Hello, Thederekjohnson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Basically nearly all the sources are by him or jsut listings. Include reviews of his writings or otherwise how he meets WP:AUTHOR. Use the talkpage of the draft to discuss

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:Ed Rush (speaker) 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:Ed Rush (speaker), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thederekjohnson! 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! Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Draft:Ed Rush (author), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Do not move drafts before they are accepted. » Shadowowl | talk 11:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thederekjohnson. I have returned this to draftspace as it does not establish notability against WP:ACTOR or WP:AUTHOR (or WP:NFOOTY, or really WP:NCOLLATH). Would you please read WP:COI and WP:PAID before editing further and make any necessary declarations if applicable. For WP:AUTHOR to apply, there would need to be significant critical coverage of his works in independent reliable sources. Some of the guidelines at WP:CORP are broadly applicable to public speakers (particularly with respect to sourcing). If you move it back to mainspace without showing notability, it'll be heading to Articles for deletion. The same applies to Draft:Ed Rush (author). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft reads as if it was written to publicize the subject's career and works, rather than to describe him neutrally. It is about what he says about himself (which is true), rather than what third parties, such as critics, have said.

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:Ed Rush (author) 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:Ed Rush (author), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating True Tamplin, Thederekjohnson!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your new article on True Tamplin, but note that some other editors have pointed out problems with the article that could lead to significant downsizing or even deletion by the community. The article needs less promotion and much more information (if any) on Tamplin getting noticed by independent media sources.

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have reviewed your contributions to True Tamplin article and would like to warn you about a potential conflict of interest related to it. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID). Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.

I've reported your edits to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Please be prepared to explain your edits. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article True Tamplin 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/True Tamplin 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. Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the question around a potential WP:COI. Just a brief response, but you said that "the Wikipedia community, by and large, do not help nor welcome new contributors attempting to join the community by making quality edits and pages."

• The problem appears to be that you have not taken the time to understand what makes edits and pages quality. Wikipedia has clear notability guidelines that should be followed. We also have an process by which you can submit a draft for review and receive feedback before it is published in the main encyclopedia which is a much better process for a new editor to use, whereas you circumvented this by moving the True Tamplin article yourself without waiting for review.
• On sources, you said you had included "well-cited content" but as the edit summaries state, user-generated content like IMDb is not an acceptable source; and the LA Times articles were about Tamplin's school sporting achievements, which do not in any way support his notability as an author or actor.
• Wikipedia also works by consensus, so editors are expected to work with one another, particularly by using talk pages to interact. You will find that people are willing to work with you here, but not if you don't engage or appear to be listening to the policies they are pointing you to by responding here on your talk page or on an article talk page.
• I would encourage you not to give up, but to slow down, make sure you have read and understood the policies you have been pointed to, ask questions and use talk pages to engage with other editors, and stick with the review process of AFC for the other draft you have written and hopefully that will be a different experience. People have given you feedback on potential problems with it, so now it is over you to work on improving it.

Cheers, Melcous (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thederekjohnson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ed Rush".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a different, lighter note, you asked for adoption. I can adopt you if you would like, but it seems like you'd just like some advice for starters. To help me help you, can you answer a few questions?

1. What existing pages would you like to edit?
2. What new pages would you like to create?
3. Why did you decide to start editing?

Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CaptainEek: It's great to hear back from you. Hope the weekend treated you well. You are accurate in your inclination to think that I am not sure about adoption at this stage, but certainly out to seek some advice in my stage of learning. So let me get on to answering your questions.

1. I am currently looking to eventually edit the page for an Orange County based Philanthropist that I know of, but do not know personally. I have reason to believe that his wiki is covered in a cruel, unfair manner and truly paints a less that accurate photo of them. If it is necessary for me to share the name, I will do so.
2. That is a great question. I would start with creating a page for an individual that is a traveling public speaker that lacks a wiki page. Also, a musician that plays within a popular American pop band that also lacks his own page. This is just the start. I haven't yet given my imagination full bandwidth at all opportunities that I could pursue.
3. A friend of mine encouraged me to learn the ways of Wikipedia and understand how the wealth of knowledge on this platform is aggregated, maintained and monitored. I think that if I can effectively learn to create and edit pages that real people get to interact with and learn from, it will not be a skillset gone to waste.

I do hope these suffice as proper responses to your original questions. Thank you for giving me the pedestal to voice my heart behind my endeavor.

// On a sidenote, how should one handle the situation that unfolded above? I have gone ahead and removed that users contribution to my Talk page, but I was curious to see what standard and best practices might be in those instances? Thederekjohnson (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thederekjohnson, Then I'm happy to offer some advice.

1. If you could link the page, that would help. I can try to point you in the right direction on how to cleanup the article.

2. Starting pages from scratch is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It all comes down to notability. As a baseline, an article ought meet the general notability guideline, which says that subjects require significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. It is this step that is the hardest, and that the most people mess up. There are specific notability criteria for certain categories, such as for people, for academics, for places, etc. If sources do not exist, a subject is just not notable. Before creating a new page, always make sure it doesn't already exist :)

3. We're glad to have you here! Editing Wikipedia certainly teaches you how to better understand what is reliable on the internet, and is also very useful to the world at large.

If you ever have questions, you can drop them on my talk page, or ask at the friendly Teahouse.

