User talk:Sausage Link of High Rule

June 2019

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Shannyn Sossamon. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. aboideau^talk 15:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2019 (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).

Sausage Link of High Rule (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I should be unblocked. These unconstructive edits I made were from a long time ago, when I was finishing up middle school. And, particularly in 2021, my unsigned edits have been far more productive than I was in this account. 172.119.235.132

Decline reason:

Since you evaded your block, there are no grounds to lift it. To be unblocked, please make no edits under any IP or account for six months. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could I still use Wiktionary? I'm doing good work there. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under this account, not evading, as can be seen in the edit history. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait. I'm allowed to use that. Never mind that. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait until I get the green light just in case. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the rules. I do not think I would be evading if I edit the other wikis. So for now I'll try to work on other wikis during the block. I'll stay away from English Wikipedia for now. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or Wikipedia in general Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited Wikipedia under this account or any account or IP address for six months. I have legitmately contributed to Wiktionary under this account, as you can see on my Wiktionary profile and have created several new pages there. I have conducted myself well there and have not engaged in any nonconstructive behavior. Do you see fit that I return to edit Wikipedia?Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Sausage Link of High Rule (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have waited the requested six months in order to be unblocked. I understand that unblocking is not guaranteed, as being unblocked is a privilege, though I am still considering the possibility of being unblocked, as I have not evaded my block during the requested six months and have conducted my self well on Wiktionary, where my block did not extend Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have unblocked. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of block evasion. There's a Possible alternate account involved here, but they didn't edit while this account was blocked so wouldn't count against this user (and this could be a friend rather than an alternate account). On that basis, I am not disclosing the other account. --Yamla (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4:- how do you feel about an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight, sorry for my delayed response. Totally forgot to reply. I am good with AGF here. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, guys. I'm sorry for how I behaved before. The edits that got me blocked were incredibly offensive and absolutely warranted the block I got. I'm glad you guys gave me a second chance. I'll be a good editor now. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AlternateHistoryHub moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, AlternateHistoryHub, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thank you for saving it as a draft and giving the article a chance. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Ramona, California (Los Angeles County)

Hello, Sausage Link of High Rule,

Thank you for creating Ramona, California (Los Angeles County).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Referring to our guideline WP:GEOLAND - Census tracts are not presumed to be notable. We will need to significant coverage to show that Ramona is notable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bruxton (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:YouTubers from Ohio

A tag has been placed on Category:YouTubers from Ohio indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Irreligious theists

A tag has been placed on Category:Irreligious theists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Religiously unaffiliated Americans

A tag has been placed on Category:Religiously unaffiliated Americans indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piped links for West and East Eurasians

Hi! Thanks for your edits in various articles dealing with the genomic history of OoA populations. I have a little problem with the piped links in [[Genetic history of Europe|West-Eurasians]] and [[Genetic history of East Asians|East-Eurasians]]. I understand your intentions, but the target pages are of too narrow a scope. Much of West Eurasian ancestry is missing if our readers only learn about Europe, but not Northern Africa and West, Central and South Asia. Same with East Eurasian ancestry which also extends into South Asia and Oceania. – Austronesier (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I linked these pages to those articles because it was the only pages that really mentioned a Western Eurasian meta-population or Eastern Eurasian meta-population. The genetic history of Europe article mentions how they are related to Central and West Asian populations, and the genetic history of East Asians article goes into detail about relationships to South Asians and Oceanians which would basically serve its purpose as an East Eurasian article to learn about East Eurasians as a whole.

