User talk:TNstingray/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, TNstingray, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ripley's Aquarium of the Smokies (March 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). 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 when they have been resolved.
CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, TNstingray! 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! CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Minor Edits (March 2021)

Information icon Hi TNstingray! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Star Wars (film) 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. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. SoWhy 16:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Archiving (April 2021)

Information icon Hello, I'm Velella. I noticed that you recently removed content from Talk:Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please be more consistent with your archiving. I note you changing the order of sections and removing discussions randomly. You may want to consider one of the automated talk page archiving suggestions at Help:Archiving a talk page. Tiderolls 16:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If you are continuing to archive manually, please create the new archive first and then delete the old material, always ensuring that the most recent threads remain on the active page.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ripley's Aquarium of the Smokies (June 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Tol were:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are 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 when they have been resolved.
Tol | talk | contribs 22:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edit at Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

This is unacceptable. You changed the content of a the direct quote, "likeable #######" to "likeable #######" with the misleading edit summary, "Clarification". In fact, you clarified nothing, and instead changed the text of a quote. If your concern is that the quote contains the word, "#######", please read WP:NOTCENSORED. If your concern was something else, this was still an improper edit and an improper edit summary. BD2412 T 21:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Per your response on my talk page, I will consider this resolved as a technical glitch. BD2412 T 01:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ripley's Aquarium of the Smokies (October 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TTP1233 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are 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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Add more sources for passing WP:GNG.
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.
Jyoti Roy (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Magical creatures in The Chronicles of Narnia has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Magical creatures in The Chronicles of Narnia. Thanks! Whiteguru (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Magical creatures in The Chronicles of Narnia has been accepted

Magical creatures in The Chronicles of Narnia, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Great article, thank you! You may want to nominate it at WP:Did You Know. Rusalkii (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ripley's Aquarium of the Smokies

Information icon Hello, TNstingray. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ripley's Aquarium of the Smokies, 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) 04:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Invisible Barnstar
Thank you for your effort in helping to better Wikipedia. ––FormalDude talk 04:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi TNstingray! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Talk page archive size, 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 automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Obi-Wan Kenobi removal

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't know he played a stormtrooper, so I appreciate this explanation. — SirDot (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@SirDot I should have explained myself more in the first place, so thank you for bringing it to my attention! — TNstingray (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to push through changes at Sauron

Hi, not sure if anyone has explained this to you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and do so now. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by pushing changes into articles by force. In this case, the article is already mature, meaning it has been edited for a long period by many hands, followed by a period of careful addition of scholarly and critical sources, and then by formal review. Such an article represents an agreed position, and all of its text can be traced to reliable sources. In that situation, we need a very good reason to make any large-scale change, such as rejigging the section headings. I've explained on the article's talk page why I think that a bad idea, so I won't repeat the arguments here. Please note that once you have been reverted once, you should either leave the reverted change well alone, or go to the article's talk page and explain why you think the change is needed. You have now twice attempted to force the change into the article, which is not acceptable: I hope you will never do that again. A talk page discussion is now open and if you wish to explain your point of view over there, you can. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap I'll respond in-depth on the talk page regarding the content itself. Regarding your points here, I am well aware of how consensus generally works on Wikipedia, though it would always do myself and even the most established editor well to review Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for bringing the issue to my attention, and I will see you on the talk page momentarily. TNstingray (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hero Forge (July 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mcmatter was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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.
McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, TNstingray! 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! McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Changed other users' comments at RfD

Hi TNstingray. Presumably you have something automated in your browser or whatever but FYI you removed "####", replacing it with "####" with your edit [1] to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 28. I have fixed this. Regardless of your opinions of the word it was appropriate in context and wikipedia is not censored! A7V2 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@A7V2 Thank you for fixing the issue! One of the devices I use has an old automated filter that has caused issues before (it's a long story). Most of the time, I am mindful of this and can avoid the unintentional censorship when I am just editing one section. However, this was the first RfD I have filed using the Twinkle extension, so now that is something else I need to be mindful about since it automatically fills out the details. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. TNstingray (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hero Forge (August 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
There is also a lack of clarity at the start. Hero Forge is described as a company, but in the next sentence, a platform.
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.
Greenman (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power#Music section

So nice to have a positive discussion about this article with someone after all the toxic reception stuff! Hope you enjoy the show (and music) when you see it - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It really is a nice change of pace! Hope you enjoy it as well! Looking forward to continuing to work with you. TNstingray (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Steve Coulter (disambiguation) has been accepted

Steve Coulter (disambiguation), 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 Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations

