This is an archive of past discussions with User:AFreshStart. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The article Jeremy Pemberton (priest) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jeremy Pemberton (priest) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Peter Pharoah
On 11 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peter Pharoah, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the clinical trials of British scientist Peter Pharoah helped eradicate congenital iodine deficiency syndrome (cretinism) in Papua New Guinea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Pharoah. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Peter Pharoah), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi AFreshStart, I've marked a lot of text with "[citation needed]" tags because references appear to be missing. These are mostly in the subsection "Tendering-process concerns", where I have concerns over BLP policy, but elsewhere too. The tagged text should be removed if it cannot be cited. There are also lots of redlinks in that section; you might want to remove those that have no incoming links from articles. Cheers, Baffle☿gab22:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I think I've added the appropriate inline citations and removed the redlinks (though I think some of them should exist as standalone articles). I understand the BLP concerns, if there is anything specific you'd like me to change I'd very much appreciate it. Thank you! —AFreshStart (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
No problem; thanks for adding the citations and removing the redlinks; I'd normally would leave redlinks if there are inbound links to the title, indicating the subject might be notable. I didn't check any of those. Everything else seems to be fine with the article; good luck with developing it. Cheers, Baffle☿gab20:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Bund für Menschenrecht has been nominated for Did You Know
The article Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Anthea Butler
On 21 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anthea Butler, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in her 2021 book White Evangelical Racism, professor of religion Anthea Butler called American evangelicalism a pro-Trump, "nationalistic political movement"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anthea Butler. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Anthea Butler), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
@Bluerasberry: Ah, thank you very much! The barnstar is very much appreciated! And it's been an absolute delight to talk with an editor with whom I can have a disagreement, but have a cordial and civil discussion throughout – a rarity on Wikipedia (and the internet in general). —AFreshStart (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Was soll das Volk vom dritten Geschlecht wissen ...
...but the pamphlet as illustrated is called "Was muss das Volk vom dritten Geschlecht wissen ... Someone else is bound to point this out also so I'll draw your attention to it now! Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I did notice that discrepancy! Most of the sources use soll; I'm guessing may depend on which particular copy or edition was used? I'll add the alternative in the notes to avoid any confusion. (This source lists both, so it's clear we're talking about the same work). —AFreshStart (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh wow, thank you very much again! Looks like you had some really good meetings with friends so far this year, definitely seem like you're making the most of it! 😃
I've always wanted to go to Spain, especially Gran Canaria, but never went as a child and haven't been able to go as an adult either! When things go back to normal, it's definitely somewhere I'll be going to. It's been a long time since I went to Germany too (I have only been on a school trip to Berlin, lol), and would love to have a visit outside of the capital sometime.
Can you please explain this edit, and particularly the allegation in the edit summary that "Numerous editors have raised the issue of you POV-pushing on thr talk page to get rid of 'party' mentions in the article"? And how is that a justification for your restoration of that contribution that had been reverted for good reason, and re-added by the same user? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
You have been trying to remove references to "parties" or "scandal" in the article, against RS usage and editor consensus. You are the one who is edit warring (and I note you got blocked for similar at Edward Colston) by doing this. And of course, all this edit warring over multiple articles is in favour of a particular POV. You have been told this ad nauseam, not by just me but by other editors too. Drop the WP:STICK. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm applying NPOV, that's all, and you'll see on the talkpage that my view is gaining support. And RS does not trump it. Either way, that does not excuse your actions. What edit warring? And if you read the discussion on the 1 article, 1 week block, you'll see I was collateral damage, and unblocked after 4 days. The only stick is that of Wiki policy, and we cannot drop that. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
p.s.: on the "reverted for good reason" point: if anyone else had made this RV, I would not have opposed it. It is because of your pattern of problematic and tendentious editing across numerous articles. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be admitting that you are guided by your (mistaken) preconceptions then, and not Wiki policies. Fair play for that. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
That is not what I am doing at all, but okay. And removing sourced edits calling gatherings 'parties' is against RS and edit-warring. But sure, everyone is biased except you... —AFreshStart (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV (my emphasis): "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus".
