no hurting, only cookie MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks meow!Mewnst (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2020 (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 Bkissin was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at RM Broadcasting 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:RM Broadcasting 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 Draft:RM Broadcasting, 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, 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.

Bkissin (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mewnst! 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! Bkissin (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mewnst. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "RM Broadcasting".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mewnst, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your two contributions to Transphobia, changing the word transgenderism to a more modern variant. I had to undue your changes, because both sources given in the article used that word. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy depends upon reliable sources to back up everything we say. We can't add our own opinion to articles, even if it seems like the right thing to do. Terminology changes rapidly in trans-related topics, and both of the sources in the article were older, and in at least one of the cases, more recent scholarship would probably not use that word. The other source, Sheila Jeffreys, is hostile, and she probably won't change her usage; so in cases like that, you just have to put words like that in double quotation marks. You can also use in-text attribution, mention someone's name in-line, to let readers know that the use of a term like transgenderism is not being made in Wikipedia's voice, but is being attributed to a specific author. (See also WP:DUEWEIGHT.) Feel free to contact me any time you have questions about this, or any topic at Wikipedia. And happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard notice about editing gender-related articles. It isn't about you or your editing; everybody that edits gender-related articles gets one of these sooner or later. Basically, the notice informs you that beyond all the regular rules around here, there is a more stringent set of rules governing the behavior of editors who edit in certain controversial topic areas, like gender, that you need to know about. Please read it, and follow the links. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Mewnst! I noticed that you had recently blanked the Bored Ape Yacht Club article. This led me to wonder: can you share what contributed to you making that change?

I ask the above with the following thoughts in mind:

• The edit summary you provided when blanking the article leads me to think you saw it as being "promotional" and "not notable."
• I understand Bored Ape Yacht Club to be notable considering that it has been subject to, "...significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." See coverage in: The New Yorker, Rolling Stone, New York Times, and Reuters.
• I understood the article at the time of being blanked to not be promotional considering it was written in, what I perceive to be, "...an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery."
• I was surprised that you blanked the article without starting a conversation on the talk page considering there were three other, relatively experienced people (@ThadeusOfNazereth, @David Gerard, and myself), who had contributed to the article.

Stussll (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably it was pretty thin on notability, and its present redirection is fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on my end turns up quite a bit of coverage, so I think the topic itself is definitely notable - That's why I only marked it as needing references improved. That said, it's not my wheelhouse and, given my biases, I don't trust myself to put together a quality article - Hopefully somebody else is able to put together an expanded version of the article (maybe you, @Stussll?). A redirect probably works fine until a draft makes the rounds, though. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 11:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully somebody else is able to put together an expanded version of the article (maybe you, @Stussll?). A redirect probably works fine until a draft makes the rounds, though.

What you are describing above seems like a good course of action to me, @ThadeusOfNazereth!

I've moved the article to my sandbox to expand. Once I think it's in a good enough place to be considered for being published at Bored Ape Yacht Club what do y'all suggest I do? One thought: I could start a conversation on User_talk:Stussll/Sandbox alerting y'all that I think the article is in a state to be reviewed? Stussll (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little too excited to purge it - building up a draft is definitely worthwhile. I didn't share any talk page discussion on the matter, as there wasn't yet a talk page made, and (to me) that confirmed that the subject was not notable. Sorry for the mistake. Mewnst (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You sharing the thinking that went into blanking the page is helpful context – I appreciate you sharing it, @Mewnst ^ _ ^

And no worries at all. I'm glad we seemed to have converged on a path forward... Stussll (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits on Cracker (term)

You have not made use of the talk page whatsoever regarding your edits on the Cracker (term) Wikipedia page. If you believe the story does not add information to the usage of the word cracker or its history, please use the talk page to discuss removal of the article. However, based on your self proclaimed "Tags" "banners" whatever you'd like to call them and the history of past comments on this page, shows two things. One is that you are biased for a left leaning side of the poltical spectrum, trying to inject stories about Right leaning of the said spectrum regardless of its relevancy to the story or the Wikipedia page itself and two, is you do not care about the talk page, you will change the article that fits your opinion regardless of the agreed upon consensus. I hope you are able to take a more neutral stance and utilize the talk page. Reaver55 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]