Nuvola apps important.svgWait! If I tagged your image for deletion, read this page before posting here!Nuvola apps important.svg
Are you here because your article was speedily deleted? Click here before leaving any message.

1. If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply here unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
2. For image deletion notices please talk to me here but please read the above notice first.
3. When I start discussion on your talk page I will watch your talk page for a while and continue to discuss that topic there. Thanks.

Featured article removal candidates
History of the board game Monopoly Review it now
Battle of Shiloh Review it now
DNA repair Review it now
Macintosh Classic Review it now
Photon Review it now
2005 Atlantic hurricane season Review it now
Boshin War Review it now

Disambiguation link notification for April 11Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baltinglass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


What are your thoughts on working with me to get the USPS wiki up to par and getting it more organized? I am a letter carrier for the USPS so I have a lot of access to things with them. Galendalia (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia:: Thanks for asking but I do not have sufficient interest or time in significantly improving the article. While you probably have better knowledge about the workings of USPS, you need to remember anything you add must be sourced to published reliable sources, so personal insider knowledge that is not available from sources cannot be used. For instance you added a comment about putting mail in letter boxes, but that was lacking a source. This was not good enough because, even though that sentence has a source, that existing source did not verify what you added. It required a source of its own and with a later edit you did add a published source which is how it should be. Part of that initial edit was commentary which we don not do in articles; we use a source. Also please do not add redlinks for topics that do not exist, unless you are actively going to write them. You can always add a link when such an article is created. Unless you know something we don't, the 1773 date does not seem to be verified, especially per this source. Basically any statement that might be questioned and is not common knowledge should have an inline cited source. Because the article is bout the USPS, using their own sources are not independent and should be used sparingly: instead use other third-party sources where possible. As you are a new editor, I'm just trying to give you some guidance you so don't take offense by anything I say. I suggest you work slowly and make sure you especially follow the 3 topics I linked in my welcome note on your talk page: Verifiability, Citing sources and No original research. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I am working on the 1773. If you look at it shows it actually started in 1773 even though he wasn't appointed until 1775. I am aware that if it is not public knowledge, I cannot use it (I signed my name in blood like a thousand times to that); The redlink I will fix. I am not sure what you mean by commentary, as it is published and I will link to the actual law for it. Thanks for the info. Galendalia (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

USPS works of fictionEdit

Hey I’m wondering why you need citations when the movie/show is shown and linked in the article with an explanation as to what the reference to the USPS was in that work? That would seem like duplicate work to me. Galendalia (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Galendalia: Because trivia like that should be cited even when linked to their article. Very often those articles do not even have citations for the prose used in the USPS article or even mention some of what is written. It's good practice and otherwise it is really not verifiable. ww2censor (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

editing Luciano Micallef PageEdit

Hi. This is Angie Balzan. Quick note to say thank you for fine tuning the page I created for Luciano Micallef. Once I saw your adjustments I realised exactly where I was incorrect. Thank youAngie Balzan (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Jô Fernandes.jpgEdit

Hello. I sent another email to OTRS with the specific statement of permission as requested. --Horcoff (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Horcoff: as I already told Razzladazzla, the OTRS discussion takes place in the privacy of the OTRS system. There is no need to post here just because I added a ticket number to a file page. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)