User talk:Saussure4661

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Matthias2gen, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} 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 username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 19)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.
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.
KylieTastic (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Matthias2gen! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Matthias2gen. 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 conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • 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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Matthias2gen/sandbox[edit]

Information icon Hello, Matthias2gen. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Matthias2gen/sandbox, 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) 13:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape[edit]

Hi @Matthias2gen, just so you know wikis and other self-published sources are not reliable, because anyone can update or change the information. I'm not opposed to some kind of mention about notable RS players (perhaps in the community section?) but it would need to be sourced to a more reliable place. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alyo that's a good idea. I'm surprised the guy is not brought up, nonetheless, I'm kind of using that as a temporary source. The section will evolve over time. Matthias2gen (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to find some sources first, or create a draft section on the talk page that we can work on? I say that just because an article like Runescape attracts a lot of trivia and in-game content, as you can imagine, so editors tend to be very proactive about removing it as soon as it's added. Like I said though, I'd be happy to help write a few lines if you want to start a discussion on the talk page? Alyo (chat·edits) 21:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo sure thing. Thanks for the suggestions! Matthias2gen (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo would a YouTube interview be considered reliable? Matthias2gen (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthias2gen It would not, unless the interview is with an organization that we already consider reliable. For example, in the space of video games specifically, these are outlets/websites that editors have agreed are reliable. Conversely, anything published by Jagex themselves, or any sort of fansite, would not be reliable because they either are there to promote themselves or don't have any sort of editorial oversight. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo No worries. Matthias2gen (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo https://loot4rs.com/blog/zezima-2021 this is a 3rd party "company" site. Maybe not reliable either.....I'll keep looking till I strike gold Matthias2gen (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's a wp:blog :-/ Now you see why there hasn't been a mention of Zezima in the article -- I'm not sure there are actually any good sources about him! Alyo (chat·edits) 04:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo pity:( thanks for guiding me Matthias2gen (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Saussure4661! Your additions to Structuralism have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa thank you very much for your feedback, as you can tell, I'm new, learning the ropes. Thanks for the pointers Saussure4661 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa, so of I summarise the idea behind all that I previously contributed, and cite the book I did earlier, is that considered the proper way to contribute here? Saussure4661 (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Summarize the content in your own words, and cite your source. Cheers, — Diannaa (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Saussure4661. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Unification Church, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Saussure4661 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond as to whether you have a conflict of interest with the Unification Church. signed, Rosguill talk 01:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill no Saussure4661 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
none at all Saussure4661 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reason you might not see other topics being edited is because my contributions have been rejected on the basis of lack of independent sources or improper paraphrasing. I've worked on Runscape and, Structuralism and both times my contributions were rejected. I'm getting that fixed and will soon be editing those pages once again. I have an interest in the Unification Church but I am not affiliated with them. Saussure4661 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you briefly describe and explain the edits you have made at International Conference on the Unity of Sciences and Unification Church? They give a strong impression that you are trying to promote the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 07:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill Sure, Unification Church page had some serious neutrality violations, so I was looking at WP:WORDS and learnt that words like "cult" and "controversial" are frowned upon there. On the section of what they actually think of Judaism is virtually non existant, so I did a bit of digging in and reading and was able to sort of put together what exactly their independant stance is. As for the ICUS page, I wanted to know more about the topic and liked what I found. At first, the only comprehensive source was their main page. I believed the topic was big and important enough to have its own page. out of naivety, I wanted to base it off the page not realising a little more is needed for citations and to make it my own work. The current edits are the result of further digging Saussure4661 (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you have persisted in adding PR-like summaries of conferences at the ICUS page, despite citing a WaPo source that devotes far more space in its reporting to controversy around the event, and the debate among academics regarding whether or not to go? signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill because I'm covering the conference. I'm just trying to get the facts, and not that interested in tabloid reporting. if you read the whole of the articles you will notice that there is both controversy and support, which I both left