Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
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 prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
An article you recently created, Holyhead Market Hall, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Loksmythe (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I was not aware that draftspace existed, thanks for pointing it out. I was going to go back after work to expand and reference the article and will do so but in draftspace :-) Sirhissofloxley (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Llyn Traffwll.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
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 will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houlton School 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.
Description says "A photo of MK Dons F.C. Women lining up against Watford F.C. Ladies at Stadium MK" but this appears to be a generic backyard as seen through a window.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Thank you for your contributions to Talk:Ronnie Woo Woo, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use your sandbox instead. Thank you. tyler magee • talk22:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I totally understand, as you don't. This is why a joke article like this shouldn't be on here. Grow up, I've been on here editing properly longer than you have and will be on her longer than you will, despite people like you trying to make it silly.
An article you recently created, Faraway Eyes, 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. ...discospinstertalk20:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii 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 films). 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:
There's one review in the references; to show notability, the article needs at least one more, ideally several.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Faraway Eyes and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Faraway Eyes, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Sirhissofloxley!
Having an article 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! Rusalkii (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sirhissofloxley! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
Hello, Sirhissofloxley. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Faraway Eyes, 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.
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Tara Bourne. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!01:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I first started editing on Wikipedia in Spring 2006. Everything was fine until I moved in to live with someone else in 2018 and he was a vandal. Everyone on here didn't understand that there could be two people in one property editing. So after 12 years of editing and creating articles (200 odd articles) I was kicked off because someone I lived with who I shared an address with was a vandal. No-one listened and could understand that two people live in one home. So, yes, I am jaded. I contribute A LOT on here compared to others and will continue to do so. Look at my actual edit record and what I've done rather than just picking on things you don't like. If you think I deserve banning then just do it. I'll just come back again under a new username and keep trying to make Wikipedia better and more accurate. Just because I think this site is broken and flawed doesn't mean I'll give up on it. Ever. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you currently the only person with access to your account? It's with this account that you are engaging in chronic incivility, and have now indicated your intention to further violate WP policy via WP:SOCK accounts.
Without knowing your former username, I cannot evaluate your earlier block. Admins regularly see invocation of the WP:LITTLEBROTHER defense. In absence of further evidence, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to my fellow admins, who are not belittling fellow Wikipedians and the site as a whole, and assume they used the tools we have at hand to confirm that they made the right call when they indef-blocked you.
So, yes, it seems you probably are evading an indef-block for edits others agreed were vandalism, and can be blocked now based on that. But even disregarding that, you are chronically incivil and can't seem to stop. When you make interacting with you a burden, when you disrupt and cause stress for editors who do not violate core policy, it outweighs any other contributions you may make here. - CorbieVreccan☊☼21:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I am not so stupid (I am a little stupid) as to not admit to being uncivil at times. BUT, here's an idea and I'll hope you take me up on it. Give me one last chance please here under my current name. Hopefully you do see that, vastly overall, I am committed to editing and improving and updating the site. As the guy who got me blocked said, why would I edit fine for 12 years and suddenly go silly and vandalise? I am willing to back down now and chill out and just be a vanilla editor and be nice. Truce and if I break it ban me? Sirhissofloxley (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not interested in bargaining. Your last block was temporary because I was giving you a chance to become civil. You wasted this chance and showed either an unwillingness or inability to change. Your record of insults, incivility, and vows to violate policy speaks for itself. If you want transparency, disclose your former username. - CorbieVreccan☊☼22:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Cls14. I was supposedly a sock puppet of James Bowes, the real name of my housemate. But I am sure you'll ban me anyway. So be done with it and I'll be back again. This site moans about a decreased number of editors and a lack of this and that. Perhaps because you are ridiculous bullies. The people I supposedly were uncivil to (as in my flatmate was) were banned or retired soon after. But don't let facts get in your way pal. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
