User talk:WakandaQT/archive

Alert

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-1932 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.

--▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 11:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Liz ^Read! Talk! 03:25, 30 September 2020 (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).

WakandaQT (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

user:Liz has reverted my edits regarding Chris Tarzan Wallace even though I have reliably sourced all the information I added. Chris stated in an interview that his middle name was Tarzan. It's weird, but it's true. I should not be blocked for telling the truth. WakandaQT (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Glen (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2020 (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.

• also the edit of User:Kaihsu was reverted by Liz who wrongly called it vandalism to remove the middle initial W. As I explained on Talk:Chris Tarzan Wallace, this was added April 2017 in special:diff/777627497 who provided absolutely no source for it. User:Liz please remove the unsourced middle name "W." and restore the reliably sourced middle name "Tarzan" per official policy here. WakandaQT (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Inks.LWC has agreed with me that W is unsubstantiated but despite this Liz added it back here again. Why is Liz adding this unsubstantiated info and censoring my legitimate sources added to his background? WakandaQT (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent 20 minutes cleaning up all of your vandalism. You're lucky that you didn't receive an indefinite block for all of the disruption you caused. Liz ^Read! Talk! 03:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me user:Liz but I don't deserve to be blocked at all for adding truthful information. This is not vandalism. You should add the source I referenced from Us Weekly where Wallace did an interview years ago as support for the "othername=" field in his template to read "Christopher Tarzan". Chris explicitly stated "My mom hated her middle name (Augusta), so she let me choose mine. I went by Christopher Tarzan for a while". Obviously he no longer goes by his middle initial (just shortening of first name) but there is no mention at all of him actually changing it to something other than Tarzan, so as best we can know his full name IS still Christopher Tarzan Wallace. Are you calling Chris Wallace a liar? WakandaQT (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that you can't run around Wikipedia, making drastic changes without consulting other editors. There are bold edits which are done thoughtfully and then there is disruption which is what you did. Liz ^Read! Talk! 03:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: it appears as punishment for protesting these actions at the log that fifteen minutes later you chose to extend the block from 31 hours to 48 hours. This is a chilling way of silencing criticism of admin abuse, to tack on 17 extra hours. It also appears you allegedly spent "thirty" (amended to "twenty") minutes "cleaning" this up, even though there's no feasible way it could take that long to undo my edits using mass revert tools: this is embellishing both the length of time you took to intercede as well as the gravity of the situation: "vandalism" is a false accusation because I am asserting my opinion of this being his proper name.

You not agreeing to want to display that proper name does not give grounds to revert it and falsely accuse me. If anything, removing truthful information from the article and adding back false information which I had removed, both things you did, more resembles vandalism. You also made a "drastic" change by removing information (his real middle name) and restoring fake information (his fake middle initial) without consulting anybody. I actually DID consult someone: you can see in special:diff/981069102 that User:Kaihsu concurred with me about W. being fake so I removed it. I consulted an interview Chris Wallace did before adding this information. Further consultation should not be necessary unless we have some source out there claiming Tarzan is NOT his middle name, which I have not seen. If that exists then we would have to decide which source to trust, but that dilemma is not upon us today. You disrupted the truth, I disrupted a lie. Wikipedia is about disrupting lies. WakandaQT (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to drop my two cents here, but I think it is clear you knew you were making a controversial edit, and instead of consulting the talk page, you proceeded to even change the page name which is way past WP:COMMONNAME. If I were you I'd wait till the block's over, then open a talk page inquiry. Admanny (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Admanny I wouldn't have done the move if he was the only notable Chris Wallace but there's like a dozen other ones and I don't see why he's always got prime billing over an accomplished scientist, for example. Using his middle name allowed me to point CW at the disambig where it belonged. There is absolutely nothing at all controversial about listing his name was "Christopher Tarzan" because Chris said so himself in an interview. He never tried to cover it up, so why is there a coverup happening here? WakandaQT (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More cents: shenanigans involving this particular WP:BLP on the night of Chris Wallace § First presidential debate (2020) seem rather like a breach of the post-1932 US politics discretionary sanctions I alerted you to above and Liz is showing great clemency and speaking truthfully that you will be fortunate to come out of this without an indefinite block. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 04:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Struthious Bandersnatch: obviously when people are in the limelight is when we go to read up on them, and happen to notice things like mysterious middle initials. The "shenanigans" began, if you'll note, with me correcting an oversight on that article that has stood the past 3 years: the use of the middle initial W added by some random editor without a source which nobody bothered to remove.

