Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

Hierosoluma, 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 Redirect-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!

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it would have made my job easier if you had stated a reason. Google's demonstration that this term is used in religious literature as a transliteration for the city, along with the different transliterations with similar spellings that are incoming redirects to Jerusalem convinced me this was a useful redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Nkon21 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Draft is merely copy and pasted from several other pages and external sites.

ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Soumya-8974! 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! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:User page blue rounded requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_12#Template:User_page_rounded. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting my redirect request in the right format, but turns out I was doing the same parallelly. May I go ahead and clean up the earlier incorrectly done section - Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_28#Nomination_of_Enola_Homosexual_for_Deletion? Amit Dash (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the above, there are already responses to your properly done section, which is good! Amit Dash (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Being merged has been nominated for merging with Template:Merging. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JsfasdF252 (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for forward-linking my Talk entry to the template's talk page.
Be well!
— Black Walnut ^talk 04:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Space articles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the message you put then removed from my talk page (not sure why). But anyways thanks for publishing the infobox. It looks good, better then I would probably have done. Happy editing. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the message because I thought forking is better than improving, which made better improvements. I have planned to add some parameters and probably deprecate {{Infobox space shuttle}}. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a new proposal at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_5#Dipwad. See what you think. SilkTork (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_5#Manor_of_Tottenham,_Wiltshire. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ahunt. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.Template:Z186 Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is constructive. I had added a blue link to outline of aerospace. Also, why my edit to "WikiProject:Aviation" to "WikiProject Aviation" is reverted? "WikiProject:" is not a valid namespace, "Wikipedia:" is. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss your edits, please do so on the talk page concerned where others can see and engage in the discussion. Please also stop edit warring and take time to familiarise yourself with the Bold-Revert-Discuss (WP:BRD) recommendation for conflict resolution. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of Wikipedia was formed both in the stated position of Wikipedia that: “Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents,” as stated in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. That “Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view” as stated in Wikipedia:Five pillars. I appreciate the goal stated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view “that all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That as stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).” That this stated goal is to be achieved through “verifiability”; “In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.” Wikipedia:Verifiability. That what the Wikipedia is not is clearly stated in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. These are all goals I believe I have complied with in the article edits I have made. I also cannot ignore the fact that some other well connected editors in their superior status do not comply with these standards in that “verifiability” may be disregarded in deference to their opinions of what reality should be rather than is. Their ability to use Wikipedia as a “soapbox” for ill-verified or unverifiable opinions of what reality should be dominates. As the view of a few that they may overrule what any editor posts in compliance with a neutral point of view and reliable published sources, based only upon their personal whim of what reality should be, is found by Wikipedia to be superior to verifiable truth. Then I must accept that reality. Thank you Soumya-8974 for your invitation to contribute to Wikiproject Rocketry. As I do not believe that the Wikipedia shall treat my contributions based upon the principles stated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, nor Wikipedia: Reliable sources, and that some are not required to meet the standards stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability, and may impose their personal wishes in contravention to those principles, I must accept that. While I enjoy writing history I am not an egomaniac nor a masochist. I feel given the reality as opposed to the stated desires of Wikipedia I should decline further participation. Thank you. Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]