User talk:The Capitalist forever

Hello, The Capitalist forever, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Bakersfield, California seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to

You have recently edited a page related to

contentious

. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Doug Weller talk 19:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them 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 19:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to abortion. This is a standard message to inform you that abortion 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 19:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just think people should know the difference between right and wrong, that's all. Sorry if I caused any sort of trouble. The Capitalist forever (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us do. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Genesis creation narrative are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Genesis creation narrative for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The teahouse's website is on lockdown because of vandalism, and I have a question. Do you need visual editor to easily put on a reference or photo, and also, I have 12 notifications, but I am not sure where they are from, and I can't mark as read. The Capitalist forever (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That will expire in 12 hours. There's also the WP:Help desk where you can ask. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!The Capitalist forever (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Wind Wolves Preserve, you may be blocked from editing. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 22:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshi24517, please help me, I had only ment to put two edits about the animals there and I did not know I deleted anything nor did I intend to do such a stupid thing. I spent getting those edits and if I had known I was deleting something, I would have just stopped altogether.

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Genesis creation narrative for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what ideas to post anyway, since if you change something to what you know it might be controversial. Anyway it doesn't seem when it comes to creation the Bible is taken literally.

Could you pls read over Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors#Your safety and security matters. Moxy- 02:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, I read the guidelines over. Those rules are stuff I do in daily life. Thanks! Glad to be apart of the editors.

I've reverted your posts to the above Talk page. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to express your political views. Your userpage already violates

I will try to stop debating very much. The Capitalist forever (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed another post you made to the Trump Talk page. You're treading on thin ice. I suggest you find something else to do on Wikipedia that is constructive--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why others can tell their suggestions, but I can't say anything. I'll stop making comments on ways to improve articles if that is what you like. sorry.

You can discuss sources, wording, layout, policies and guidelines that apply to the article (with specific comments on how they apply to content or sources), etc. But you can't discuss the subject itself as you could on a web forum of some sort. This is an encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand. I was just concerned with the possible NPOV violations.The Capitalist forever (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Calling attention to your very young age on the internet is almost never a good idea. I often get attacked for being old, but I am old enough to take it. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Cullen328.I understand. I mainly decided to start editing as an expirience for a future job or just plain knowledge, but it's alot harder than it looks. I'll try my best to leave controversial topics alone for now. The Capitalist forever (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This is just for information, I don't want to debate it. Criticism of the Bible#The Bible and science. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks.Interesting article.The Capitalist forever (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s more of a sidenote, but considering your post on the Genesis account, you might want to read Christopher Columbus#Geographical considerations and myth of the flat Earth.

"The Earth is a sphere" was known since Eratosthenes, 1500 years before Columbus. There was never any significant doubt about it among European scholars in the Middle Ages or in the Renaissance. (Whether the Earth orbits around the Sun or the other way around is a different matter.) Columbus swindled funding off the Spanish monarchs (after trying and failing to do that with the Portuguese) by claiming the distance between the Canary Islands and China was about one-fourth what it really was (and less than half the most optimistic estimate known at the time). Instead of dying of hunger somewhere in the middle of a giant Atlantic-Pacific ocean and being forgotten, he found America on the way and the rest is history.

The (incorrect) belief that medieval scholars disputed the Earth's sphericity comes from the late 18th / early 19th century. Funnily enough, it was pushed by advocates from the conflict thesis at the height of the debates about Darwinian evolution. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your edits were reverted for lack of referencing or flawed reference format. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Early on, I found that working on a ref in my own Sandbox, and only copying it into an article when it was correct, was a good practice. David notMD (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DavindnotMD!

See

I see you have but don’t understand it. We aren’t even. We don’t try to show the benefits of racism for instance. Or try to balance claims that evolution is false with the science. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller,are you talking about my Donald trump suggestion or our differences in beliefs on creation/evolution?The Capitalist forever (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, I get it.The Capitalist forever (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DougWeller, is it true that Fox News is not considered a relevant source on Wikipedia?

I presume you mean reliable source. It's being discussed:

WP:RSN#RfC: downgrade Fox News for politics?

I see you are trying to "ping" me. You need to do {{ping|Doug Weller}}. And please sign posts with 4 tildes, ~~~~.

