the article talks about the data sets around black individuals) but the fact that a large group of experts have called for the main body of his work to be retracted which does effect part of what he adds to the article should be taken into account.

I think it might be more than simple criticism of him as a person and might be the grain of salt that has to be taken when an expert or researcher has obvious ulterior motives. Retraction of scientific work is a huge deal and rarely done even when experiments were faulty.

I don't believe in removing Lynn's work unless a full retraction for manipulation of data is issued but it's definitely something that needs context of some type in the article.

First source

Call for retraction of Lynn's work

I brought this here first because I don't want this becoming a 4 day discussion over 2 sentences that inadvertently devolves into how awful Lynn is as a person.

RCSCott91 (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RCSCott91. I've seen this multiple times, you know. His work on completely unrelated topics was/is also undermined this way.
On the other hand, someone calling for the retraction of somebody else that so happens to do highly politicized research is definitely suspect.
Since you've demonstrated relevance here, nonetheless, do you think making it a note would work? (Cf. Template:Efn) Biohistorian15 (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, making it a Note would probably the most appropriate considering the call for retraction hasn't been acted on yet. It shows that there is disagreement acknowledged but doesn't disregard that the research was considered peer reviewed at the time of publication. RCSCott91 (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds a lot better already. Thanks. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you wish to do the note or have me attempt it? I must warn I have never done one before, although I would probably study how a finished one looks in wiki and try to mimic it.
Also, We both just received a topic alert. Which feels a bit late for me because I've been editing that Jewish intelligence article for a month but they are strained on admins and stuff. RCSCott91 (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added it back in. It was due after all.
I wouldn't worry too much about that user warning/notice if I were you; these are common.
Realistically though, all this was wasted time because the same editors as usual will immediately jump in, revert me and cite ~5 additional criticisms on top... Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good. Worst case, article talk page for consensus.
Honestly, until and if his work is retracted, this seems to be in line with WP:NPOV RCSCott91 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Biohistorian15 You should probably be aware that I disagree with Lynn's conclusions and beliefs but his findings seem on par with outcomes for persons of color in the USA. The residual effects of Jim Crow era only began to be fully addressed in the last decades and considering that his data doesn't correct for economic-social status, I'm under the impression that he was measuring the disparity in America, whether he intended it or not. RCSCott91 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @RCSCott91, for some reason, your message did not seem to have resulted in a ping... Lynn and his colleagues - as far as I remember - were keenly aware of these possibilities and tried statistically correcting for them. Whether they were successful or not is another matter. But we should discuss such issues on the respective article's talk page when it becomes necessary. Biohistorian15 (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed

I am disappointed in this edit of yours at Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. After your previous attempt at this was reverted along with an invitation to discuss, you chose not to discuss, but simply to insist on your original edit by reinserting it. Disappointed; I didn't think this was your way. Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot. Come on, talk page discussions are just a lengthy matter for such minimal edits. I self-reverted now that you disagree.
I actually don't really like WP:BRD. I think people should more often have <3RR skirmishes with valid edit summaries without pointing just to talk.
Sorry if I inadvertently offended you. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care; other hills and battles and all that. Put it back if you want. Mathglot (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot. I actually feel surprisingly bad now. It's not like I meant to offend you.
Should I ping you for a centralized discussion (e.g. at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism) regarding the possible inclusion of a few dozen such LGBTQ-related articles when I finally get to setting it up? Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, no offense taken. Please don't feel bad, that was not my intention. It's not personal, it's just an encyclopedia, and a pretty insignificant corner of it, at that. I don't doubt your good faith or desire to improve it; the reaction probably comes down to a difference in style; namely, what you pointed out as "more 3RR skirmishes", and I think there should be fewer 2RR and I don't even see the point after 1RR because it's not like one more revert on either side is likely to be persuasive. Sure, ping me if you raise it at WP Conservatism, which is probably the first stop on what I view as a larger issue, which goes beyond just conservatism or just one end of the political axis (because the same thing could be done on the left) into questions like whether such groupings which correlate some of the time but not all of the time may paint everyone with too broad a brush, and who gets to decide. Then again, it's not like a project banner needs some kind of verifiability or citation, so maybe it's overthinking it. All those questions occur to me, but I agree with you that WP:Conservatism is the logical starting place. And I apologize again if you felt bad; please don't, we are both on the same team, trying to improve this crazy-wonderful-sometimes contentious project. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing things up for me! Will ping you at some point. :)
Your right about style. Maybe my editing in very controversial content areas has made me a tad too aggressive. It's kind of the only way to mentally survive there. Especially talk page discussions are often strategically used by WP:OWN-violators as to waste dozens of their opponents hours over relatively minor edits. That obviously wasn't your intent though. Happy editing too! Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By pure chance, this edit at another article TP just hit my watchlist. It might offer a nifty solution to cases like the one under discussion, and I would certainly have no objection to the same edit being performed in the headers of Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. (That said, the line above it is the same issue as here, though not the one I am pointing to.) What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Generally, {{WP Politics}} is the least presumptuous thing to add. Feel free to replace some such instances if you want. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Conservative's Barnstar
Many thanks for your prolific contribution to articles in the scope of  WikiProject Conservatism. 

