User talk:Scribes52

Hello, Scribes52! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DuncanHill 09:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Scribes52/Draft George Thorp (1777-1797) page

Hi Scribes52. I have moved the page Scribes52/Draft George Thorp (1777-1797) page to User:Scribes52/Draft George Thorp (1777-1797) page as it appears that you intended to create this as a user subpage. Regards,  GILO   A&E⇑ 08:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gilo1969. You are indeed correct - I tried to create it as a user subpage but obviously stuffed up. There's a lot I want to do on this page before asking to move it out of my user space. Scribes52 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Hunt painting

Dear Scribes, thanks for uploading File:Santisima Trinidad harried by Terpsichore.jpg. Can I ask you to fill in some details for me, such as where you found it, i.e. the website? We'd need that detail rather than just 'Available online'. And you say evidence of permission will be available on request. Can you provide such evidence? At the moment we'd need to verify if we can use that image on wikipedia and these details will help us clear that up a lot faster. Best wishes, Benea (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Benea, Thanks for so quickly communicating with me regarding this. I have been trying to comply with the numerous and lengthy articles about image uploads and copyright, but they are pretty formidable for someone at first attempt.
I feel confident that I will be able to satisfy requirements and can provide details of where the image appears online and copies of e-mails to and from the artist, Geoff Hunt, giving me permission to incorporate this image. I'll gather this together and place it below in the next hour or thereabouts. Scribes52 (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great to hear! If you are in email contact with Geoff Hunt, it's best to get him to fill in one of the release declaration forms that you will see at Commons:Email templates and to email this to the people at Commons:OTRS. As Hunt is a commercial artist he will need to be aware of what releasing the work into the public domain entails (he will 'grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs') and this form of wording will ensure that the necessary permission will be given. Benea (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benea. I note what you say and will act accordingly. However, in answer to your earlier message, the image I have uploaded can be found in two places on the Internet:
http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Pinturas/Hunt-Geoff/SantisimaTrinidad.jpg
http://www.histarmar.com.ar/PaulStam/Tallships/p-tall_ships061.jpg
I didn't know how to contact Geoff Hunt, so wrote to an art gallery in Annapolis asking them to put me in touch if possible. i then received this message from him:
From: Geoff Hunt <geoffhunt.rsma@btconnect.com>
To: <reddy@iinet.net.au>
Subject: Terpsichore
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 10:46:07 +0100
I would like to ask Mr Hunt's permission to include an image of this painting on a page in Wikipedia that I have written about George Thorp, who was First Lieutenant of Terpsichore under Captain Richard Bowen at the time of the action with the Santisima Trinidad and four months later was killed together with his captain in the assault on Santa Cruz, Tenerife, led by Nelson. If possible, would you be able to put me in touch with Mr Hunt please, or forward this message to him? Here is a link to the page in Wikipedia:
Dear Mr Eddy,
Your request as above was forwarded to me from Annapolis Marine Art but I seem to remember this also reached me by another route some time ago? Apologies for not replying sooner if so, there has been so much going on recently.
I have no objection to my painting being used for this purpose, especially having read the article and seen what a thoroughly worthy character George Thorp appears to have been, as long as - which I expect must be the case - the image is not reproduced at a high enough resolution to permit print reproduction. Presumably it would be credited to me?
I was interested to note your speculation regarding a possible use by Patrick O'Brian of the letterbook. Patrick was an omnivorous reader and seems to have remembered everything he ever read, so this would not surprise me at all. I have occasionally had the same experience in reading very obscure bits of logbooks in the Public Archives - Patrick must surely have read this too!
Kind regards,
Geoff Hunt
I am in the process of adding a caption to the page creditingbthe painting to the artist.
Best wishes, Scribes52 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Santisima Trinidad harried by Terpsichore.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Santisima Trinidad harried by Terpsichore.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sohambanerjee1998 07:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Norman A. Ough, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surveyor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Alexander Donald Cameron
added links pointing to British, Scottish and European
Tonga Ma'a Tonga Kautaha
added links pointing to Scottish, Free Church and European

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Scribes52. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Scribes52. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Scribes52. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RV Pax moved to draftspace

