since you are the only other genuine contributor there wanted to check from you on your conclusion. The only sources are self published. I have a strong feeling that this article is a hoax, Wikipedia rules are strictly applied to [[WP:BLP]] and even if there was a one off chance that this person is indeed genuine royal and not a hoax, notability is not [[WP:NOTINHERITED]]. So please re consider your !vote. If you are still undecided on taking a stand, you can ignore my comment, cheers. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 16:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
since you are the only other genuine contributor there wanted to check from you on your conclusion. The only sources are self published. I have a strong feeling that this article is a hoax, Wikipedia rules are strictly applied to [[WP:BLP]] and even if there was a one off chance that this person is indeed genuine royal and not a hoax, notability is not [[WP:NOTINHERITED]]. So please re consider your !vote. If you are still undecided on taking a stand, you can ignore my comment, cheers. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 16:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:Zachary Santangelo]] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article '''[[:Zachary Santangelo]]''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].
The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Santangelo]] 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.<!-- Template:afd notice --> [[User talk:AniMate|AniMate]] 03:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
As I said, Breitbart is not recognized as a credible source. It also gave incorrect information. She was awarded a Pontifical Knighthood, being made a Dame Commander of the Order of St. Gregory and the award was not given to her in connection to her work for women's reproductive rights, but for her work as a government official. She happens to support abortion, which may have caused controversy, but that is not the same claim. If there is/was controversy regarding her award, this needs to be cited with credible references that are not from a political opinion and commentary website. As far as categories such as "Liberal theologians" and "Anti-Modernism" goes, those are orphaned categories. They are not connected to any other categories on Wikipedia. Furthermore, they are too vague. What is "liberal"? It has different definitions depending on the context, and who decides what a "liberal" theologian is? "Anti-Modernism" has the same issue. It's too vague. Is it Anti-Modernism in the Catholic Church? In Christianity? In visual art? In architecture? It's not specific and does not improve the quality of the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It did not say in the article that the medal was given to her because she was an a pro abortion activist, but that it was given to a pro abortion activist. I cited another source. DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lilianne Ploumen is a Dutch politician who has done activism work regarding women's reproductive health. She is not notable because of her activism. There was no mention as to why the award was given or who she is, other than a "abortion rights activist". This implies bias. Catholic News Agency is a reliable source, but you didn't use the article ([1]) to explain the backstory or the reason for the award, which would clarify the incident's supposed controversy:
"Responding to requests of clarification, Paloma Garcia-Ovejero, deputy director of the Holy See Press Office, said that “the honorific of the St. Gregory the Great Pontifical Order that Liliane Ploumen, then Minister for Development received in June 2017, during the visit of the Dutch Royals to the Holy Father, is part of the diplomatic praxis of the exchange of decorations among delegations during official visits between heads of state and government to the Vatican.”
It explains why/how such honours are given and that they are not endorsements and have no connection to any activism or pro-abortion policies Ploumen was behind. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You've been adding a lot of International Debutante Ball entries to articles where, as far as I can see, they have no place being. I've reverted the adds on articles that I was previously involved with, but thought I should ask you what your position was before I reviewed the others. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebenezer Lutheran Church (Greensboro, North Carolina) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ssт✈(discuss)14:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As was explained before on this article, you do not need to convert to be received into the Anglican church. You just turn up at the service and join in. It is not the same as more Catholic Christian denominations. DrKay (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, that is not the case. People can and do convert to the Anglican Church from other denominations, as seen by many categories established on wikipedia. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You have performed four reverts within 24 hours on a biography of a living person. DrKay (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Cozart-Coley House
Hello Willthacheerleader18,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Cozart-Coley House for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you for starting this article. I hope you don't mind, but I added the article to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2016/Results, which tracks new and improved LGBT-related content as part of an ongoing Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you create or improve other LGBT articles between now and the end of June, feel free to update this page with your contributions. Thanks again! ---Another Believer(Talk)00:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Order of the Dannebrog
Hello Willthacheerleader18,
I was wondering if you could help me figure out some particulars concerning the Danish honour system, Order of the Dannebrog. According to its Wikipedia page, the class "Grand Commander" is reserved to "persons of princely origin", namely "Royals with close family ties with the Danish Royal House." However, I've found a source for the Danish vice admiralA. H. Vedel that lists him as a "Knight Grand Commander." I have not found anything explaining such a title. Could you help me research this end? It's possible the the actually title Vedel held was simply lost in translation by the producer of the source. Thank you for hearing me out! Indy beetle (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hi there. I couldn't help but notice that you appear to be going through articles about US towns to see if they mention the name of the person they are named after, then you're adding the name to the infobox. The problem is, often the name listed in the article is unsourced, and could be incorrect. I reverted your edits to Hillsborough, North Carolina and Zebulon, North Carolina. Before continuing, could I suggest you go back and check all the edits you've made to be sure they are in fact correct and properly sourced? Thanks a lot. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The information I added to the infobox was already sourced in the article, but per your request I have copied the (already provided) links and used them again as references in the infobox. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!