I know some people don't like having to be neutral, but the policy seems clear to me about whether we can just ram loaded and prejudiced content into the article just because it's supported (and even that is far from accurate for the edit in question) by a RS. Loaded and editorialised language is also covered in NPOV: "Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I fail to see how describing something as a "party" rather than a "gathering" is "loaded and prejudiced content", especially when it is supported by reliable sources (not just "a" reliable source!). That is the opposite of editorialising. —AFreshStart (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The word 'party' implies an event that was always meant to be a social event rather than was a spillover from a routine work event or impromptu gathering during work, or even afterwards with only in-bubble attendees - and we, as yet, do not know the exact context of all these events in question.
The problem with copying specific words verbatim from the sources is that they are all, basically, newspapers - and they all have an editorial agenda and use journalese and loaded terminology as a matter of course in support of that. I think NPOV expects us to cut through that, and dig out the underlining meaning and present it in a non-loaded way when it says: "When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed".
Did you notice how Gray always described them simply as 'gatherings', regardless of what she might have garnered during her investigation? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with what you say "party" implies, and I don't think it's journalese. These are both subjective interpretations of a word, and I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise. Either way, removing the term "party" from the lead makes absolutely no sense when its title is still Partygate (I know you didn't support the move there, and tbh I'm not 100% sold that it's the best title). The fact that these were seen as parties by the general public, correctly or incorrectly, is integral to the whole controversy. If you seriously think there are NPOV problems in using the term in the article, please take it to the NPOV noticeboard, rather than force your own interpretation of NPOV on the article against local consensus. This needs a wider discussion than a (less than a) handful of editors. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Ahem, I did support the move - I couldn't argue that it hadn't become the common name for it, in the news media at least, and that's all that counts which these kind of events. I don't like the title though, and I don't like the way that, because that is the title, editors think they therefore have licence to use that term as the proper noun for the controversy in other articles and with no context (and I think you possibly think the same?).
I'm not sure that the public would have thought of them as parties if they had been reported in a different way by the media though. The media know what they are doing when they write their articles, and they know how to influence opinion 'subliminally' using carefully crafted journalese. We can see that on Wiki, in the hours and days following disasters, atrocities, accidents, political cockups, or whatever, by comparing Wiki "self-appointed investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury" content that has been quickly cobbled together from tabloid headlines, with what is actually said in the sources that purportedly support it. And indeed we saw plenty of it, and are still seeing it, in the article in question here.
I agree with you too that there is a better place to have this discussion, but, to be honest, I don't have the time, energy, appetite, or skill to deal with the almost inevitable prejudice, accusations and personal attacks that will ensue, and muck-raking through edit histories to 'prove the point', etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
In fairness, we all have our biases. Wikipedians can try to be neutral, but the editorship lends itself to a particular bias and POV. (note: being neutral doesn't mean an editor cannot or should not disclose their own political opinions – if anything, this shows greater transparency). It wouldn't surprise me to find that the "average Wikipedian" (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) on British politics is liberal- or left-leaning, so it is good to have a counterbalance to that sometimes.
But it's this idea of "what I say is neutral, everyone else (including the entire British press and all other Wikipedia editors) are biased" that is patent nonsense. If we were talking about the editorial bias of The Guardian, for example, then I could understand the concern.* But this is the entire British media (including many right-leaning papers) and MPs that are usually sympathetic to Johnson describing these events as "parties". Plus, some of these events were unambiguously parties (there is no such thing as a "birthday gathering", or even a "birthday social gathering"). As such, "gatherings or parties" absolutely belongs in the lead, there is editor consensus for this, and this is what DeFacto removed in their edit. To clarify what I said earlier: if this was another editor, I could see this as being in good faith, but when an editor continuously removes references to 'parties' against editor consensus, falsely claiming NPOV... yes, I see it as edit-warring and POV-pushing.