I do admit the genetic history of Europe article is lacking in information but it's the closest thing to an article that tells (indirectly) of how West and Central Asians originated from a Western Eurasian meta-population like Europeans did. I guess maybe Western Eurasians should have their own article, since we don't really have an article that would serve its purpose as showing the genetic similarities between Europeans, Middle Easterners, and South Asians. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm going to create an article for West Eurasians, because I noticed that an article explicitly noting and explaining the genetic ties between Europeans, Middle Easterners, and North Africans is entirely missing, and such relationship is only implied in tidbits scattered throughout many articles. So I think there should be an article as a parallel West Eurasian version of the Genetic history of East Asians article. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. But, uhm, "as a parallel West Eurasian version of the Genetic history of East Asians": I note that you have a tendency to mix up "East Eurasian" and "East Asian". We do not have an article about East Eurasian ancestry that discusses everything from Bacho Kiro to the Solomon Islands. –Austronesier (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do. The genetic history of East Asians article talks about Melanesians, Central Asians, and South Asians, and their relationship to East Asians, and about the East-Eurasian lineage. It is very functional as an East-Eurasian article. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was looking at your edits after I made an edit to Genetic History of East Asians and I think your proposed article on West Eurasians is great and would work very well as a parallel to Genetic History of East Asians. May I suggest an edit? I noticed in your intro for your draft, you described the article as "This article explains the genetic makeup and population history of European peoples and closely related populations etc.", I think you should change it to "This article explains the genetic makeup and population history of European and Middle Eastern peoples and closely related populations etc." because Europeans and Middle Easterners are basal West Eurasian populations. It would also be a good way to differentiate from Genetic History of Europe. Saouirse (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! Will do! Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you are welcome to help edit the draft if you'd like! Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that you compose your text in WP:WIKIVOICE. That's the best approach when presenting the mainstream state-of-the-art. Many editors tend to indiscriminately add everything that crosses their way, even papers that haven't got more than 10 cites even three years after publication. And the "he said, she said"-style ("According to a 2020 study in Nature...However, according to a 2019 study in Science (blabla)") is something that is really annoying in all genetics articles here. Of course, if something is still fresh and potentially controversial, we have to visibly attribute it in-text, but we should rarely resort to this: if something is too fresh and clearly open for debate, we should just not mention it here. WP is an encyclopedia and not a science news mag. In any case, even with the small bit that you have started, you can build a nice overview article from it. –Austronesier (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thank you for inviting me to edit your page Saouirse (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American SBNRs has been nominated for deletion

Category:American SBNRs has been nominated for deletion. 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. General Ization ^Talk 03:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the category has been nominated for deletion, please hold off adding additional pages to the category until that discussion has reached its conclusion. General Ization ^Talk 03:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tired

Please, don't link common word (current countries, normal occupations ...), and please leave interlanguage links in place. Too tired to explain tight now. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I was trying to remove the red links but I was not aware it would remove the interlangauge links. I apologize for my disruptions. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Draft:Genetic history of West Eurasians you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. There's other citation errors too, such as missing sources. — Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the draft is not currently up to Wikipedia's attribution standards. I will get it up to standards when I polish up the draft. Right now I'm kind of just adding sources and information to the article and building it up, letting my mind flow. The draft definitely still has some rough edges in the category of citations. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you copy from another Wikipedia article into your draft, it's a good idea to bring the required citations along at the same time. Right now there's a lot of Harvard citations errors and other types of citation errors. You might be interested in installing the script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to reveal Harv errors. If you need any help getting started with scripts, I would be happy to help. — Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say, when copying from one Wikipedia article to another, you should be adding attribution in your edit summary at the time you add the copied content. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. — Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that I should attribute the other pages when copying from the other Wikipedia pages. Thank you for letting me know. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced birth dates

Hi. I wanted to explain why I reverted a change you made to Kath Soucie. In this edit, you added a birth date, but you didn't cite a reliable source. Wikipedia has strict rules on content in biographies of living persons because this can impact real peoples' lives. Please be aware the many sites on the internet purport to give information about celebrities, but few of them of reliable. Sites like the IMDb use user-generated content, and they should not be cited in biographical articles. Similarly, celebrity gossip websites should not be used because most of them don't have a history of fact checking or publishing corrections. Fan sites and blogs are self-published and have no editorial control. We also can't use primary documents, such as government birth databases. This means that the number of available sources is quite slim, and we often have to either go without this information or wait until a source like Entertainment Weekly or the BBC publishes an interview that includes a birth date. If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, you can ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used a primary source to find the information so I guess we shouldn't use it here. I didn't cite it because I wanted to respect the privacy of the person. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Sausage Link of High Rule. Thank you for your work on West San Dimas, California. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Can't see a reliable source which says that this is a CDP.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West San Dimas, California moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, West San Dimas, California, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Right now, there is not a single reliable source which goes in-depth about this area. U.S. Census and GNIS do not show this as being a legally recognized place, let alone a CDP. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to La rosa de Guadalupe, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The series is a drama series not comedy. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona categories

