Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Robert Moses, 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. Please review WP:IPCV as well. DonIago (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a similar thing in Flushing Meadows–Corona Park. Should I remove my edit there as well? JustSomeGuy4361 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a secondary source to establish the significance of the 'in popular culture'-style information, then yes. DonIago (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2023 (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 Qcne was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

We'd need one or two more sources.

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:Trump Town 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.
• 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.

Qcne (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JustSomeGuy4361! 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! Qcne (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The page Nonpartisan is a disambiguation page, not an article. Your edit here incorrectly restored links to the disambiguation page. Please correct this error.

Substantively, I disagree with your edit comment as well. It is possible that some candidates in a nonpartisan election are also nonpartisan politicians, unaffiliated with any political party; but it is also possible that other candidates in the same election are active members of, and actively supported by, a particular party even though the party label does not appear on the ballot. Characterizing every candidate in such an election as individually "nonpartisan" is misleading. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the reason i reverted your edit was because the link you changed was under the party key. i found it strange to have the party name of a candidate simply be "nonpartisan election". while the election was nonpartisan, it would be strange to say someone's political party was "nonpartisan election." instead i offer an alternative. i looked for more information about the city's elections, and although the election itself was nonpartisan, yes, all the candidates were affiliated with the democratic party yet running in a nonpartisan election. should i instead set the party value to "democratic", with a footnote that they were running in a nonpartisan election instead? that would remove the disambiguation link and be more accurate. let me know your thoughts. JustSomeGuy4361 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the election box template so that "Nonpartisan election" is now abbreviated as simply "Nonpartisan," which might resolve your concern (try previewing the old version of the page with my edit and see how it looks). Alternatively, you could try the footnote approach, although I'm not sure whether the template would play nicely with that. (Not your problem, but I find the election boxes and some other templates annoying because we have to format the content to fit the template author's preferences, rather than what we think will best serve the reader.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good, ill restore your edits JustSomeGuy4361 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]