FWIW, I would oppose an editor who continuously removed "gatherings" from the article lead to support their POV, as some of these events were more gatherings than parties and are described as such by the sources.
* Editors here may be surprised to hear that I actually do think the over-reliance on BBC News and The Guardian on British politics articles is a problem, as I discussed on the article talk page when DeFacto brought up what they saw as an over-reliance on the paper. I think DeFacto's concerns/reasonings were somewhat misplaced; I actually think this is more to do with the fact it is a free online source than any ideological intent (note: source availability is known to lend itself to bias, even unintentionally). But all of this is deserving of a more centralised discussion than my talkpage, or that of the Partygate article, with some actual research and numbers to back all this up.—AFreshStart (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems we are, basically, singing off the same hymn sheet. Everyone seems to think they are neutral, and everyone else is biased. And anyone who thinks newspapers aren't biased is probably only reading the ones whose bias most closely matches their own bias, or assimilating what is written in such a way that it 'matches' their own bias.
And this isn't just a left/right bias at play here, it's more like a pro-Boris/anti-Johnson bias, and following his success with Brexit and struggles with Covid control, there do not seem to be many BJ sympathising news outlets left. What do we do if it's the case that the majority of news sources are pursuing an anti-Johnson agenda, and are thus loading everything wrt partygate against him?
Our job as Wiki editors though, is to try not to be blinded by our own bias or accept without question the (inherent) bias of news media sources, and try to present facts in neutral language and opinions as attributed opinions, and balanced, per due weight, with other RS opinions.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article QAnon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Thanks for letting me know that Rolling Stone shouldn't be used as a source for this kind of topic. I knew that the reporting in that magazine has not always been very good lately, but I had no idea it had become that problematic. FYI, after seeing your edit I also changed what I had put in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, basically basing myself on what you had written. Another user didn't understand what I had done, so I put it back and did my best to explain it.
I'm also kind of bummed to discover that The Daily Beast is not always reliable, as I've recently used it several times as a source (mainly as a reference for the Chris Hallett murder case). What should I do ? Psychloppos (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Psychloppos: Thank you for your edit! I admit I was being over-cautious w/r/t the Daily Beast and BuzzFeed sources on the QAnon article, as it is undergoing a Good Article review. Unless other editors have raised issues with the Daily Beast as a source on the Chris Hallett murder case, it should be totally fine. I've used it multiple times on different articles and had no issues (prior to the recent decision, I also used the Rolling Stone, but I agree that it is more problematic as a source). I think with attribution (i.e. according to X in The Daily Beast...), then I think it should be fine. It's difficult to give a blanket statement here as it really depends on a case-by-case basis, afaik. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. In the particular case of the Hallett murder, since the facts that Petrie-Blanchard adhered to QAnon, that Hallett adhered to sovereign citizen ideology, and that the former murdered the latter, are undisputed and reported in multiple sources, I guess there is no reason to question the use of The Daily Beast : it's just there for additional detail.
I don't have any issues with that personally, as I agree that it gives additional context. And plenty of WP articles use the Daily Beast for simple statements of fact such as that. WP:DAILYBEAST is not saying that the source is unreliable, just that there is no consensus among editors on its reliability. And that's only a recent change from "generally reliable" in 2020.
Hello again. I took another quick glance at the QAnon article and I think that, in the context of the review, it may need an additional paragraph about the involvement of QAnon in conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election, the links with QAnon of people like Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, and finally the Capitol storming. The election is mentioned, including in the lead section, but readers may expect to find a section specifically dedicated to it (with a "main page" link to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election). Hope this helps. Psychloppos (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I took the liberty of moving a bit of the text so it would make an introduction to the "Attempts to overturn" section. I also added some little info about the Italygate conspiracy theory (I'm losing my mind over the idea that they thought pope Francis had been arrested for his involvement). Psychloppos (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I really appreciate all the edits you've done so far! Definitely reads a lot better now. You have great attention to detail!
