Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1960s, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mad Men Timeline, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shaggydan. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "1960s".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1960s}}, paste it in the edit box at , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shaggydan. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Mad Men Timeline".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mad Men Timeline}}, paste it in the edit box at , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at List of fastest production cars by acceleration muddies the water. Now we have an unreleased, unverified time for a 2016 P100D using a combination of "cites" from a manufacturer press release to the verified time being for a 2015 P90D. I think people are in too much of a rush to get this in there. Achromatic (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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-1992 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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 11:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Character.ai. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Opolito (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly go fuck yourself. I changed this incorrect sentence: "Many characters are be based on fictional media sources" so the superfluous "be", which you put back, was removed. Unbeknownst to me, the code on this site is too poor to prevent a Chrome extension created by TV show Last Week Tonight 9 years ago to change one name on my screen to its original European spelling from making unintended alterations in sections I neither read nor edited on a page about a website that has nothing to do with the name yet had multiple occurrences of it in these unread sections. Your response appears to constitute dickery. Repeated dickery will result in users not correcting obvious errors so that Wikipedia enhances its long established reputation for lack of professionalism and authenticity. Shaggydan (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your edit. You take full responsibility for your editing whether "the dog ate my homework" or "a bad Chrome extension did it". Opolito (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You take responsibility for being a dick and following Wikipedia rules which, in this case, call for assuming good faith before making baseless accusations. Please read rules on suspected vandalism. Shaggydan (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "baseless" at all. Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone. Opolito (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaggydan, you need to configure that extension to ignore wikipedia.org pages or disable the extension before editing. Schazjmd (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this isn't a "Wikipedia's code" issue, or at least it's more sensible that it's an extension code issue--the way the extension works is probably that it looks for text anywhere on the page (including in text boxes) and substitutes it with other text. I had a Firefox extension at one point that did something similar (but with furigana for Japanese text). I did not realize it would apply in text boxes and happened to make a similar bad edit. Mine was reverted by me (or maybe never even made, I don't remember if I noticed during preview or after the fact) because I noticed quickly what I'd done, but the change would still have been "my" fault rather than Wikipedia's, even if I didn't mean to. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Shaggydan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Opolito (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaggydan, Civility is a core pillar of Wikipedia, not an optional extra. Cabayi (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The incivility is completely inappropriate, even if you feel like your edit was justified (which I cannot see how anyone could suggest that it is), it does not matter; blatant profanity directed at another editor will not be tolerated (WP:NPA), take your attitude someplace else, like social media, not here. TiggerJay (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Serial (speculates here) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Serial (speculates here) 15:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This thread was previously at the help desk. Departure– (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]