Oh, I understand. Thanks!The Capitalist forever (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should read this. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please stop posting stuff to talk pages as you did a little while ago. We are trying to be patient with you but if you continue, well, we might have to stop you which would be a shame. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DougWeller: Sorry I never knew that that message was deleted. I was only trying to respond Padillah about how Moses is the author of Genesis because he said "we don't have any clue who the author is". Also he said that the entire book of Genesis should be considered mythological,and that's the reason why I put the other stuff on it. Anyway, I will stay away that talk page as well.Sorry again. The Capitalist forever (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Padillah was talking about the source which discussed that, you were arguing about the author. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Moses as the author of Genesis, we have an article on the Composition of the Torah which you might find interesting. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh ok. Thanks!The Capitalist forever (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In mainstream history Jews/Hebrews/Israelites did not exist in 1500 BC. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu:, are Jacob and Joseph considered Israelites? Abraham recieved his promise from God of a great nation of his descendants around 2200-2000 B.C. Joseph (all dates mentioned are according to Ussher's chronology) Joseph died at age 110 around 1800-1700 B.C. The Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt in or around 1573 B.C, and the Exodus trip began in 1491 B.C. The conquest of Caanan began around 1450 B.C. The number of people who left Egypt may have numbered a total of 2 million. Joseph's family when he arrived to Egypt numbered 70 people. From that amount of people it took around 400 years to get to the number where it was when they decided they had had enough of Egypt.^[1] Well I don't like the mainstream history because they never view the bible literally. It seems like a joke they like to study during their free time, depending on a scholars beliefs. The Capitalist forever (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham lived in the 3rd or in the 2nd millennium BCE, that mileage varies with a thousand years only counting major archaeologists who believed he existed. W.F. Albright: 22nd-20th centuries BCE. Benjamin Mazar: 11th century BCE.^[2][3] tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu:, I've never even heard of the guy on that website you sent me. Thanks for the info, butI don't know if he realizes that not things in archealogy are recoverable and things can also rot away.The Capitalist forever (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" was his mantra since before you were born. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Tgeorgescu: Interesting. Do you think there are any parts in the Bible that prove to be true, or do you see as just an old writing?The Capitalist forever (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some parts of the Bible which are historical, but not bereft of propaganda and ideological bias. But the Bible is mainly a work of

mythology

, or better said, mythologized history.

The problem with your arguments: there are people who argue that the

WP:THETRUTH. Or the Bhagavad Gita. Or whatever other holy book. While the Wikipedia Community cannot say that either religion is true. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Tgeorgescu:, do you agree with the messages of the bible like love your enemies, be kind and patient .etc? For instance, do you think it is a good guide that might help a person's actions?The Bible was before the Koran, and Muhammad said that the bible gospel misinterpreted the accounts of Jesus and also about who the prophets really were and all that. I know that alot of Christians always argue with other religious people of a different religion, but I think Jesus would like us to be more kind and patient when talking on controversial things about religion to other people of other religions. The Capitalist forever (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't "Wikipedia, the Christian Encyclopedia". That would be Conservapedia or https://orthodoxwiki.org . And yup, we have some articles about the historical Jesus and the historicity of Jesus which angry many atheists. So, Wikipedia isn't "Wikipedia, the Atheist Encyclopedia" either. We simply do not pander to any sect or denomination, including Christianity and atheism. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu:, I was asking about your views.The Capitalist forever (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Christianity has good stuff and also bad stuff. But my own views are not germane to editing Wikipedia. I can very well distinguish between my own views and the mainstream academic view.