Yours sincerely, Trakking (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Trakking. Though you might want to note that I was also experimenting in wikitext when I awarded you that particular barnstar. I think the standard one is the {{Burkie Barnstar}} (cf. the WikiProject > Ressources > Templates). I might think about creating a few official alternatives like this eventually. Happy editing! Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you go, haha. Apparently, replies render inside the Barnstar. Good job, @Biohistorian15... :) Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks

I've noticed that you've been thanking me for my edits and creation of articles. I don't know a whole lot about how this "thanking" thing works here, but nevertheless, I am very grateful for your appreciation. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uglytriangle999. Yeah, I found your templates cool. Some of them most definitively still require work to actually make it into articles without POV or formatting concerns, but great initiative.
Feel free to ping or email me if you don't know how to make a particular (technical) edit in template space; I'm a bit of an expert at this point. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re your ANI comment

Re: [1]

Responding here to avoid cluttering up the thread. For me it is less about engaging with the editor in question and more about engaging with the sort of noticeboard reader who skims threads and finds long quotes impressive. I likely will not respond to the thread again at any rate. - MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it might have had some value in that it has demonstrated that there is no way to reason with them as they dig in and double down even when demonstrated to be incorrect. They take it as an axiom that they are correct, and that the arguments just need to bent into shape accordingly. Now that that has been made clear I agree that there is no point in trying to argue with them any further. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agreed. While I'm still for a topic can, they're going to likely talk their way into an indef in any case. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see. Raffelate (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI (Race and Intelligence)

Please take a look at the (now hatted) discussion at Talk:Intelligence quotient. Psychologist Guy says that he is an admin at RationalWiki and has "created 200+ articles there". Meanwhile at RationalWiki, Anglo Pyramidologist has said that he's created "hundreds of articles" using his various accounts on that site. Anglo Pyramidologist is the only single person at RationalWiki who's created that many articles there, so this is a characteristic he and Psychologist Guy have in common that's shared by literally no one else.