(And honestly? That doesn't even phase me. The specifics are pretty hilarious though: "80- count indictment of charges including possession of child pornography, human trafficking, incest, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony fraud". Plus gunshots, and Italy's foremost anti-Mafia prosecutor Giuseppe Governale [it] getting in on the action too, apparently. I'm so glad this intrepid reporter managed to bypass the EU-wide blackout on this story...). —AFreshStart (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The most insane thing that I saw about this Italygate thing was a photo, shared as a meme by some QAnon people, which showed Mike Pompeo with an older gentleman who seemed to have his hands behind his back : the QAnon guys claimed that it was an image of Pompeo arresting Italian president Sergio Mattarella for his role in the conspiracy. Apart from the sheer lunacy of the American Secretary of State flying to Italy to personally handcuff the president of a NATO country (that's Scooby-Doo level of politics : do they really think that the US can arrest European head of States like mere shoplifters ?), it turns out that the photo had been taken during Pompeo's trip to India and that the other guy (who did look a bit like Mattarella with his face mask on) was the US ambassador to India. This meme deserved to be more famous but maybe it was too crazy, even for the QAnon crowd... EDIT : I just added this wonderful piece of info to the Italygate page.
The article QAnon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:QAnon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
On 4 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bund für Menschenrecht, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the League for Human Rights, established in Germany in the early 1920s, was the first mass organization for homosexuals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bund für Menschenrecht. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bund für Menschenrecht), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The article Traditional Britain Group you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Traditional Britain Group for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Manchurian plague you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pastel QAnon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of NSNW -- NSNW (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for starting the review, apologies for the late reply as I have been busy recently. I will reply quicker for the rest of the review process. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
No worries! I'm not going to be available always either (I'm on a vacation), but thanks for responding. NSNW (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I am so sorry to have troubled you with this, but I have literally just been blocked from making any edits to Wikipedia (see below) and as such will not be able to bring the article up to GA status myself. As I have already said, thank you for taking on the article review. — AFreshStart (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
(watching:) why don't you have the dialogue right here? My first GA was for a blocked user who didn't participate at all. I am willing to edit the article if I can be convinced changes are good for our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @Gerda Arendt. There wasn't any issue with the nomination itself, the user has also nominated and promoted other articles related to the topic that I am reviewing, I would welcome edits from you that could get the article to GA (only some small prose issues need to be corrected). NSNW (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh wow, thank you for your help! There are just a few issues in the "Prose" section of the GA review (I didn't get around to starting any of that).
On point #2 in the "Prose" section, "This" refers to the conspiracy theory as a whole, and on point #3, "this" refers to the use of gateway messaging. I agree that this was worded sloppily.
On the last point, I think the one-sentence paragraph can be merged into the previous paragraph.
Accomplished person but does not seem notable. Most articles about him are about his death (which I don't think is notable?). Article created after his death.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article Pastel QAnon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pastel QAnon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of NSNW -- NSNW (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not really sure how to condense it to a good hook. Maybe something along the lines of [DYK] ... that the term "pastel QAnon" is used to refer to a mostly-female community of influencers promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory using pastel-coloured imagery? Fairly boring and straightforward; if you or anyone else has any better ideas, please use those instead. — AFreshStart (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, AFreshStart. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mahesh Upadhyaya, 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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.
I cannot reply there as I am currently blocked, but I agree with the redirect being deleted (if that makes any difference). — AFreshStart (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Evangelical Environmental Network, 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ancient Manipur, 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Doctors and Nurses for Planetary Health, 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.
Where does reference 1 addresses this book by Brian Reade? This book is not given as a source in this article. Linking to the Wikipedia page for The Contemporary Review does not pass as a reliable source. Kindly do the needful and address these issues.
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|Whiteguru}}. 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Marbella holiday of Boris Johnson, 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ailbhe Rea, 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Current Digest of the Russian Press, 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sott.net, 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Laibi Oinam, 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Get Glasgow Moving, 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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Sweeney 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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheshire East Council bullying and misconduct allegations 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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ailbhe Rea".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Project Truth (Canada), 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.
Hello, AFreshStart. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Laibi Oinam".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.
