User talk:4me689/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, 4me689, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome 4me689! Hello 4me689. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Sm8900, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page and someone will try to help. To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own personal sandbox] for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to: The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
 * Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

 Sincerely, Sm8900 (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sm8900&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی Sm8900 (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Your recent editing history at Olivia Newton-John shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  General Ization Talk  04:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * oh I'm sorry, I will stop trying to revert it. consensus seems to be clear now, now can you please be nice.  4me689  (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

.
. Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M87.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Jack Layton
You do realize that Jack Layton controlled the government of Canada via a BoP system between 2004 and 2011 right? Golden Matrix (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , yes you are correct about Jack Layton. but there are two talk consensus to exclude Jack Layton both in the 2011 talk page. one in 2011 and one in 2021. though, I warn you, the 2021 version has two people that are actually the same person. you should be talking about Jack Layton's inclusion in the talk section of 2011 and not here.  4me689  (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @4me689 Reading the Wikipedia page in regards to consensus it says that a limited number of people can't determine what is and isn't consensus, thereby Talk pages aren't the (sole) arbiter what entitles consensus, it does contribute towards it, I grant you that. It also states that consensus can change (never set in stone): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Golden Matrix (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @4me689 Also, when a Talk page is archived nobody can contribute their two-cents to the discussion (specifically states "Do not edit". Golden Matrix (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * just go and open up a new section in talk page 2011 and talk about it  4me689  (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

2000
What does the caption "protestors protesting the 2000 United States presidential election" mean, in your latest collage? What were they protesting against and why is this considered significant when it's not mentioned in the article on that election? Deb (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * it's the picture one top left. where there protesting, I'll probably change it.  4me689  (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussions
Hello! You've mentioned me on several occasions to participate in some discussions. I'm just contacting you to apologize because I haven't been around most of the time. Since I've started a new job and moved, my activity on Wikipedia has decreased a lot. I tell you this mostly to let you know that I've been attentive to the discussions you have opened, and I will try to participate in them more assiduously. By the way, do you think it's convenient to put in 2017 collage any photo related to 2017-2018 Spanish constitutional crisis? Politically it marked that year, although perhaps not as much as Trump's presidency, and a unilateral declaration of independence in the fourth power of the European Union and everything that came afterwards I think is quite important. Greetings! _-_Alsor (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * it's ok, do you think the 2017-2018 Spanish constitutional crisis is a great thing for the 2017 courage. I think it is. 4me689  (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can include that, yeah. I am working on multiple collages at the moment so it may take a bit to update. @4me689 The ganymedian (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I think it's pretty complete now. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @4me689 Do you know of anyone else who would potentially provide a 'yes' on the collage vote? It doesn't seem like Wjfox2005 has voted yet The ganymedian (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , looks like another person who is vote Yes  4me689  (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Open an RFC on the matter, rather the making bold changes
Hello. Will you please open up an RFC on whether or not to add College images, concerning all Year in... pages? Boldly adding them isn't the best route. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've opened up an RFC on this matter, at the talkpage of WikiProject Years. In the meantime, please don't add any more college images, until an RFC result is reached. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Note on my coming Wikibreak
Heya! Just wanted to let you know I'm going to be going on wikibreak for a bit starting tomorrow. During this time, I won't be able to respond to pings, so please refrain from pinging me to discussions. Thanks for all you do on the Wiki, and I hope to see you soon. :) InvadingInvader (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * All right thanks for telling me, have fun.  4me689  (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Decades
I am copying down the wikitext for all the decades montages in the event these people end up deleting them so we have a backup of them. The ganymedian (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok  4me689  (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should inform these decade montage creators that people are considering deleting them? The ganymedian (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's on you, though do it on your own risk because some of them may consider it canvassing.  4me689  (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Hi 4me689! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2022 several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. You and MrMimikyu1998 are very close to edit warring, discuss on the talk page about the image instead of just reverting to your preferred version. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * alright I'll open the talk section  4me689  (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC would be best, to get a consensus for the changes you want.
Howdy. It would be best if you opened an RFC on whether or not, to put the federal government section in box form. Note, that that form isn't in the other Year in the United States pages & so attempting to put it in the 2022 in the United States & 2023 in the United States pages, appears out of step. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to open an RFC, can you walk me through that.  4me689  (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can open one up for you, with the the question being Should the federal government subsection content be listed in box form, with their dates of assumption added. I'd recommend in that RFC, both versions being presented - the status quo & your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No canvassing
I see you went ahead and breached Canvassing by contacting editors who 'might' favour your position in an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * okay I'll stop, I'm sorry for contacting people I've been trying to use a neutral manner, and I've been contacting people on both sides, please now can we start debating about collages instead of accusing people of canvassing.  4me689  (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Too late now. You already contacted them, after I advised you not to. I've mentioned it in the 'discussion' section, for others to judge. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm removing all the talk pages discussions that are considered canvassing so they'll just be linked to a dead end, can you guys now forgive me and please do not take further action. I'll be happy to debate instead.  4me689  (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Those editors will merely see what you've reverted on their talkpages. I've contacted all the other editors who have 'already' posted at the RFC, on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