How exactly is it violating a sanction to highlight what a debate moderator said was his chosen middle name in an interview? That should definitely be listed in the template as an alias. This has nothing at all to do with his character, just a note about what he chose to be his middle name as a boy.

In all likelihood we eventually find out he changed it to something other than Tarzan, sure, but the best way to do that is to keep Tarzan up because then he'll become aware of the need and correct the record in coming Sundays.

Another interesting thing to note, besides the mention at https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/chris-wallace-25-things-you-dont-know-about-me-w445527/ is the day "25 things" was released, Samantha Bee did a parody of it on her Full Frontal with Samantha Bee blog at https://medium.com/@fullfrontalsamb/61-more-things-you-didnt-know-about-chris-wallace-9f775f0ee022 in "61 more things" where Bee adds "But now I go by Christopher Jigglypuff Pinkie Pie Wallace." to the end. Obviously I would not add THAT to the article since Bee's joke is not as notable as the actual name Wallace affirms he chose for himself, presumably based on Burroughs' character. WakandaQT (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glen

@Glen: per the first bullet, I am arguing the ban is not necessary to prevent disruption.

Even if I were convinced this were necessary, I definitely don't 100% understand what it's for because ALL my edits were reverted and called vandalism, and I refuse to believe every single one of my contributions was vandalism.

If it was just doing the page move without permission because Liz thinks Chris Wallace should remain the primary article title for Christopher Tarzan Wallace, that's fine and I agree not to move the page again.

If there are more issues and promises I need to make then I want user:Liz to explain that more clearly. WakandaQT (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Shyamala Gopalan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. An assertion of lifelong citizenship requires a watertight source. We cannot wing it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Evening, please take a look at WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH and see why I reverted your changes to the draft page for Bobulinski. When a reliable source covers his donations we can add them otherwise it looks like we are doing the investigative journalism (which is a no-no). Koncorde (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy.com is generally not a reliable source for such observations, and it's unclear what the inclusion criteria is for the information. You can reply to me here and I will see it btw. Koncorde (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy appears to be right in this case though as the non-partisan group Center for Responsive Politics confirms it. The notability of donations isn't necessarily that he stands out as a donator in and of itself, but that it shows a history of supporting the Democratic Party. This has been highlighted by National Review and Fox News and Breitbart articles as well. Regardless of whatever Wikipedia's collective opinion is of the ongoing reliability of claims made on those website, that they have all highlighted this shows it is a point of significance. The blackout we see in other media outlets says more about them than whether or not it should be included here. WakandaQT (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how reliable sourcing works (we don't hope they are right this time), or WP:WEIGHT works. In particular the relevance of who (i.e. the specific people) he donated to 5 years ago is unclear, and the amounts indicate very little. People donate to candidates all the time. So what is the relevance of his donations disconnected from the text in the quotes? Why do we focus on that element of the reports, which amount to less than a sentence in Newsweek, a summary of donations in Heavy (amidst a lot of other information not included because it's equally irrelevant), a passing comment in NationalReview, and two sentences in Fox? It doesn't seem much of a point of significance. Koncorde (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to "hope" the sources are reliable, because even if you dispute that Fox should be trusted about giving an accurate donation history, CPR backs it up with public records.

The relevance is made clear in the sources: it's being used to make the argument that he's historically pro-democrat and so shouldn't be dismissed on the assumption he's anti-democrat, like they're doing with the blind laptop guy.