out as I don't think what people say is relevant but rather basic information on the event itself, I'm steering clear of inflammatory language in some articles and just extracting the essence to get the essential. the articles talk a lot about funding, which can be relegated to a section of its own and doesn't need to be sprinkled throughout the article, otherwise it will read as bias. if I want to write about Gary Glitter, a British TV celebrity accused of being a paedophile, I first look for all the information about his career, background, noted accomplishments. and then, because the more darker side of him has given him a bad rap, I would dedicate a section about allegations of paedophilia without having to resort to interject commonly accepted facts such as "controversial". WP:WORDS makes this very clear, "Use clear, direct language. Let facts alone do the talking". The debate on whether to attend or not is rather interesting because there are reports and an essay done on the topic and the "consensus" if you may was in favor of attending. the idea is to be neutral, unbiased, non contentious, etc. I can add the debate if you like, but I would always put that in a separate section on the same article. Saussure4661 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what I'm doing is just basic 5Ws What, where, why, when stuff. Saussure4661 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are expected to follow the emphasis of reliable sources per WP:DUE: reliable sources thus far focus overwhelmingly on the question of whether or not the scientific community should attend, not on descriptions of individual sessions, and the article should reflect this. If the balance among RS is that people should attend, that's fine and can be included, but we should not be cherrypicking sources like the WaPo article just for details about attendance counts. Meanwhile, sources like GlobalPRNewswire are neither independent or reliable, and should not be consulted for the article. signed, Rosguill talk 16:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill articles usually cover several points. like I said, or at least was trying to get at, the question on whether to attend or not will be put there at some point, I edit a little at time. But it's not the only thing it covers. Thus far I have extracted what is in the article. More will be added with time Saussure4661 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am expected to use reliable source, which I have, but I will review the other one you say is not reliable Saussure4661 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thise descriptions on individual sessions are from the article, they are not found anywhere else Saussure4661 (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill how do you tell if a source is reliable? just for my own reference going forward. Thanks Saussure4661 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS has general advice; you may also find Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) helpful for UC-related topics. If you're ever uncertain about a specific source, you can bring it to WP:RSN for discussion (WP:FRINGEN is another relevant noticeboard that would be applicable for UC-related topics, although its scope is a bit different than RSN, as it focuses on the difficult task of identifying the correct balance of sources for topics that outside the academic mainstream). WP:RSP has an archive of repeatedly-discussed sources for convenience, but it is not the be-all/end-all because reliability is ultimately based on context (discussed in more detail in the first link), and because it is obviously missing entries for many potential sources. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill Thanks Saussure4661 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill one question about citations. I don't get how sources get used when writing articles. When writing essays, you do some research, take a little bit from each and every source and you end up with something new. On Wikipedia, are you meant to paraphrase every idea of every paragraph on source? I've seen every sentence cite a source to link to one point that was taken from the entire source as part of an already edited paragraph, with the rest of the article not used. How does it work in practice? Thanks again Saussure4661 (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WP:DUE most directly addresses this question (at least off the top of my head): in practice it's a balancing act, which will vary from article to article (or even within the same article) depending on the sources available. Ideally, we start with high quality secondary sources that give an overview of the topic, which provides us with a framework for balancing the coverage of the rest of the article. This is part of why our general notability guideline is so much higher than simply proving something exists: if we don't have high-level coverage of a topic, it becomes impossible to figure out how to represent the various details and bits of information in tandem. It's also important to pay attention to how information is presented within one source: a single newspaper article or academic paper may include its own analysis, as well as analysis or quotes attributed to other sources--we need to be mindful of exactly who is making a claim when thinking about how to represent it on Wikipedia.
As far as the comparison to original essay writing, I think that most of your essay skills will still be applicable: you still want to be processing the information and reproducing it in your own words, it's just key to make sure that your final product does not claim or infer anything that wasn't in the original sources individually (see WP:SYNTH), and does not elide over anything that RS treat as a central aspect of the topic. At the same time, minor details, or information which the reliable sources attribute to less-reliable sources in their prose (e.g. quotes from a primary or biased source inside an RS) can be safely summarized, or if truly trivial, ignored. Finally, unlike in most essay-writing contexts, primary sources are to be used extremely sparingly on Wikipedia, essentially only allowed when a secondary source has called attention to them and they are needed for uncontroversial detail.
Ultimately, it's more art than science, which is why the talk page of pretty much any thorough article will be full of discussions negotiating these kinds of questions regarding the article's content. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Thanks again Saussure4661 (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Inflated ego[edit]