I was trying very hard to come up with a minor change to one sentence to actually retain the meaning of the sentence while removing a controversial element that is an opinion stated as fact and has been roundly criticized in the real world. I was trying to be collaborative, explaining my edits and modifying them in an attempt to find something acceptable. You met that with outright reversion and insults. Your reversion shows just how partisan you want the article to be. According to you, unadorned facts are "unnaceptable". I am certainly no less frustrated but a lot less amicable. LowKey (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You are not presenting unadorned facts. You are taking Tolkien out of context to insert your opinion of Harfoots into the article, or the inverse thereof. I believe my patience and attempts fo communicate justified the inevitable reversion, and you are not innocent of delivering insults. I am sorry it had to come to this, but if you would have just presented arguments based on Wikipedia policy at the beginning or after prompting. TNstingray (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I removed all adornment or description of harfoots and left in a link to the WP article that discusses them. Yes, I was presenting unadorned facts. I don't have an opinion of harfoots, apart from liking them greatly as I do hobbits in general (even poor Smeagal). I have an opinion about their inclusion in 2nd age depiction, but I have not inserted that into the article in any way. LowKey (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
It is possible that for most of these points, I am referring to these [2][3] edits, so we might just be talking in circles at this point. TNstingray (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi TNstingray! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Unreliable IP addresses, 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 automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi TNstingray! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, ClueBot archiving, 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 automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse thread

Normally, a bot notifies whenever a thread at the Teahouse is archived. I'm not sure why it did not happen this time, but I will leave a link here for posterity.

"Autofilling edit summaries" (9 September – 11 September 2022) [4]

TNstingray (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Redirects

In connection with your recent nominations at AfD, please be aware that an article does not need to be deleted before it can be redirected. Best, Ingratis (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ingratis. Hi, thank you for your message. Where would be the best place to discuss completely blanking pages and redirecting them to another? I figured that sort of change would need community input. TNstingray (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Not usually, if you stick to the guidelines in WP:REDIRECT. As far as I'm aware the usual sequence for blank-and-redirects, since they don't destroy the history, is for anyone who spots one and objects to it simply to revert the redirect and open a discussion on the talk page, and if there's still disagreement, at that point to go to AfD. There is also WP:RfD (i.e., redirects for discussion), which would be worth your while to look at, but this seems mostly concerned with newly-created redirects. Best, Ingratis (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Lord of Rings Rings of Power

"Such a silly thing to edit war over. Critical response to the writing is not discussed in the body. Audience response is not mentioned at all in the lede. I assume it is all the same user, who I will once again request to go to the talk page for further discussion.)" CRITICAL RESPONSE TO THE WRITING IS DISCUSSED IN THE BODY. REAT IT! I agree it is silly to have an edit war over. But the fact that you obviously didn't take the time to read the article makes your revision "silly". Not my insistence on citation. Which you also didn't read. If you have a citation (which shouldn't be too difficult to find. You might try the section "Critical Response" which you assumed didn't exist. Do you need a link? Some handholding? It wasn't a "war" until your revision. Why don't you get off your butt and do some work, instead of ruining other's? Cuvtixo (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC) PS I don't know what other edits you're referring to. I didn't make any others, so I have no idea what else you're referring to.

@Cuvtixo. I don't even know who you are, unless you are the one behind the IP addresses (WP:SOCKPUPPET?). In this [5] edit, your edit summary was: edit war started!. So, there goes any and all credibility as an editor right off the bat, and possibly suggests that you are WP:NOTHERE to build a collaborative encyclopedia. Please direct me to where critical response to the writing is listed. "Writing" is used on the page thirty times, none in the context of actual critical discussion. The Critical Reception also does not list writing. Ledes typically avoid citations (see WP:LEAD, as the material is referenced in the body. Read the article yourself, along with the pages on Wikipedia policy, some which can be found on my user page that I have found helpful. TNstingray (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I often edit anonymously, trying to avoid personal retaliation, because I've been through these. I don't even check my account very much anymore. As for "edit war", I certainly wanted to attract attention that you are reverting my edits, three times now. Twice before I added the note "Edit War", because I suspected you'd just revert again. I wanted editors to weigh in here, because you cannot be trusted, and then you blame me for "not being collaborative". As if you're not willfully participating in starting the war. "No credibility", ha! Yes, ledes typically avoid citations, which is one reason I removed it altogether instead of [citation needed]. I have no idea what "writing" you're babbling about. I didn't say anything about writing. I think that's you're own idiotic assumptions about someone else's edit being mine.
All I did is remove the sentence about "generally positive reviews from critics" that was fairly subjective, firstly, and premature before all episodes were put out. I'm going to leave it now since the part about "but some criticism for its pacing and characterization", because that's at least somewhat evenhanded. You will see in coming days and again before the next season just how badly it gets rated without money pouring into fake "criticism" sponsored by Amazon Studios. that "generally positive" is fake promotional activity, although I can't cite yet, I at least want to minimize this false narrative. Critics know the writing is horrible, just horrible. The plot itself is awful, just nonsensical. The "generally positive" critical response is fake. Ratings and reviews on IMDB.com, for example. Paid for by Amazon. You will find this out soon. Cuvtixo (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cuvtixo. So you admit to sock-puppetry to avoid personal responsibility and accountability. Got it. Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. It would be helpful if you would declare which edits were yours, because I see no evidence of an edit war on my part. I don't even see a revert of your "Cuvtixo" account; those were all done by other editors. So the only evidence for an edit war is your self-declaration that you were starting an edit war in the edit I highlighted in my earlier response.
While I would want to assume good faith on the part of an inexperienced editor, you really seem to just be trolling and wasting my time. You removed a portion of the lede with no explanation, apparently multiple times under multiple puppets. Said information is reflected in the body, and instead of explaining yourself, you escalated the situation with an inflammatory edit summary and this random conversation.
I have no idea what "writing" you're babbling about. I didn't say anything about writing. I think that's you're own idiotic assumptions about someone else's edit being mine. Um... in your 6 October post on my talk page, you quite clearly spelled out CRITICAL RESPONSE TO THE WRITING IS DISCUSSED IN THE BODY. REAT IT!. I would advise you to "reat" this conversation again. The show's writing was a huge part of your complaint.
Critical reviews of the series are generally positive, and those areas of critique are highlighted. The only false narrative is your web of conspiracy theories. Of course, you are writing this from an 18 October perspective after the series is completed, but you were removing material in early October. That is inappropriate, and Wikipedia does not predict the future.
Audience reception does not equal critical reception. If you as a "fan" do not like the show, that is your prerogative. That's not what we reflect in the lede. That isn't a false narrative; that's just how the Manual of Style on Wikipedia has always operated and will continue to operate under community consensus. TNstingray (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse thread (again)