The amounts listed would be a LOT for me, but yeah it might be a small drop for a wealthy man. I'm not really sure how wealthy Bobalinski is supposed to be, that's something I don't remember hearing about.

There's lots of info in Newsweek / Heavy which could be relevant to also include in the article. My focus on the donations is simply because I like to begin constructing articles chronologically, and really this is about the only thing in his background with a specific date that comes to mind. WakandaQT (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order of sequence:

1. We don't use public records by searching ourselves. If a reliable source refers to public records and provides a summary, then we use them. If an unreliable source refers to public records and provides a summary, we don't use them. In effect we need the reliable source.
2. So if that is the context of why they are being presented, (not sure it is) why are we quoting without the context? It has to be said that Newsweek and Fox do not appear to be making that argument. While NR is making the assertion that it is unlikely he is part of a "Russian cabal" because of some donations (which is their opinion) and should be attributed to NR - but our article is not making that claim in any case.
3. His relative wealth is irrelevant as it's subjective. If someone in an RS was to observe this was "above average" or "in the top 10%" or similar then maybe it carries some weight for a bio.
4. The problem is the vast majority of the content is irrelevant to his notability. We could include lots of information, but his long term notability needs to be established first. Koncorde (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images § rfc 9AD241B

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images § rfc 9AD241B. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Georgia Floyd" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Georgia Floyd. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 2#Georgia Floyd until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Savanna News moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Savanna News, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Most importantly, it needs sources which go into the service in-depth, in order to show notability. 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 14:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: BLPs

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

December 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you edit disruptively, as you did at Talk:Killing of George Floyd. Please stop with the bludgeoning, nitpicking, argumentative editing. Your talk page is one long list of warnings. You are quite likely to be indeffed if you don't stop this behavior. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really sugest you stop now. read wp:talk and start to make substative sugestions for improvments, and not jsut musings.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

responding to your question about the warnings for disruptiveness at Talk:Killing of George Floyd

WakandaQT, you opened FIVE sections on the same talk page within a couple of hours. All five sections were full of long rambling questions rather than specific suggestions for improving that article, which btw is an article that is six months old and has 6 archives. Some of the sections were mere repeats of the long rambling questions you posted in other sections. Editors watching that page -- which right now is 471 editors -- all had all your posts come across their watchlists multiple times. As many as 196 may have visited the talk page to check to see if something needed to be done, which it didn't.

Can you figure out why all this is disruptive? Because if you can't, please edit somewhere less contentious while you learn a little more about how talk pages work. I'd recommend reading WP:TALK. —valereee (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

replied to V's talk. WakandaQT (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.For responding with Your off-topic intimidation actually seems to be aimed to disrupt valid inquiry. when asked to stop being disruptive at this contentious talk page —valereee (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that people can issue warnings about assuming bad faith without clarifying who I was assuming bad faith in? This makes it a challenge to review which editor(s) I may owe an apology to. Diffs should be mandatory for these warnings TBH. WakandaQT (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted you, but here's the diff: Special:Diff/995093214. —valereee (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems WakandaQT may owe you an apology. A real one, though. Nothing I've seen indicates the disruption of valid inquiry is one of your aims. Your warnings do sometimes come across (to me) as a bit off-topic and intimidating, but that's more to do with confusing situations and your admin status, not your personal intent, I legit assume. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InedibleHulk, meh, no apology necessary. All I really want is for WQT to think really hard about whether contentious articles are the best place to learn how to edit WP. (Hint: the answer is almost always no.) And thank you for the vote of confidence. I certainly never want to intentionally disrupt valid inquiry, even if I think it's ultimately wrongheaded. :D —valereee (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious articles are good places to discover what it is that makes some articles contentious in the first place. Until that's apparent, a lot of well-meaning newbs are going to keep getting sucked into current events articles they swear seem incomplete and slanted, then suddenly chased away by highly-trained security tigers. Like in that James Dean flick North Korea doesn't want anyone remembering correctly. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's been in a similar pickle, I know it could be tempting to defend your statement, semantically. You said "seems to be", implying this is your opinion, based on your own experience. I get it, it feels intimidating to be outnumbered by people of different experience who respond to your admittedly less-than-direct requests with expressions of confusion rather than invitations to clarify. I know it's frustrating to see things the majority don't, can't or won't.

