User talk:Absolutely Certainly

KylieTastic (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2022 (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 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Absolutely Certainly/sandbox 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 User:Absolutely Certainly/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Absolutely Certainly! 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) 22:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to making contributions here and was just testing the way Wikipedia works. I want to request its deletion according to the instructions above (add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text) but when I got to my sandbox there is no indication of where the draft begins and ends. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted your sandbox for you. You don't need to know where the draft starts and finishes, adding {{Db-g7}} to the page will do. Nthep (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add {{Db-g7}} anywhere on the page?

anywhere Absolutely Certainly (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere, but at the top is the normal. Nthep (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 10:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
221		Egg drop soup (talk)	Add sources
52		Scientific Atlanta (talk)	Add sources
290		Gretsch (talk)	Add sources
108		Jack's (talk)	Add sources
5,281		Kensington Palace (talk)	Add sources
67		History of the hamburger in the United States (talk)	Add sources
116		Chutney music (talk)	Cleanup
266		Afghan cuisine (talk)	Cleanup
1,936		Fast food (talk)	Cleanup
1,734		Wendy's (talk)	Expand
289		Windward Islands (talk)	Expand
14		Christmas tree production in Canada (talk)	Expand
4,135		Bermuda (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
433		Russian cuisine (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
52		Okinawa soba (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
920		Housekeeping (talk)	Merge
8		National Council for Science and the Environment (talk)	Merge
21		General Directorate for National Security (talk)	Merge
67		Malaysian Indian cuisine (talk)	Wikify
20,460		Tableau Software (talk)	Wikify
53		Hōtō (talk)	Wikify
3		Fresh Healthy Vending (talk)	Orphan
7		Good Job, Brain! (talk)	Orphan
2		Apede (talk)	Orphan
17		Zafra (agriculture) (talk)	Stub
10		Fabes con almejas (talk)	Stub
40		Mom's Touch (talk)	Stub
5		Dominique Morrison (talk)	Stub
9		Maxime, McDuff & McDo (talk)	Stub
84		Rip It (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Singularity42. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing experimental. Applying the Wikipedia's MOS: " There are cases in which titles should not be in italics nor in quotation marks (though many are capitalized): Legal or constitutional documents:

temporary restraining order, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Bill of Rights". Does Wikipedia adhere to their MOS rules? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Please consult

MOS:CANLAW. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict)

1. First, you didn't just remove the italics in this edit. You removed the bolding from article's title in the lede, which is standard in Wikipedia's MOS. You also changed the word "Charter" to "CharCommand Piloter" for some reason. So yes, it needed to be reverted.
2. Someone added a reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at
   WP:CANLAW and see if there is a new consensus. Singularity42 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]

For what it's worth, I have now removed the reference to the Charter from

MOS:CANLAW. Singularity42 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

First, I made a copy paste error for "CharCommand Piloter". No mention of "italics" at

WP:CANLAW. Please explain? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

For what it is worth, what are the "Canadian practises for citing legislation"? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From

MOS:CANLAW: In Canada, per the McGill Guide, Act titles are italicized.. It's the McGill Guide that says how Canadian legislation and cases are displayed. Singularity42 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Still don't see it. Try an written explanation of your viewpoint with references, Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. This is enough of a time sink and I'm not citing references to you. I've tried enough good faith but I have now literally quoted the sentence from the policy guide. If you can't find it, do a control-F search on that page for the sentence. Multiple editors have now told you to stop. So please stop. Singularity42 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The McGill guide? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith is a route to any proposition. Good faith to you. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you italicize the name of acts?

Do not italicize short forms such as "the Act" or "the Charter": The Act defines environment as including land, water and air; organic and inorganic matter; living organisms; and natural systems. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is too weird Absolutely Certainly (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Absolutely Certainly! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Singularity42, I noticed you ignored my rhetorical questions. Your impulse to ignore questions that make your disagreement unjustified are understandable but not justifiable. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Soul, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ark of the Covenant seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding the word "claim" and its variations into articles to attempt to question the source. Your edit summary reworded to remove unverified claims is inaccurate. The fact that the Book of Hebrews says this is not an unverified claim, it does in fact say this. That's all the article says, that the information about the Ark is in the Book of Hebrews, and it is, that's not an unverified claim. - Aoidh (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What it "says" is am unverified claim. Encyclopaedias are about verifiable claims. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote above again. The Book of Hebrews absolutely does say what the article says it does, that's a verifiable statement of fact. The article's wording makes no judgement to the veracity of the statements in the Book of Hebrews, all it does it state that the information is in said book. Nothing about that is unverified. It should be very obvious now that your changes are controversial, please read

WP:BRD and discuss what you would like changed on the article's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The book makes a claim. I understand that you are afraid to admit it is only s claim. In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're moving the goalposts. The article makes no unverified claim, despite what you claimed. The book says what it says. The article states that the book says what it says. There is nothing unverified in the article about this. If you think there is a problem with this, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page explaining why you think it should be changed, and if your logic is as sound as you think, and you can provide sources supporting what you're saying, getting a

