User:Toddst1/boilerplate

WP:RSP

Facepalm
Facepalm

Library
https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/

Direct, reliable sources needed for Days of the Year pages
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without a reliable source as a reference are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. ~

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
I see you recently accepted a pending change to May 19 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you and please keep up your good work! ~

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
The Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info so things have changed so that all new entries require a direct source.

The DOTY project had exempted themselves from verifiability. As a result, almost none of the pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article. It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type listings.

So about two years ago the DOTY project took the bold step of requiring that all new entries be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning things up. May 11 is an example of where we want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page.

We could use your help in: I hope this helps. ~
 * 1) Preventing new entries that don't include direct sources and when they occur, either supplement them with a reliable source or reverting them.
 * 2) Helping us clean up articles. The project members have asked all participants to go through their birthday and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available.

Please join WikiProject Days of the year
Hey XXXXX,

Thanks for the good work adding missing citations to September 9. Cleaning up those articles is the main focus of WikiProject Days of the year these days. Please consider joining the project. We could use your help!

Here's the (long) backstory:

A few years ago, some of us noticed that the Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info.

The DOTY project had exempted themselves from verifiability. (yes, really!) As a result, almost none of the pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article. It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type articles, a form of Circular reporting or "citogenesis."

So about two years ago the DOTY project took the bold step of requiring that all new entries be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning things up. May 11 is an example of where we want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page.

We could use your help in:
 * 1) Preventing new entries that don't include direct sources and when they occur, either supplement them with a reliable source or reverting them.
 * 2) Helping us clean up articles. The project members have asked all participants to go through their birthday and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available.  Some of us have done that and a few more days.

Anyway, please consider joining us. ~

DOY Edit Filter

 * edit filter

Pending Changes Review log
Special:AdvancedReviewLog

Citogenesis

 * Hi, Thanks for your good work and for being both receptive to feedback and constructively giving it.
 * The XXXX.com reference (and references like that) often pop up on DOTY articles.  They may look reliable because they were published by the Associated Press, but you have to look a little deeper.   Sometimes journalists will look for a quick "filler" article to just get something out.  It could be that they need to publish so many pieces per period of time or other reasons.
 * But in evaluating sources, you have to ask, "How likely is it that this information is true and where did it come from?" and maybe "How much research went in to this info?" In this case, it is highly likely that the AP journalist just went to the Wikipedia page XXXX and used that as a basis of the article.   If we then use the article as a source, it is called Circular reporting or "citogenesis" and is one of the fundamental weaknesses of Wikipedia.  We have to be super-vigilant about stuff like that.
 * Does this make sense?  I hope so, but if it doesn't, please take this issue to our Reliable Sources Noticeboard where you can have our peers weigh in on it.  I'm pretty sure they'll come up with the same conclusion. ~

BLP Sanctions
blp ~

Edit War
~

Removal of material
WP:BLANKING states that you may not remove "any other notice regarding an active sanction."

Comments from the blocking admin related to the block along with any discussion regarding the block or possible unblocking, - including the block notice itself while the block is in effect fall under that restriction. Please do not continue to remove such information from your talk page while the block is in place.

If this continues, you will lose your ability to edit your talk page and your block may be extended. ~

Autobiography
Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at  XXXX.

Creating an autobiography or editing an article that you are the subject of is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator.

If you are the subject of one of our articles and are displeased with some of the contents. See Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways to get problems fixed (as well as an email address). You can also mention s pecific problems on Talk: XXXXXXX if you want specific mistakes corrected.

Thank you. ~

Username sounds like an organization
It sounds like a role account which we don't allow. You should take the time to read WP:COI and WP:ADVERT as you seem to be here to constructively contribute and we'd hate for you to have an unpleasant experience like finding yourself blocked from editing. Best regards, ~

Closing WP:AFD
DELETE 'DELETE' ~ KEEP 'KEEP' ~

Not English
Header will be article name: ~

User talk:Ceha
We appreciate your contributions to User talk:xxx], but since this is the English Wikipedia, you should communicate only in English, especially if there is a conflict (like this case) and outsiders are monitoring the situation. See [[Wikipedia:Talk for more information. Thank you.~

Notify on Speedy
~

Copyright Issues
~

Signing warnings
~

Card
Card →→→   

'''Dear Person, here is a little note to say ...

Dictionary definitions
Please don't create articles about dictionary definitions. We're building an encyclopedia here, not a dictionary, so it's very unlikely that your article fits in with that. Creating such articles also makes work for others as we rush to delete them. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is, so you might like to try there instead. Thanks. ~

Balkans
~

Editnotice
Create here

Content issues / Lawyers
We have a policy, WP:BLP, which covers living individuals, and a policy on the neutrality of content, WP:NPOV. You appear to be, or be associated with, the subject of ---. Wikipedia aspires to be fair in what it says, even if you don't like it we hope you will acknowledge that we are fair, so if you have issues with specifics of the content, and bearing mind your apparent conflict of interest, I recommend you to discuss matters calmly on the talk pages of the articles concerned. Do avoid any appearance of legal threats, or any uncivil discourse and if you need guidance there are people who can perhaps offer advice at info-en-q@wikimedia.org - although the people who have come to this page may also be able to advise. ~

ANI behavior
~

Hello there
Hi, it seems that you might be the subject of one of our articles and are displeased with some of the contents. See Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways to get problems fixed (as well as an email address). You can also mention specific problems on Talk: XXXXXXX if you want specific mistakes corrected.

The email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org. The first thing you might be asked to do is to privately establish your identity. ~

IP organization
 Attention:

This IP address, 82.69.81.70, appears to be registered to or repeatedly used by the operator of www.classic-cars-online.co.uk web site.

This account has a history of posting spam links to that web site and may be blocked without warning upon any further instance of external linking. ~

Article difficulty
The article you are trying to create has to do a few things: If the article does all that, then it should be ok - unless you have a conflict of interest with the subject. In that case, you may still be able to write the article, but it is strongly discouraged. Either way, be sure you understand the conflict of interest guidelines.
 * It has to establish the subject's notability in a Wikipedia sense. In this case it means it has to pass WP:BIO.
 * It can't be an advertisement.
 * It can't be a copyright violation
 * It must be verifiable - usually that means using citations from reliable sources

Be sure and click on each of the links above and understand what Wikipedia means in each context.

It's probably a good idea to start the article in your sandbox and get it in shape there before moving it to the article-space. That way it will be much less likely to be speedily deleted. Good luck. ~

Users' talk pages
It appears you have been in a conflict with about them removing comments from their talk page. I'm writing to make you aware that users (including anonymous IP editors) are allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk pages per BLANKING. Doing so is considered acknowledgment of having read them. Restoring warnings and comments to other users' talk pages after they have removed them is considered disruption. There are important exceptions to this: I hope this clears things up. ~
 * Editors are not allowed to remove declined requests before the block expires
 * Editors are not allowed to remove information about shared IP addresses, such as
 * Editors are not allowed to removed confirmed or confirmed  tags from their talk pages.

Special needs
Wikipedia is not here to provide the support for people with special needs. ~