But you cannot achieve consensus alone. Not through appealing to logic, emotion, authority or anything. Your plight is objectively doomed, untill and unless you have the numerical advantage. Maybe the news will sway public opinion toward the middle around March, maybe a bigger picture will be feasible then, maybe not. As long as these issues are commonly considered divisive, the dissenters will remain outnumbered and will continue to try in vain, always digging their individual holes deeper, regardless of unique personal intent.

At least, that's my cynically educated prediction. Whether you put any faith in it is your choice, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ashli Babbitt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashli Babbitt 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/Ashli Babbitt 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.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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-1932 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taggart

When you move pages, like Taggart, please be mindful of the number of wikilinks that you are breaking. Leschnei (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wrote this before realizing that there is already a disambiguation page at Taggart (disambiguation). I have started a discussion on the subject at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Taggart and Taggart (disambiguation). Leschnei (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Keller Taggart moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jesse Keller Taggart, is not suitable as written to remain published. It is not yet clear whether this will be of continuing encyclopedic interest, and therefore meet the requirements of WP:NOT NEWS. . 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 you have references to show the persisting interest, and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. If it seems that such references will not be forthcoming for a while, consider moving it to a subpage in your userspace. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Earle Sullivan

The article John Earle Sullivan has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Daiyusha (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Earle Sullivan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Earle Sullivan 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/John Earle Sullivan 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.

Salix alba (talk): 20:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Earle Sullivan

Your attempts at citing his tweets only seem to be for highlighting him as violent and seems to highlighting tweets which are about racial justice protests over shooting of minorities and not really related to the Capitol. His tweets have also condemned plans by far-right to storm the Capitol and incitement, while exposing them and calling for a march to stop it but it never seems to have materialised (https://twitter.com/realjaydenx/status/1345163679453622272), (https://twitter.com/realjaydenx/status/1346626169777627141), (https://twitter.com/realjaydenx/status/1346285219993825281), (https://twitter.com/realjaydenx/status/1344863671357480963). Please don't pick and choose what should be added about him to show his character as it is clearly non-neutral. Only report what has been covered in the news. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of One Angry Gamer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One Angry Gamer 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/One Angry Gamer 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.

czar 20:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

It’s amazing that you can confidently say that Hillary Clinton is not a murderer. Wake up. You’ve been played, hard. Clurrthefurr (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theory

Hello, WakandaQT. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theory, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theory (February 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: 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:Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theory 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:Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theory, 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WakandaQT! 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Aintcha" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Aintcha. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Aintcha until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hectomillionaires has been nominated for deletion

Category:Hectomillionaires 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. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Berkeley Institute International

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Berkeley Institute International, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your article to draft space: Draft:Berkeley Institute International Please don't move it to article space; wait for a review by more experienced users. Deb (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The article was tagged for speedy deletion and I moved it to draft because I didn't think it was a clear-cut case. It's better for newish editors to wait a while before creating new articles because they will always be given more scrutiny than very experienced editors. Personally, I am a little dubious about the notability of the organisation. Even if it passes review, there is no guarantee that it won't be put up for a deletion discussion and I'm not convinced it would pass. That would make things worse as it would then be much harder to recreate it. I would suggest you concentrate on making a clear claim of notability in the draft. Deb (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC}

Concern regarding Draft:Savanna News

Hello, WakandaQT. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Savanna News, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Jesse Keller Taggart

Hello, WakandaQT. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jesse Keller Taggart, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Berkeley Institute International

Hello, WakandaQT. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Berkeley Institute International, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Xiden

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Xiden requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. JamesG5 (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]