WP:BRD where we need to stop editing and discuss the changes now that we know there's a disagreement. - Aoidh (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The book makes unverified claims. I am waiting for your evidence of the claims. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to wait, but you are owed no explanation, as it's outside of the scope of what is being discussed. - Aoidh (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely within the scope of an encyclopaedia. The inability to provide an explanation for removing the context that I added to clarify unconfirmed accounts is not fact driven. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why make such a blatantly inaccurate statement? When you say there's been no explanation as to why you've been reverted, you need to understand that an explanation was given. Several times in fact, both on talk pages[1][2][3] and within the edit summares.[4][5] I honestly do not know what you're trying to do here with statements like that, but it's not helping your case nor is it convincing anyone that your edits should be pushed through into the article. Where's the logic in that, then? What are you accomplishing? Just arguing for the sake of arguing? I highly advise you have a good read through Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, and more importantly to stop making comments like whatever this was supposed to be, because this isn't a debate team and that comment had absolutely nothing to do the article content being discussed. - Aoidh (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=All my edits were clear and concise. Each edit I made removed unwarranted claims, and asked for verification. Consensus should be based on evidence, not popularity. Encyclopaedia?~~~~}} Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you go a bit easy at Ark_of_the_Covenant? You might notice that almost every edit you have made there has been reverted, by multiple different editors. This is a clear indication that your editing is going against the consensus viewpoint. You should definitely stop and engage in discussion at the talk-page. Many thanks! Elemimele (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ark of the Covenant shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Aoidh (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am engaged in a factual dispute. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suggest you read

WP:3RR. Being "engaged in a factual dispute" is not a reason to edit-war, and continuing to do so will lead to you being blocked. - Aoidh (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The talk page. The best practice at any stage for an encyclopaedia is for the "consensus among editors" be based on factual evidence, not stories. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on your tenure, here. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Cheerios. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocking me from editing articles for addressing issues of logic and facts on an encyclopaedic Website? Consensus among Wikipedia editors sounds a lot like the "appeal to popularity" fallacy. Stories transmitted from word to mouth have been proved many times over as unreliable. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storytelling often involves improvisation or embellishment. Stories or narratives have been shared in every culture as a means of entertainment, education, cultural preservation and in order to instill moral values. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.- FlightTime (open channel) 00:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual for an encyclopaedia to publish claims without evidence, disclaimers are intended to differentiate between claims and facts I will try my best to keep Wikipedia reporting the facts based on evidence. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for one month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Your behavior at Ark of the Covenant is unacceptable. The article does not make the case that the Ark is real and actually existed. Wikipedia has many articles about topics that some people believe are real and other people believe are false legends. This is normal. When we describe such topics, it is correct to cite primary sources (such as the Bible) to establish what the foundational primary sources say. Such citations do not amount to the Wikipedia article saying that the claim is true. Perhaps some tweaking of the wording in the article is appropriate. But that editing should be done with a scalpel instead of a machete. This is a collaborative project and to date, you are a confrontational editor instead of a collaborative editor. So, spend your one month break from editing pondering what collaboration and consensus actually mean. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus. Among scientists? An exhaustive list of scientists is necessary to demonstrate a consensus. A consensus of Wikipedia editors is not very useful. unless they provide citations of their peer reviewed studies.

Your use of your talk page while blocked is for the purpose of asking for clarification of your block if needed and formulating a persuasive unblock request. It is not for continuing to engage in tendentious, strawman arguments. That's disruptive editing]] which is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 202od 2 (UTC)