Notice

The article Inflated ego has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no clue what this is, but it sure isn't an encyclopedia article or anything remotely resembling an article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TOTT, I think it's a little too early propose this page for deletion. I was sent an article by a friend which delved into the topic of inflated ego. After a bit of search I found that it's different than other Ego related topic already covered. I have edited quite a few other pages before, I understand what is "relevant" here and what is not. I'm merely bringing in chunks of texts and quickly carving away to give it life. Another reason I'm not simply adding it under an existing article is because it would be too big, it needs it's own space. Please be patient. Saussure4661 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Inflated ego has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. I understand you're still relatively new here, though copying non-freely licensed text from external sources is not allowed on Wikipedia. Several other users have described this above, and they raise some very important points. If you're interested in writing an in-depth article, please do so in your own words, ideally with references to multiple unrelated sources to reduce the risk of close paraphrasing (doing so also makes a stronger case for satisfying notability guidelines). I'm happy to answer any specific questions you might have. Complex/Rational 22:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Saussure4661 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Serena Terry[edit]

Notice

The article Serena Terry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Promotional article. Mommy Banter might be notable, but this is not WP:INHERITED to the individual

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Serena Terry[edit]

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 Serena Terry, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle I would appreciate if I would be told where exactly I am screwing up Saussure4661 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this person is a local celebrity, has a wide international following and is the author of two books. I have no affiliation with her, never met her, I am not a fan of her. I am not even a native to her country, why is this perceived to be "unambiguous self promotion"? was it not paraphrased enough? Saussure4661 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Saussure. Unfortunately I can't see the article now, so I can't give any specific details. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Serena Terry has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Serena Terry. Thanks! Tails Wx 23:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Agave[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Agave, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution for splits[edit]

Hi there, when you split an article and move the text to a new article, it's important to specify in the edit summary at the new article not only that content was split, but to indicate (and wikilink) the original source of the text. For example: "Contents WP:SPLIT from The Fairly OddParents; please see its history for attribution." Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! When you say wikilink, is that just the internal article link? Also, does "Contents WP:SPLIT from The Fairly OddParents; please see its history for attribution." go to visual editing or source editing? I'm not great with Source editing so I use visual editor Saussure4661 (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an example of what you would put in the edit summary field, with either source or visual editor. Yes, by wikilink I mean writing like [[The Fairly OddParents]]; but just specifying the title of the original page is mainly the important part. Hope that makes sense. DanCherek (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does, thanks! I hope I got this right: split the article, then in the edit summary of the new article, add "Contents WP:SPLIT from The Fairly OddParents; please see its history for attribution." as an example, publish and done? Saussure4661 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

26–30 Railcard moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to 26–30 Railcard. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because See all the templates. Simply not ready for the mainspace.. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. Would you be able to give me a breakdown on the parameters? Thanks again Saussure4661 (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Unification Church. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Destination club. — Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa thanks for the heads up. need to paraphrase a bit better Saussure4661 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay to copy from public domain sources if you simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. — Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Serena Terry (June 9)[edit]

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 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 content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
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.
BuySomeApples (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Fairly OddParents (franchise)[edit]

Notice

The article The Fairly OddParents (franchise) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article had no reliable sources, no infobox and no perfect lead section. This article is poorly writing, use easy-to-know-that bad sources and don't link to much about the franchises outside the other media.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Serena Terry has been accepted[edit]

Serena Terry, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

PK650 (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most pleased to receive this news! Saussure4661 (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:26–30 Railcard[edit]

Information icon Hello, Saussure4661. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:26–30 Railcard, 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) 08:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:26–30 Railcard[edit]

Hello, Saussure4661. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "26–30 Railcard".

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 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz no worries. I don't think I could find any more info to add to it. Saussure4661 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Group work, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interplay. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saussure4661&oldid=1198158785"