Hello, Sausage Link of High Rule,

Please do not remove all of the contents of a category so that it gets tagged for deletion. This is considered "emptying out of process", is seen as disruptive editing and your edits can be reverted.

If you wish to delete, rename or merge a category, please nominate it at Categories for Discussion so that other editors can consider your proposal. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to rename the category but I didn't know how. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 03:23, 29 November 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religious categorization

Please stop adding categories to various biographical articles where the subject is already a member of a constituent category of the category added. E.g., Steve Carrell does not belong in the category American Catholics because the article already includes the category Catholics from Massachusetts, a subcat of American Catholics. General Ization ^Talk 02:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:MichaelYarmush.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MichaelYarmush.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite literally no free image of Michael Yarmush available anywhere on the internet. No free image of the actor has ever been uploaded to the internet. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Daniel Brochu.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Daniel Brochu.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this will be the same story as Michael Yarmush. He doesn't have any free pictures available despite being much more willing to have photos taken of him than Yarmush. But since he's alive his case would not fit Wikipedia's standard of irreplaceability. So I guess you guys can just proceed to delete the photo. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stratum (linguistics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque. 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) 06:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at List of one-hit wonders in the United States. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the song a one-hit wonder though? That's the only song I've heard from Guy Sebastian, and it was all over the radio ten years ago. I wasn't trying to vandalize Wikipedia; I genuinely thought that song was significant enough to qualify for the list. I apologize if my actions were interpreted as vandalism. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is about one-hit wonders in the United States. Guy Sebastian and Lupe Fiasco had some success with their song "Battle Scars", but it did not rise high enough in the American charts for the media to say it was a one-hit wonder.

The biggest problem I had with your edit was that you cited this source even though the source DOES NOT list the song. You supplied a fake citation. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had a link from such website, but it seemed by the source text that the standard for the article was to just show the website name in the reference rather than showing the URL. So I just did what all the other editors had done.

Here's the URL I got the one-hit wonder support from:

https://playback.fm/artist/guy-sebastian-top-songs

It's not the same page you used, but it's the same website, and it described it as "the one-hit wonder of the 2010s". But since it wasn't on the page you used, which I assume is the default page, I guess I should have specified the URL instead of using the default page.

Anyway, thank you for responding to my first message to give me a chance to explain my actions. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough, looks like an honest mistake. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ramona, Los Angeles County, California for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ramona, Los Angeles County, California is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona, Los Angeles County, California until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP Policy on No Original Research

I wanted to help you by pointing you in the direction of the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:No original research because, when you say things in your edit summary like "That's all I've really heard the area be called really. I've seen the area be called Pomona, Covina, West Covina, and Covina Hills by locals mentioning it, either in real life conversation or on the internet. That the area is called by those names is simply common knowledge for those living in the area.", that is basically the definition of original research. And it's not common knowledge since I lived near there for almost 20 years and my wife graduated from CPP and we've never heard of it. I could easily say no one ever calls it that, but that would also be original research. Secondary published references are what is looked for on WP. Bahooka (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Sorry that I sounded arrogant in my edit description. I'll try to be more objective in my edits. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Dolichocephaly

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dolichocephaly, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:57, 3 May 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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Genetic history of West Eurasians

Hello, Sausage Link of High Rule. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Genetic history of West Eurasians, 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) 05:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't rename articles by cut & paste

Follow the instructions at WP:Moving a page. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Tellum, you may be blocked from editing. Belbury (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will remember to cite sources in the future and to not put unsourced information. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 10:40, 4 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]