Thanks for creating RV Pax. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and mostly because I think you published it prematurely by accident. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you. I agree there is a lot more to be done yet and am happy to have somewhere other than my Sandbox to work on it. Scribes52 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: RV Pax (February 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
"Sadly" not encyclopaedic (and more besides) - reads more like a personal reflection.
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Scribes52! 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! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matt, I think your comment about 'Sadly' is valid, so I'll examine the whole draft to try to eliminate the essay style, then try a resubmission. Scribes52 (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: RV Pax has been accepted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tugg Wilson (June 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 DoubleGrazing 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:
For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage of him, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Currently no such source is cited.
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) 06:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point you make is valid. My research reveals only one reference outside of the Navy, apart from mentions of Tugg in virtually all on-line book shops, and that is the agency offering his artistic services after retiring from the RN, which doesn’t seem appropriate to quote. But I wonder if this is something frequently encountered with pages for professionals? Isn’t it the case that many are widely known within their spheres - perhaps scientists, physicians, musicians for example - but little known beyond? Focusing on the Navy, I looked for a Wikipedia Naval page where I might find a list of names including some that had their own pages and found this one: Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Aviation, Amphibious Capability & Carriers). I stopped checking after finding that four out of only about half a dozen had little or no references to any non-service sources: Michael Layard, Roger Dimmock, Desmond Cassidi and Richard Janvrin, In fact, the only sources one had were his promotion notices in the London Gazette. Is Tugg Wilson’s page so bad when compared with these pages? I am not suggesting that these pages should be questioned, but rather that Tugg’s page be reconsidered please. He was truly remarkable, entertaining over a million servicemen who served during the publication of his cartoons in the Navy News from 1954 until beyond his death in 2006 and using humour to contribute to the safety of air crews. I’ve not found it said about any other naval person that they had “done more for the morale of the modern Navy than any other individual”, as editorialised in the Navy News, or found any other royal accolades the like of that attributed to King Charles. May I respectfully request reconsideration of your rejection of this page. (With apologies for this verbose reply.) Scribes52 (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Richard Vernon Pugh (Royal Navy officer) (November 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AntientNestor 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 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 yet meet the standard of WP:BIO. Was his decoration for Gallantry? Why does The Times record his promotion to "Squadron Leader" on 1 July 1936?
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.
AntientNestor (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new references you have found are being presented as lists, but WP:PARAGRAPH recommends that these be rewritten as prose. I think the piece is nearly ready now but what's missing is detail of the incidents that gave rise to the decorations and more about his transfer to the RAF—how was he holding ranks in both services?--AntientNestor (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your message above crossed with mine addressed to your talk page. Your point about the page's present appearance as a list of events needing to be rewritten as prose is valid and I will set about doing that. Scribes52 (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Richard Vernon Pugh (Royal Navy officer) (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drmies 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:
The only difference I see from the previous version is a few links--but those London Gazette articles look like press releases from a government agency, and the dry factoids they report don't seem to add to notability. Permission to wear some Norwegian distinction--what does that mean? This is why we require independent secondary 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.
Drmies (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tugg Wilson (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces 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.
Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Richard Vernon Pugh (Royal Navy officer) (November 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 DoubleGrazing 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:
I don't know what sort of notability is being asserted, as there is no obvious claim of noteworthiness; this describes a person who existed and served in the military, including during wartime, with some success. If Wikipedia were a biographical database of the British military, this entry would probably be warranted, but Wikipedia is instead a global general encyclopaedia. In any case, the sources cited fall far short of the WP:GNG standard for notability (assuming it is general notability we're talking about here).
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) 10:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing, I have no barrel to push for this person - no relationship or particular interest. I created the draft because I found no mention of this officer among the hundreds listed in category "Royal Navy officers of World War II" and felt that there were many officers with pages in that list having far less reason for a page in Wikipedia and inclusion in that list than Captain Pugh. So I was addressing what I perceived to be an omission. I think I've exhausted my research options, so should probably just accept your rejection and learn from this experience. Thank you. Scribes52 (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, I decided to create a page for Captain Pugh after discovering that he did not appear among those in Category:Royal Navy officers of World War II yet seemed as remarkable as many already there and more-so than some. I believe that still to be true, but understand such a view may not be held by Wikipedia as sufficient justification for a new page, and consequently I am discouraged from ever attempting to remedy such perceived omissions in future. Lesson learnt. With Pugh though, I have ascertained why he held ranks concurrently in both the RAF and Royal Navy and provided links to the pages where that can be substantiated, and generally tidied the page, so will make a further attempt to have the draft accepted. Thank you. Scribes52 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Tugg Wilson has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tugg Wilson. Thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tugg Wilson has been accepted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tagishsimon (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon Thank you. Scribes52 (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Richard Vernon Pugh (Royal Navy officer) (November 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AntientNestor 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 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:
No change from previous, declined submission.
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.
AntientNestor (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AntientNestor, Do please have a look at the page for David Burnford. Arguably, he has less justification for his own page and inclusion in the category:Royal Navy officers of World War II than Captain Pugh and is one of quite a few similar examples. David Mumford's page would seem unlikely to pass your scrutiny if you applied the same criteria as to Captain Pugh. My researches haven't revealed the sort of results that would enable me to satisfy your requirement, but it would seem a pity to ditch what has been achieved when there are existing examples of lesser standard such as David Burnford's page. With my fingers burnt, there is no risk that I will be repeating this sort of apparently badly-perceived enhancement of Wikipedia. Scribes52 (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AntientNestor (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Charles Richard Vernon Pugh (Royal Navy officer)

Hello, Scribes52. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Charles Richard Vernon Pugh".

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 1 September 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) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]