NotQualified

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Tacklebox (July 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were: 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 Tacklebox 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, NotQualified! Having an article draft 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! Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Douglas Gore has been accepted

Stephen Douglas Gore, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cabrils (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Tacklebox

Hello, NotQualified. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Tacklebox, 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) 18:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Tacklebox

Hello, NotQualified. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Tacklebox".

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!} 17:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Android Studio

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Android Studio, 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) 01:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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.

Schazjmd (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Pitt also dated Shalane McCall when he was 24 and she was 15 who co-starred with him on the show Dallas. When asked about his favourite sex scene in W magazine's Best Performances issue, Pitt said 'it would have been in the show Dallas [with McCall]. I had to roll around in the hay in a barn. I don't think I had a line. I was just rolling and frolicking.'

is the above fair to be added to Pitt's page? are the sources good? NotQualified (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Please compare your sources to the table at WP:RSPS. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

alright just did, they arent good so i'll have to find others if this is true. thanks NotQualified (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Formatting references

I noticed that you tend to add bare URLs as references. You might find https://citer.toolforge.org/ helpful; you just enter the URL, ISBN, or DOI, and it will format a wikipedia-style reference for you. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you NotQualified (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Stephen Douglas Gore

Hi. I started a discussion about an article that you wrote. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you, i guess you felt the need to audit my stuff. beyond that is everything okay? NotQualified (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of an attack page

A page you created has been deleted as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

what why? NotQualified (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

i definitely did not 'attack' or 'threaten', and 'disparage'? i sourced everything i said which can be fiund in the articles, i didnt add my opinions NotQualified (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ted Cruz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democrat. 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) 18:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages

I replied to you on my Talk page, where you asked me a question. Did you receive an email alerting you that I had replied there? Or is it necessary to reply on your Talk page for you to receive an email alerting you? Thanks.

In case you were not alerted, this is what I wrote:

you deleted my lincoln edits and i just want clarification if the info itself is afoul or something else NotQualified (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In which article? I don't see it in Abraham Lincoln. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

sorry shouldve been more clear, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Abraham_Lincoln NotQualified (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not include the four footnotes. I don't understand how they got there.Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

those are references for a brad pitt edit i made months ago??? NotQualified (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I am confused. First of all, I did not receive an email telling me that you had replied on your Talk page; I checked myself. Can you explain when emails are sent and when they are not?

Second, is there a connection between your brad pitt edits and your lincoln edits? I've never visited Brad Pitt's Wikipedia page, and I still don't know what lincoln edits you referred to. Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

when i opened your message i received four random links to my brad pitt edit and you mentioned four footnotes, i was deeply confused myself and im not really sure whats going on right now NotQualified (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) NotQualified, your edit to Assassination of Abraham Lincoln was removed by Shearonink, not Maurice Magnus. Shearonik explained why in the edit summary: Not an improvement for the lead section/in infobox attack on Grant didn't fail - it never happened/sentence in lead was too long,had too many clauses. Also, if you want to notify another editor when making a comment, use WP:PING. Schazjmd (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

i mustve clicked on the wrong user profile then? i read that summary but it wasnt clear enough if the info as a whole was wrong or just wrongly placed NotQualified (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The automated portion of the edit summary explains that Shearonink was restoring the version by Maurice Magnus. Anyway, when you've been reverted, the best thing to do is start a discussion on the talk page to get input from other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political capital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Bush.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Great Replacement. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 08:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

you dismissed the inclusion of a critical piece of info on the grounds of your only personal views being "the sort of people who believe in that stuff would find another excuse for xenophobic conspiracy theories". it frankly does not matter how deplorable a view is, and i feel the Russell's teapot quota has been fulfilled where it was up to you to re-clarify your stance rather than say i failed to assume good faith. again, it appeared you rejected the inclusion of critical info on the grounds you didnt like it. maybe i interpreted wrong, in which case apologies. but a conspiracy theory about being demographically replaced not including figures relevant to that seems, well... biased... sorry if my tone is harsh, just sorta tired. i think we can talk there and re-clarify stances as we're both acting in good faith however. NotQualified (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You are confused. I haven't even posted in that thread. I am referring to your responses to User:Hob Galding. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Hob Gadling Doug Weller talk 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually prefer it when I am mispeled, since that means I am not summoned to places where I do not need to be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Lol Masterhatch (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

apologies, i was confused sorry! NotQualified (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Great Replacement, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

my source was fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. review the telegraph yourself. the content discussed in which is literally the allegations in detail, with only a semantic difference. i would like if you didnt mind to edit what i wrote in Peter Mandelson as i feel i didnt provide enough detail from the article to make what i said not sound like a non-sequitur. also, how does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources operate when a reliable source sources an unreliable source, do i take it as good and assume they fact-checked the claim or? NotQualified (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Again you seem confused and I have no idea what you are talking about. I removed text that said "a clear reference to the plantations of Ireland under British rule which still scars the Irish psyche." with no citation. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

oh, i feel like this falls under common sense but fair enough...? NotQualified (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi NotQualified! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Great Replacement that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Your unsourced text was clearly not a minor edit by our definition. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

was unaware of just minor typos only, appreciated NotQualified (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit to Peter Mandelson was in part unsourced/part OR

Here[1] you wrote: "In 2013, Mandelson told the Blairite think-tank Progress: ‘In 2004, as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them.’ This was the first ever admission from a high-ranking Labour member that Labour intentionally dismantled immigration control in order to replace working class voters who had turned to the Tory party. This example is often used as proof of a wider Great Replacement Theory across Europe by right-wing groups." The first sentence after the quote is original research interpreting the quote, the second is of course unsourced. This is yet another example of your editing about this issue. I'm going to give you a contentious topics alerts for post 1992 American Politics as you don't seem to have received one, although the article itself mentions it. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

i will look into this. thank you. about 1992 american politics, mandelson is a british politican so i am unsure why this affects american politics. please clarify. NotQualified (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Of courses, but the purpose of your edit was to talk about the replacement conspiracy theory. and that is under sanction. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

the last edits i made related to post 1992 amercian politics was to obama adding he attended jury duty? prior i believe was mentioning obamomics is a portmanteau ages ago. are you referring to british politics? NotQualified (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

i will get solid sources. i feel the CT alert is overkill, especially as ive shown you personally sources i had but didnt know if were reliable, i definitely did jump the gun in writing and i shouldve just linked the source in the article, even if unreliable, as where i received the info but again, thank you. for other wikipedians, i try to follow the rules and if i screw up it's never malice. apologies and thanks.NotQualified (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope, it's standard, everyone who edits in the area should have one unless they've been involved in a WP:AE discussion or given someone else one. And your focus is mainly on one issue within the topic area, you should have had one earlier. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

im confused, what exactly is the CT alert for? NotQualified (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You edited Great Replacement and that's covered by the alert area. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

CT alert for post-1992 American politics

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. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

thanks NotQualified (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)