Hmm. Once again I don't get an archive notification for my Teahouse question. Oh well. Here's the permalink:

"Searching for a specific phrase or source in Wikipedia" (15 October) [6]

TNstingray (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Have a day

  • [7] "Hipocrite wants to selectively remove pieces critical of Cruz/Littlefeather that quote social media, but use ones that rely on social media that are critical of the sisters and/or Keeler."
  • [8] "your continual pushing to trash her based on social media flurries is rather over the top. And you are continuing to misrepresent the miscommunication by one of the sisters."
  • [9] "Hipocrite... Again, these are talk pages and I'm asking you to AGF."

I hope you're having a wonderful day. Please avoid giving me civility advice on my talk page further. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I recognized the conversation wasn't going anywhere when you blanked your talk page. Which, you are free to do, but I have found that really isn't a good look. The fact remains that incivility goes both ways, and it is our choice how we respond to it. You aren't going to convince anyone of anything with that attitude, even if you are right. Consider the possibility that some of what you are proposing could be clouded by an admiration for Littlefeather for her work, or maybe it would be WP:UNDUE at this point in the situation to scrounge for sources criticizing Keeler. Just things to think about, and I'm not saying either one is the case. This is more than likely falling on deaf ears. TNstingray (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Too soon

It looks like Melshi is well and truly on the WP:TOOSOON list until at least season 2. Thanks again for sending me to WP:FANCRUFT. It's very interesting, and, in the context of SW, where is the line? Is there a list of characters waiting for pages? ELdEL69 (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@ELdEL69 Yeah, it's the continual tension between being a fan and building the encyclopedia for what it was intended to be. Often times, I have found that if there is any question, that likely means the subject is not notable enough. I also looked on the Star Wars WikiProject page and couldn't find where to locate any waiting drafts. Keep up the enthusiasm, and happy editing! TNstingray (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of Star Wars Rebels characters into List of Star Wars characters. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

sorry

i realized that what i JUST did was really stupid of me, thank you for reverting my mistake ;) glad that mike didnt really pass away though NUMBRstation (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Request at RMT

Hey! Regarding your Haunted Mansion request at RMT: I would recommend a full-blown RM discussion as the term can be ambiguous; requesting consensus here would be beneficial. The film had 4 times the pageviews of the actual mansion in the past 30 days. If the mansion is truly named Haunted Mansion (without the article), some form of disambiguation could be appended to the title instead, e.g. Haunted Mansion (building). I've reverted the move for now so that consensus can be reached. Thanks! Silikonz💬 19:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Hero Forge

Information icon Hello, TNstingray. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hero Forge, 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) 17:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Non-Stop (Hamilton song) has been accepted

Non-Stop (Hamilton song), 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Silikonz💬 19:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Star Wars

was i supposed to respond to your star wars question on this talk page? if so i responded on wikiproject star wars talk. Blitzfan51 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be best if we discussed the matter on the WikiProject talk page. TNstingray (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

OK

Hello. OK. As you wish. Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert, but the show's basis is primarily derived from and built upon Tolkien's scattered letters and other writings that were never compiled or published as a complete work, as opposed to books like The Silmarillion. TNstingray (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Lai ho'a" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lai ho'a has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 4 § Lai ho'a until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 TT me 15:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Giant of Kandahar

Information icon Hello, TNstingray. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Giant of Kandahar, 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) 16:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Hero Forge

Hello, TNstingray. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hero Forge".

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! 16:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Giant of Kandahar

Hello, TNstingray. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Giant of Kandahar".

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! 16:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't Join apart, please consider combining the others

The others have an entirely similar rationale for deletion or retention. Don't Join is one where you have chosen a different rationale. I have offered an opinion there, but just cant bring myself to make half a dozen. or more further contributions, all the same (not the same as for Don't Join}, to the others. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the suggestion. TNstingray (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sabine Wren (October 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hey man im josh was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Sabine Wren instead.
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.
Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, TNstingray! 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! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

February 2024

Information icon Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! TNstingray (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TNstingray/Archive_1&oldid=1225588158"