Understanding that your religion is one of many and your holy book is one of many is not difficult. Of course, I'm not asking you to change your religion, just to understand that Wikipedia cannot work with the assumption that your religion is true, or that your holy book is true. Since religions are many, and the assumption that those are all true is called Blavatskyan Theosophy. Christian preachers will generally say that BT is a heresy. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu:, nowadays, heresy is usually not an accusation, since I am Protestant. Early Roman Catholics were the only ones who actually took it to the extreme. I do notice that Christians are the most bold in risking their lives to tell people about Jesus. On average in Islamic State countries, China, and North Korea, every day 12 total people who are Christians sharing their faith are killed. If you are a Christian in North Korea, it is a death sentence. President Kim Jong Hu has about 70,000 Christians in his concentration camps and many get arrested for simply handing out a Bible. Please read this Forbes article, it's not long. ^[4] The Capitalist forever (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvin has burned Michael Servetus at stake. The Catholic Church had by no means a monopoly upon Inquisition. And burning Servetus was technically illegal, since the law of the land stipulated that he should be merely extradited. So, the Protestants did not dismantle the Inquisition, but simply used it against their own enemies. Calvin was bloodthirsty and generally speaking (in so far he had real power) more tyrannical than the Catholic Church. As a non-citizen, Calvin did not have much formal power, but he was clearly the brain of theocracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu:, The catholics burned John Huss at the stake for encouraging forms of Protestantism. They dug up John Wycliffe's body after he had been dead for at least 15 years and burned his remains because he made the Bible available to commoners. They set up an Inquisition and gave people money who accused other people of heresy. The trial after the accusation was set up and family members, friends, and normal people were forced to admit the accused had done something wrong. The "trial" usually ended with scourging and a strong warning for a first time offender, or excommunication or the stake for a multiple time offender. These actions were "done in the name of Christ", but catholics in those did not realize that Jesus meant that salvation was supposed to be a free chance and not something that is to be forced onto unwilling people. Also, the catholics considered their rulebook to be the main thing a Christian follows. (Note: I did not include references because you can find many stuff about this on the internet if you doubt the credibility of what I am saying.) The Capitalist forever (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Protestants were the good guys and Catholics the bad guys. But real history is not so simple. Anyway, at Wikipedia we should talk about Wikipedia, not if the Protestants were better than Catholics. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu:, I honestly don't think Wikipedia views communism as a bad thing. It worse than racism or the Inquisitions we were just talking about. The Capitalist forever (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to discuss wild tangents. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu:, ok I get it, but I don't think you can deny that Wikipedia supports LGBTQ+ and Climate Change because alot of articles on conservative people like Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump, Kevin Mccarthy, Rush Limbaugh etc. have a section that seems to view their opposition to these topics as a problem. A person's beliefs are their personal beliefs and if neutrality is a goal, I would refrain from touching on these subjects like their own convictions are a bad thing, and instead write what they believe but not criticize it. If I was writing a neutral article on Joe Biden, and his belief is that abortion is ok, I would state that fact but not criticize it.The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do not make the

WP:GEVAL. I don't support abortion, but I don't support Christian nationalism either. Some GOP leaders are not conservatives, but extremists. E.g. overturning Roe v. Wade turned out to be an electoral disaster for the GOP. Less than 25% of US voters are totally pro-life. Perhaps half of that number. Banning abortion and Trump as a candidate do not attract voters, i.e. the swinging voters which do decide elections. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment from an administrator

This is a project to build a neutral encyclopedia. It is not a debating society to discuss whether Protestant crimes were worse than Catholic crimes, or vice versa. Proselytizing of any kind is not permitted here. The only thing under discussion is proposed changes to improve encyclopedia articles. I will be handing out blocks if this behavior continues. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I was unaware if what I doing was proselytizing (in fact I had to look up what the word means.) anyone, and if I was, I did not mean to. I was told that this was the only acceptable venue where you can debate a large amount of topics, so that is why I discussed a range of things I know more about than almost anything. I guess I will stay off my own talk page if that will keep me from getting blocked. Sorry for being such a pain for you guys. The Capitalist forever (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a debating society. There are countless websites that welcome that kind of banter but Wikipedia is not among them. The only subject for debate here is, quite specifically, how to improve neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Thanks.The Capitalist forever (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, as soon as you're told one kind of behavior is disruptive, you jump to another, and then you're told that's disruptive, and you jump to another, and so on. Each time you say you "understand" or you "apologize", but you don't seem to get the crux of the criticism of your behavior, so you continue your disruption in a slightly different way. Frankly, I don't think you are mature enough to edit here. That coupled with the strong opinions you have about politics and religion, as well as how you think Wikipedia treats articles about politics and religion, translates into someone who is simply not an asset to this project. Because Cullen328 left you the equivalent of a "final warning", I am not going to block you, but I will do so unless you clearly demonstrate that you can edit articles (I'd avoid Talk pages, both user Talk pages and article Talk pages, if all you want to do is have a back-and-forth about your views on life) constructively.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wareham, Massachusetts

I reverted your edit to this article because it included incorrect wiki links and a dead url as a source, please take more care with your edits. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong:, Sorry, I did not know that it was a dead url because on Google the page worked when I used it. I did not add wiki links to the other 3 ponds, but I did for Long Pond because there were wiki links there on those several ponds. What does it mean to have an incorrect wiki link and how do I know if it is correct?The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump participation

Hello. I see that several Admins have advised you of the challenges we all face on the "contentious topics" pages. Please review those warnings and consider a more cautious approach there. Let's see what some of the most experienced editors have to say. SPECIFICO talk 09:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Ok, thanks.The one thing I just want to say is that the media coverage and what they say is what makes an article. And if all the news are from the Anti-Trump point of view, then that influences the article I guess. Can you please tell me one right-wing source that is in the green reliable section? I'm not sure which news outlets that are Republican that are considered reliable for politics and science. The Capitalist forever (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of our work here is based on partisan factors. See