Please read

Dispute resolution available, some of which draw in uninvolved editors. The bottom line is that editing against consensus is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hi Absolutely Certainly, I hope you don't mind a word from me aimed at helping you avoid similar problems when you are unblocked. I notice at Talk:Ark of the Covenant you spoke of "The circular argument by providing the bible as a source for using the bible." The bible is the definitive source for identifying what the bible says (which is acceptable usage), but it is not a valid source for verifying the truth of anything the bible says (which would be unacceptable usage). Understanding the distinction is crucial if you wish to stay out of trouble in this topic area. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it helps, think of it like the Daily Mail. WP doesn't actually trust the Daily Mail as a reliable source on anything, but nevertheless, if what they reported turns out to be important, we can safely write "The Daily Mail reported that..." without making any assertion about whether what they reported is fact or fiction. The bible is exactly analogous. We are merely reporting what it says. The situation at Ark of the Covenant was that the Ark is something described by the bible, and that has considerable religious and cultural importance, which is why we have the article. It may or may not have existed in reality, and the bible's descriptions may be accurate or exaggerated, but since archaeology is thin on the subject, we are writing about it primarily as a bible story (the bulk of that article is under the heading "Biblical account"), rather than a physical thing that you could go and see in a museum. Again, this isn't so very different from situations such as Gandalf, who is quite definitely fictional, but nevertheless our article writes "Gandalf has great power, but works mostly by encouraging and persuading" without feeling obliged to add that Gandalf of course had no real power because he didn't exist; this is understood from the fact we're writing about a Lord-of-the-Rings story, just as when we write about the Ark of the Covenant, we are writing about a bible story. Actually, it is easier to remain neutral by merely sticking to the facts (that the bible says something) rather than trying to enter into the discussion of whether something is true. If you wished to do this, in my view, the appropriate thing would be to add a separate section to the article, for example "historical authenticity of the Ark of the Covenant", and then write a summary of what reliable secondary sources have said about it, from archaeology and history. I hope this makes sense? Elemimele (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  )How many different versions are there of Lord of the Rings? I only know of one. How many versions of the bible? A few hundred according to Wikipedia. References to, or citations from biblical sources need to be specific for an encyclopaedia to be a unique verifiable version. (King James,NIV, etc.) Let us all make this an encyclopedia of facts and avoid preaching here. Neutral tone? Factually based. Logically based. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, indeed, there are numerous versions of the bible, and their origins, developments and histories have been studied academically. And that's what Wikipedia should reflect. But here's what I don't understand... you appear to be arguing as if Wikipedia portrays the bible as true. If Wikipedia did that (or portrayed any religious text as true), I would be in full agreement with you. But I can see nowhere that Wikipedia suggests the bible (or any version of it) is true. Nowhere. There's certainly nowhere in the Ark of the Covenent article where I can see Wikipedia lending any support to any claimed truth of it. But, if you find any article which you think contains any truth claim for anything religious, and you are reverted when you try to change it, what you need to do is start a discussion on the article talk page and seek consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree completely. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Oh indeed" (lol, a necessary wiki adjective) I am arguing that the article is not encyclopaedic. Biased towards a certain point of view. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it helps, you can question the Daily Mail reporter. Can you questions the bible stories of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc. Encyclopaedia. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Absolutely Certainly! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Reference templates, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi Absolutely Certainly! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Heinz Tomato Ketchup and Wikilinkswikilinks to cities and countries, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello! You seem to have an interest in the recent death of

Not particularly. A saw an easy way to add real facts to an article. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
24		Samih Darwazah (talk)	Add sources
337		Lateralization of brain function (talk)	Add sources
495		Soca music (talk)	Add sources
679		Crêpe (talk)	Add sources
75		Sugar shack (talk)	Add sources
9		Memorial Stadium (St. John's) (talk)	Add sources
3,628		Hamburger (talk)	Cleanup
5,167		Bermuda (talk)	Cleanup
66		Crossing-the-bridge noodles (talk)	Cleanup
7,588		Belize (talk)	Expand
16,506		Sarah, Duchess of York (talk)	Expand
205		Intense pulsed light (talk)	Expand
2,760		Penny Marshall (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
346		Roti canai (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
886		Determinism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,600		Ice cream (talk)	Merge
804		Housekeeping (talk)	Merge
256		Homemaking (talk)	Merge
71		Malaysian Indian cuisine (talk)	Wikify
40		Hōtō (talk)	Wikify
230		Roy Rogers Restaurants (talk)	Wikify
3		Stark Spirits Distillery (talk)	Orphan
6		Fresh Healthy Vending (talk)	Orphan
6		Good Job, Brain! (talk)	Orphan
53		Czernina (talk)	Stub
25		Exploratory surgery (talk)	Stub
9		Holing cane (talk)	Stub
35		Spinach soup (talk)	Stub
31		Bourdeto (talk)	Stub
277		GarfieldEats (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Absolutely Certainly. Unfortunately a {{ping}} I made is not working. Normally Wikipedia would tell you I replied to you but that is not working. I Talk:Maple syrup#Merge dupe refs have replied to you on that page. Invasive Spices (talk) 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely Certainly (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Certainly (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Absolutely Certainly/Suggestions Absolutely Certainly (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
47		Pongamia oil (talk)	Add sources
145		China–United Kingdom relations (talk)	Add sources
47		Brown stew chicken (talk)	Add sources
461		Ciabatta (talk)	Add sources
1,412		Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten (talk)	Add sources
15		Cantonese seafood soup (talk)	Add sources
339		Hot and sour soup (talk)	Cleanup
727		Ragtime (talk)	Cleanup
122		Grill'd (talk)	Cleanup
811		Bubba Wallace (talk)	Expand
254		Afghan cuisine (talk)	Expand
5		Christmas tree production in Canada (talk)	Expand
630		Hip replacement (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
425		Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
316		International availability of McDonald's products (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
709		Pressure measurement (talk)	Merge
11		talk )	Merge
1		Fateless Records (talk )	Merge
104		Winchell's Donuts (talk)	Wikify
42		Indo-Belizeans (talk)	Wikify
91		Bagel Bites (talk)	Wikify
1		Banata Tchale Sow (talk)	Orphan
4		Amtelco (talk)	Orphan
2		AURORA trial (talk)	Orphan
40		Catherine Bennett (journalist) (talk)	Stub
200		Melba toast (talk)	Stub
49		Chester's (talk)	Stub
73		Cozido à portuguesa (talk)	Stub
12		Jack M. Greenberg (talk)	Stub
136		Ambev (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]