Hello, Willthacheerleader18. 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.
Hi, I'm Robvanvee. Willthacheerleader18, thanks for creating Ballet Zürich!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It could use a few more footnotes in the history section. Otherwise nice work!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Robvanvee13:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you reverted my change to the infobox on the Delta Chi Xi page. The reason that I removed them is that an entry with a free label will not be properly displayed if there is not a label to go with it. So if a free_label value is added to indicate what those three things are, I'm just fine with it.Naraht (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
House of Cavendish
Hi I saw that you reverted my edit. The use of "House of" is exclusively reserved for Royal dynasties in English. I am in the middle of correcting a certain number of pages including the Cavendish family. Please read House of for more information. The term "House of" has unfortunately been made popular by the series game of Thrones. On my mother's side the family is descended from a certain number of aristocratic families and none use the term "House of". Once I have managed to move the Cavendish family page to its correct title I will correct this page. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indermaur, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tyrol and Mauer. 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.
Hi!
We are students writing an article on Tiler Peck as part of our class Academic Discourse and Writing at Tec de Monterrey.
Since you are an experienced Wikipedian and have interest in these kinds of topics, we would like you to know if you could take a few moments to take a look at the article and give us feedback. Thank you for your time. --Fernanda Nova Rodarte (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2017 (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barbo von Waxenstein (family), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sassona Norton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American. 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.
Hello Willthacheerleader18! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk)
For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.
RachelWex 19:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
WiR focus on music and dance in July
Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Regarding your recent edit at Greensboro massacre. Thought you might wish to see a discussion involving that subject. It took place on my Talk page, so it's unlikely you would know that it was being discussed.
Per your revert, stating that I "want to develop the idea that white juries inherently favor Nazis and the Klan" is a mistaken view on your part... just like I might be mistaken to say that you are attempting to whitewash the article. -Location (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good intentions on your part, which is why I said IF you wanted to develop that line of reasoning, it should be done in the body of the text. I do not assume good intentions on the part of the Chicago newspaper writer. He went out of his way to try to paint the jury decision (if not also the jury members) as racist. It is an inflammatory bit of writing. More yellow journalism than professional journalism. But you were only citing words from the article, which is quite fair in our world. But it does misrepresent the events. The "journalist" had only one reason to mention an all-white jury... to infer some form of racial prejudice. The article was rife with that innuendo, but came up short when it came to supporting facts. Both the jurors and the prosecutor who carried the case for the State support the contention that politics was the deciding factor. If you wanted to say that a Southern jury decided against communists, I think you would be on solid ground, with a good bit of supporting evidence. But all-white...? Why? Gulbenk (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I re-read the Chicago Tribune article more carefully and while I don't believe it to be be yellow journalism, it is clearly an opinion piece and you are correct that it should not be cited the way I placed it in the article. (I did not notice the first time about that it was in the "Perspective" section.) It looks like Charles Madigan, who typically does have a left-of-center POV, thought that the jury should have decided the case differently and he drew attention to the view that many blacks - in context with other contemporary cases - viewed the system of justice as racist. And you are correct that the unnamed author for The New York Times used described the jury that way without any context leaving the reader in infer something from innuendo. I imagine a lot could be written on the various POVs regarding the jury and the verdit (e.g. it does appear as though jury may have disliked communists more than any like or dislike for the Klan[2]). Anyway, my apologies. -Location (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I reverted your edits are 1)a very low level minor league hockey team's cheerleaders are not notable for the introduction (the team has not played yet, hence the lack of a body) and 2)your source is an dance class website that makes no mention of the cheer squad. The Thunderbirds' own website makes no mention of a cheer squad so I see no reason for it to be included here, even if you citation was better. (It would also be odd for as even most NHL/AHL/ECHL teams do not have a cheer team, they typically have "ice girls" which can be a dance team but often just come out at intermissions and sweep the ice and interact with fans.) I should also note that based on your edit content, region-based edits, and user name, if you have any affiliation with the organizations you are editing, you absolutely MUST read WP:COI. Yosemiter (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not contest your removel the second time, so I see no reason for this post. The website I used did indeed reference the team. However, I understand that it is not considered notable enough for an article. My username is from when I created this account over seven years ago. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usually if I remove info twice, I try to explain why per WP:BRD, so this post was as much for me as it was for you. The source/dance class website had one mention for the Thunderbirds, but as I said, there was nothing there about the squad. A news article or a team article about the cheerleaders would have been better. Yosemiter (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Naylor-Leyland until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Emma Thynn, Viscountess Weymouth) has been reviewed!