In terms of the situation above, that's a most unusual case. Since its your talkpage, you are free to remove comments. In this case, me and some other experienced editors tried to counsel the editor that posted that, but they would not listen, and they ended up blocked. Unfortunately, some editors are more interested in vandalism and causing trouble than they are in contributing, but we have systems in place to deal with that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

//

Hello again, @CaptainEek:

Thanks for your very thorough and informative response.

Of course. Here is the link to the page in question.

On that note of new pages and the question of Notability, do you say that creating pages from scratch is difficult in that way solely based on the notability factor or the sheer leg work to be done within the platform necessary to create the page?

Thanks! Thederekjohnson (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thederekjohnson, In terms of improving Ahmonson's article: you may find some resistance to making changes, as it looks like a controversial page. Make sure that any change is well sourced with a reliable and independent citation. Explain every edit with a concise edit summary. And be willing to engage with editors who revert or disagree with you. When an editor undoes you, don't undo them right back. Instead, take to the article's talk page and discuss with the editor. Oftentimes there is a simple concern that can easily be fixed. If not, there are many forms of dispute resoloution available.

Notability is the biggest problem when making new articles. It goes hand in hand with having good sourcing. If you can find a notable topic, and good sources, any other issues that arise can easily be dealt with. Finding a good topic is harder than you'd think though. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

//

@CaptainEek:,

Thank you, once again, for your insight and guidance.

I understand why there might be some resistance in any effort to make edits to this page that stick. I hope to gain substantial credibility to the topic of the personhood of this page by implementing information and assets that the current page lacks. Which leads me to a specific question I had for you:

In the process of uploading an image to Wikimedia Commons, what is the copyright classification for an image that was given directly from the author with explicit authorization to be used in cases such as these? Based up on my research with the Wikimedia protocols, I only see coverage for the usage of imagery that currently exists online and resides behind a copyright classification.

Let me know if you need me to further elaborate on my question.

Thanks, Thederekjohnson (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thederekjohnson, To upload an image onto commons that is not yours, but you have permission to use, you need to have the copyright holder email Wikimedia (follow the steps here) the permission. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

// Hello @CaptainEek:,

I was able to follow your instructions from your previous post successfully! Many thanks.

Oddly enough, I was scouring a wiki article tonight and came across a reference that had a major error in the URL attached. Based upon the associate subject matter, the reference was meant to include a URL with a ".com" TLD but the error in this field resulted in a URL for a pornographic site.

I obviously went in and made the edit, made blatant note of it in the associated Talk page, but I was curious to see if there's any other protocol around this? I thought this instance might weigh heavier considering the product of this error.

Thanks, Thederekjohnson (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thederekjohnson, If a page has an error, fixing it is good. If there is a spam URL, and it was clearly added to spam that page, you could leave a note on the adding user's talk page to ask why they added it. Otherwise, such URL's generally don't need to be called out in any particular way, just fixed or removed. Persistently added links can be added to the spam blacklist however. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

//

@CaptainEek: I understand. I do not believe this URL was added with ill intent, but an honest mistake considering the fact the domain was the same, with the exception of the TLD. This helps. I was curious to see if there was any further protocol to be followed in this case.

Thank you once again!

Thederekjohnson (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

//

Hello @CaptainEek:,

I have a quick question for you: When looking to adjust a wiki article that has been spun with a negative bias, can you use entries within the "TALK" page as justification for making changes? My wording of that concept might be a tad unclear. For instance, if a page has been written with a particular bias and corresponding editor(s) of that page has indicated bias in contributions within the talk page, can that be grounds to remove and reframe the content of an article?

Interested to to find if there is any opportunity here... Thederekjohnson (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thederekjohnson, If you mean undoing content based on percieved bias of editors? No. But, if editors have pointed out biased things, and come to a consensus that they're biased, you can go ahead and fix based off of that talk page conversation. If you mean to gauge how biased folks were in conversation, and undo their edits, thats a very bad idea. Seemingly biased editors may add neutral content, and seemingly neutral editors may add biased content. And remember, its about the content, not the contributor. If thats not what you meant, do clarify, as I might have misunderstood. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

//

@CaptainEek: I believe you certainly understood the question. Is there ever a proper instance, regardless of bias, to effectively remove the edits of another contributor?

Thederekjohnson (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thederekjohnson, Well, edits should be removed if they are improper, regardless of contributor. If a contributor has been blocked, but most of their edits are good, then no reason to undo the good edits. If someone's edits were subpar, but not bad, then improve them. Thats the spirit of Wikipedia! "Bad" edits are gonna be things like vandalism, personal attacks, WP:BLP violations, that sort of nonsense. POV edits can be dealt with usually by amending the edit to read neutrally. Wikipedia isn't a battlefield or a zero sum game, everyone's edits add up to create something pretty cool. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

It has been a long time since we have spoken to each other. How have you been getting on? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, The Media Project (organization), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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} 11:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by BuySomeApples were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Religion Unplugged (online publication) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BuySomeApples (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Carpimaps were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

no edits made

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Religion Unplugged (online publication) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 16:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not resubmit drafts without making improvements. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 16:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Submitted without improvement after being moved from main space.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Media Project (organization) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thederekjohnson. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Religion Unplugged (online publication), 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thederekjohnson. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Media Project (organization), 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thederekjohnson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Media Project".

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]