WP:NPOV SPECIFICO talk 09:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@SPECIFICO:If articles on politicians are always being written from sources that are identified democrat, then the criticism and praise of that person comes from his own party or an opposing party. I already read the list of reliable and unreliable sources and not one right-wing source was considered reliable while Vox,Jacobin, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times and Mother Jones all made reliable. Fox News, Forbes, The New York Post, The Daily Wire and The Guardian did not make it. Whether you deny it or not, you have to admit references make a difference in an article's stance. NPOV should at least require inclusion of one right-wing reliable source. I also noticed it took Wikipedia a long time to add that 70 million people died during the communist reigns in Asia during the Joseph Stalin and Mao Tsetung days. Thanks!The Capitalist forever (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read the list of reliable and unreliable sources with much care, it seems. I see that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources lists Forbes as generally reliable (for articles written by Forbes staff, not for opinion pieces, but that’s the same for every source). Same thing for the Guardian (but the Guardian is probably the leftmost newspaper of the non-tabloid UK press, definitely not right-wing by UK let alone US definitions). On the other side of your list, both Jacobin and Mother Jones are considered generally reliable but biased and require careful consideration of attribution especially regarding political topics - no such caveat attaches to (e.g.) Forbes.

One example of a US media outlet that is very prominent and considered reliable by Wikipedia and strongly conservative is the

2020 US presidential election

was stolen by widespread fraud, well, I don’t know what to tell you except that Wikipedia is probably not the place for you.

Please do not use

CIA claimed that it is headed by lizardmen, or the article about Holodomor claimed its cause was a bourgeois conspiracy, or other insane things; that would not justify lowering the sourcing standards in other articles. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I took a look at the list you gave me, and I wasn't too impressed with how many right-wing news outlets had yellow or red on them. Anyway, I don't consider a source right-wing just because it supports the Election Fraud allegations. Have a Great day!!The Capitalist forever (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too impressed, either. Right-wing news outlets should work to make their publications more reliable. But perhaps it's as they say: truth has a liberal bias. HerrWaus (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HerrWaus: Good point. I think the problems with right and left wing media are the left media accuse and denounce Republicans too much, and the Right-wing media can have some problems with far-reaching stories, but not much accusation except for Joe Biden and Nacy Pelosi. Have a good one! The Capitalist forever (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for things that existed before the internet etc

If you stick around and keep editing, the WP Library will get available. It gives access to stuff like

WP:RX may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh that's cool! Thanks for the heads up @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The Capitalist forever (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dewar's Candy Shop has been accepted

Dewar's Candy Shop, 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

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!

Doug Weller talk 12:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My guesbook

Hi @

talk) 19:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Jack345110 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

@

Jack345110

: Thanks for the advice! And you're welcome! Thanks for the cookies! Yes I like your userboxes on your page. You definitely don't have too many, I have too little . Mostly I have had some ups and downs because of my political opinions but I was new and had never edited before so I didn't understand policies on talk pages. Anyway, I've gotten the hang of most editing physics and the first article I ever wrote was accepted on the first Afc review. Have a great day! The Capitalist forever (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 18:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure thing @

Jack345110:! The Capitalist forever (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks.

talk) 18:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Jack345110

:, no problem!

Recommendation

Hi again @

talk) 19:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Signature

Could you please consider setting the "talk" link in your signature to a colour other than red? The current arrangement could mislead people into thinking that your talk page hasn't yet been created. Thanks. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XAM2175: I tried making the talk signature the Maroon color, a dark red, because I wanted a red and blue signature. But if you insist, I guess I'll change it. The Capitalist forever (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC) To me it looks to dark to not have a talk page to other people, but if you insist I'll change. The Capitalist forever (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC) To me it looks to dark to not have a talk page to other people, but if you insist I'll change. The Capitalist forever (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to insist on anything; it's merely a friendly suggestion. I realise now that you've got it set to maroon instead of red – the difference is more obvious here where "talk" is bolded – but that does rely on other editors having colour vision good enough to tell the two apart. You could perhaps change "talk" to be underlined or in italics – that way you could keep the colour but it would still look different to Wikipedia's default redlinks. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XAM2175: Thanks for the advice! I'm sorry if I sounded alittle rude in my previous reply. I really like my signature as it is but if you could please tell how to make it underlined, I would appreciate it! Thank you! The Capitalist forever (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Creamistry

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.

talk) 14:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion of Draft:Creamistry

If this was the first article that you 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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created,

welcome page

if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]