I'd like to mention this to the other IP who originally raised the possibility of Psychologist Guy being that banned user, but it doesn't seem appropriate to post in that IP's user talk while they're currently blocked. But if that other IP is someone you know, and if you agree this is likely now, maybe you could find a way to make sure they're aware of it. 64.127.212.41 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not speculate about this here.
Though I should, with all due respect, state clearly that @Psychologist Guy should not go around WP:OUTING specific IPs as some long-banned editor as this is a potentially actionable offense. I'm stating this here because I don't want to bloat their talk page even further.
You, IP, should not pursue a WP:OUTING either though! Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it qualifies as WP:OUTING to argue that a particular account is a someone evading a ban. If it were, nobody could ever open a sockpuppet investigation. But in any case, now that you're aware of this latest piece of evidence there's no need to discuss it further.
By the way, in case I'm one of the users that Generalrelative characterized as "literal Nazis", I'd like to comment on my reason for editing articles such as Der Fuehrer's Face and Hans Fischerkoesen (from my previous IP). My interest in those articles is because they are about artists and artistic works that expressed opposition to Nazism. I don't understand how anybody could read the article Der Fuehrer's Face and think it's anything other than critical of the ideology. The anti-Nazi message in Fischerkoesen's work is more subtle, because otherwise the regime wouldn't have allowed it to be published, but it's evident if you're aware of the political context of decisions such as his inclusion of jazz music in Verwitterte Melodie. It's actually kind of a miracle Fischerkoesen was able to get away with that. 64.127.212.41 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Biohistorian15, I have given some background on these far-right trolls here [2]. There are 6 of them and several of them are indef blocked on Wikipedia. The WMF are aware about this little far-right group because they have been harassing several experienced Wikipedia users on and off site, creating fake websites about users, fake articles and promoting oddball conspiracy theories. They do not create accounts anymore because they get blocked, so now they resort to throwaway IPs. The above IP is block evasion from the banned user who has been promoting another absurd conspiracy theory that an experienced user is a shared account. The WMF are aware about this harassment.
I have no personal connection to AP or any other editor, he was blocked on RW years ago. There are 8,029 articles on RationalWiki, many admins have created 100s. It's very easy to work out which user I am over there [3]. The debunking of the carnivore diet is a dead give away. The IP above (evading his block has no chance of filing an SPI, that's why he has been asking others to do it. I actually would like to see an SPI filed with the conspiracy so I and others can have a good laugh at it. I have been told not to publicly keep talking about these users as it feeds their trolling but if you need anymore details drop me an email. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Omg, @Psychologist Guy. I just read the contributions of the account you've linked to, and apparently Mikemikev socked with my WP user name over there (cf. the 23.10. at [4]). That's obviously not me, haha. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, now that I think I know who you are I'm not interested in engaging with this bluster anymore, but I do have one question about your explanation here.
Even if the Johns account at RationalWiki is someone other than Anglo Pyramidologist, that account still has only created somewhere between 50 and 60 articles (I've counted them), not over 200 articles. Aside from that account, what other RationalWiki accounts have you used to create the other 140+ articles you mentioned? 64.127.212.41 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The full(er) quote is "...I think I have created 200+ articles [at RationalWiki] as well." not "I have created 200+ articles at RationalWiki." so it can be that Psychologist Guy misremembered. WADroughtOfVowelsP 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, even if PG were to have been socking on RationalWiki, this does not mean anything actionable over here. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johns is Oliver's twin brother. Impersonations are always Oliver and blamed on Mikemikev. 81.92.17.160 (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about an irrelevant detail

Since it has crossed my mind today, why did you say that your block was a "a highly controversial case"? WADroughtOfVowelsP 13:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ADroughtOfVowels. I think it certainly should have been controversial because I never, at any point, actually saw the supposed evidence against me, and no relevant functionary even answered my various emails or unblock request (for some 23 days) in which I did provide clear evidence to the contrary.
Nobody has explained to me to this day how any of this came to happen. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"With the recent activity of Oldstone James more recent technical data became available to checkusers that I'm told demonstrates that it is less likely that you are also a sock. As my original block was based on behavioral evidence weighed against a possible/possilikely CU result, a result which has been superceded, I am unblocking you. I apologize for the misunderstanding and the time it took for resolution." Doug Weller talk 13:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is, once more, not very good of a justification, @Doug Weller. If you want to send me any of that behavioral evidence (via email), I would still be quite interested. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything not in the SPI. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 3

Is it intentional that the conservative barnstar envelopes all things below it? WADroughtOfVowelsP 09:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ADroughtOfVowels. No, not intentional. You may fix it if you know how. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Run GenZ (October 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CFA 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:
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:
Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP.
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.
C F A 💬 22:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Biohistorian15! 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! C F A 💬 22:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Biohistorian15. Thank you for your work on Chritus Rex (journal). Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned at target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project banners

Hi there. Please check that a banner is not already on the talk page before adding another copy of it. I have removed some duplicates. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also please make sure the banner is really relevant to the topic. It seems many of your recent additions may not be. Springee (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genetics of obesity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roggenwolf/Archive_3&oldid=1257506166"