Hello, Willthacheerleader18. 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.
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello Willthacheerleader18: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lady Mary Charteris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Lady (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Riley until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Cssiitcic (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lady Kitty Spencer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Edwardx (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You probably saw that I remove the jimmyjazz.com reference as well due to reliability concerns. Looks like there are plenty of far better ones to draw from regardless. Thanks for your work. --Ronz (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that the replacement text in Transfeminine exactly(?) duplicates article Sex and gender distinction (which has been around in same form over a year), so methinks the IP was not "on the good side".
Also, plagiarism to or fro WP in ext page [3] and, apparently, several others (on balance, they are 'quoting' WP?)
I believe very little at first glance here. 'Vandalism' as a judgement cannot be just what meets the eye, but what the page histories and user contributions reveal. Useful side effect of checking out the user contributions is cleaning up all the other badnesses executed, when indeed they are vandals.
Do not edit my information again, I have done my research me and 49 others discussed adding that info. Im a lieutenant in local law enforcement in NC and have also done my own personal research. Thanks Mwhitley2x (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea to what you are referring. If it is about information in an article you have contributed to then I would suggest you include a link to it. I would also like to remind you that no article on Wikipedia "belongs" to anyone, so any information is not "yours". All editors on Wikipedia can contribute to any article. Your rank in local NC law enforcement is irrelevant. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went back and looked through my edits to find what you were referring to and realized you are upset because I reverted an edit you made on Figure Eight Island. The information you added to the article was not cited with any references. On Wikipedia, material that has no credible source can be removed at any time from an article. I highly doubt you consulted 49 individuals about adding one sentence to an article. And even if you had, you should provide a reference with proper citation. Policy stands with me on this. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kitty Spencer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
Hello friend, I hope you are fine. You are right to point out that few of these models and celebrities are linked to the Storm Model Management through reliable, third-party sources. So I have removed all of those who aren't. Please don’t add again without reliable and authoritative third-party sources. I know you will agree, because just above on this page, your talk page, you wrote to another editor: "The information you added to the article was not cited with any references. On Wikipedia, material that has no credible source can be removed at any time from an article." Thanks and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carl von In der Maur 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Willthacheerleader18. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Raleigh, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Raleigh 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. Onel5969TT me02:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
You reverted a challenged edit on Melania Trump. That violates the editing restrictions which state: "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." Please be careful and use the talk page to seek consensus for contested material. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 11:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Red Links
I will not stop creating the single Ligon Flynn Red Link in the Figure Eight Island article. Per WP:Red Link, there is no problem with having Red Links for articles that are either forthcoming or should be. Ligon Flynn actually happens to be a noted architect, with a distinctive architectural design imprint, a storied, award-winning career. A study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow, and keep articles from being orphaned from the start. So please stop stripping the Red Link from the article. Thanks. 842U (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for Edit-warring at Rachel Yeoh and Michelle Yeoh (socialite). The edit-warring was all the more unacceptable because you posted a warning about edit-warring to the other editor involved, making it clear both that you are aware of Wikipedia's edit-warring policy and that the dispute in which you were involved was an edit-war. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
I understand that engaging in an edit war is against Wikipedia policy and I will not do it again in the future. I was attempting to prevent another editor from continuously making disruptive edits, and on the two occasions I reached out to admins for help I did not receive any, including a request for third-party intervention because the situation was not "discussed on the article's talk page", due to the fact that the other editor refused to engage with me on the talk page despite my multiple requests. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which only deepened the disruption and made you also an edit warrior. It is not up to admins to step into every content dispute. You need to articulate the steps to take short of seeking an admin intervention.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Frame 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. TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antioch United Methodist Church (Roaring Gap, North Carolina) 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. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Baptist Church (Madison, North Carolina) 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. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Church of Christ, Scientist (Raleigh, North Carolina) 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. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillyer Memorial Christian Church (Raleigh, North Carolina) 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. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Greensboro, North Carolina) 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. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
deletion mania
imho, all 7 subjects just above are valid. Not merely my opinion; I ran careful WP:BEFORE searches and have added WP:RS to most of them. But I'm gonna have to make time to, you know, do stuff people actually pay me to do for the next few days, so I do hope that you will do whatever you see is necessary to bring them up to snuff. Cheers!E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
since you are the only other genuine contributor there wanted to check from you on your conclusion. The only sources are self published. I have a strong feeling that this article is a hoax, Wikipedia rules are strictly applied to WP:BLP and even if there was a one off chance that this person is indeed genuine royal and not a hoax, notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED. So please re consider your !vote. If you are still undecided on taking a stand, you can ignore my comment, cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ16:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Santangelo 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. AniMate03:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
