Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity was:
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 User:LegendaryChristopher/sandbox 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.
Hello, LegendaryChristopher!
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! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 August 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 Gusfriend was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject
independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid
when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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:Battle of Kodema 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.
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. LizRead!Talk! 21:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Landslide victories
Hello, in response to this edit – please note that other entries on an article being unsourced doesn't justify the inclusion of more unsourced content. All that does is make the article worse, when really we should be making it better. If there is unsourced content already there, it should really be removed rather than be used to add even more unsourced content. That said, the other entries I can see are in fact sourced in their individual articles, which the most recent Argentine election isn't. For further info please see
WP:V. Thanks. — Czello(music) 11:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, 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
Ctopics/aware}} template. Prolog (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
General sanctions
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This includes the recent edits made. Mellk (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My recent edits were made to provide current information regarding the article I edited in. It wasn't an attempt to be disruptive or a troll. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to sanction me I don't really care tbh. It's ridiculous that I'm making changes with the reality of what is happening but it gets rejected because a consensus where any changes I propose is going to be rejected because of personal biasness needs to occur. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RFC
Comments in RFC's go in the section marked comments. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the above, are you auto-confirmed? Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is restricted to extended-confirmed editors (500 edits, 30 days of account age).
The restriction also applies to internal project discussions about the topic, and it does also even apply to filing arbitration case requests against other editors in this area. It may be enforced by reverting contributions and blocking editors.
The community portal and the Task Center contain helpful ideas for continuing to edit in areas unaffected by the restriction.
I already say that I understand that but the point I was trying to make in my request was that both editors have shown signs of being biased towards one side in the conflict which is a violationof Wiki guidelines. Hence the reason why I put the case name as neutrality of editors as their neutrality was questionable because of their edits and statements made in articles and talk pages related to the war in Ukraine LegendaryChristopher (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but whether other editors in this area are currently editing in a biased or neutral way is currently – as long as you are not
extended-confirmed – neither for you to decide nor to discuss on Wikipedia. And while I understand that you wanted to explain the situation, even your message here (23:40, 3 January 2024) is incompatible with the restriction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@LegendaryChristopher. Based on the comment by ToBeFree above, you should not make such edits [1], [2]. Please do not. This is against
My very best wishes I understand, and I will not make anymore edits because only a privileged few who have an agenda are allowed to make edits and decide what can and can't be edit. I sincerely hope Elon Musk buys Wikipedia like he purposes and cleans it up like he did with Twitter.
Bro, please shut the hell up. You guys don't care about rules you just care about controlling the narrative. Russia is winning and Ukraine is losing, deal with it. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every single one of your edits ever since the ARC report have been talk page comments with pointy and indirect remarks about me and the other two editors you reported [3][4][5]. Comments include statements like bias accusations, that these users need to be "talked to their senses", that they're censoring other editors, that they're "privileged". You have adopted a
WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality from the very start for no particular reason and are alienating editors into different camps. This is not a constructive attitude and does not contribute to consensus-building towards your preferred outcome or towards any. I will report you unless you end this behaviour. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I wasn't talking about you even though you have been bias. Unlike other editors I'm not making accusations, I'm stating facts. I have proof of other editors being bias towards one side in the conflict. I understand you editors aren't use to someone pushing back but I not going to allowed some of these editors to decide to push their agenda on others especially if it's against the reality of what is really happening. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]