ITN
RE : I'm sorry, but maybe ITN isn't the right place for you at this moment. In thread-after-thread the past several days, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of policy (that's ok! You are still a newbie and have lots of room to grow ) (in this case, WP:Red link). There are far better areas on Wikipedia to become better acquainted with policies than ITN. Consider finding a mentor or becoming an AfC reviewr. Curbon7 (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * i always has been custom to the standards on the main year articles, so contributing to something that isn't the normal feels different to me, i may occasionally contribute to itn.  4me689  (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I contemplated coming here to say the same thing. We (as in the community) value a wide range of opinions at ITN, and there's nothing wrong with being against consensus, but a lot of the time your posts give off the impression that you have no idea what you're talking about (as Curbon says, more kindly, above). So I concur with him that ITN might not be the place for you right now. By the way, I cannot figure out the meaning of what you've typed above, would you please elaborate? — VersaceSpace  🌃 00:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * when I started contributing to ITN, I thought the rules would be similar to main year articles (aka something like the 2022 article), though as time has gone on, I have realized that ITN standards are different than main year articles standards, I don't think I'll contribute too ITN that much any more, I may come back to ITN to nominate an article occasionally.  4me689  (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * you're correct in your observation that posting in ITN differs from editing an article. The most significant difference is that in discussion areas like ITN, everyone expects others to know all the nuances and jargon, which could take months of continuous editing to learn. It might seem unfair but we all had to learn at one point, I'm sure you'll have no problem doing the same! If you have an article to nominate at ITN, please do so. That's not what we're trying to discourage. — VersaceSpace  🌃 01:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Deb (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Advice
Howdy. From other editors' input at the YEAR RFC', I've gotten the impression that you've been accused of canvassing in the past. Also, when an editor (who supports you) suddenly appears after the RFC tag has expired? Something will look fishy. NOTE: An RFC closer is going to look over the 'canvassing' & it's highly likely that partially on your actions, the closer will rule the RFC as no to the collage images. I'm not one to report editors. But, I'm willing to point out to you, that your actions at the RFC are only hurting your cause, not helping it. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * how do they determine the ruling  4me689  (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just stop contacting editors (via pinging or on their talkpages) & inviting them to the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * and then what  4me689  (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We wait until an uninvolved editor (usually an administrator) closes the RFC. For now, walk away from it. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * okay as long as canvassing does not play a huge role in the verdict I'm willing to walk away  4me689  (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * just curious, are you going through my contributions, because you're contributing to discussions otherwise you wouldn't be on.  4me689  (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Like, I keep a close eye on Year-related pages. Also, I'm still annoyed that 'college images' were added to any Year pages, without opening an RFC on the matter first. GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I got a couple questions for you
 * 1. how will they determine the result of the RFC
 * 2. if the RFC decision goes no, Who will removed them, just curious.
 * 3. if the RFC decision goes yes, what would you do.  4me689  (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IF the result is No? I'll remove the college images. If the result is Yes? then you're free to add as many as you like. GoodDay (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , will the RFC affect decade articles or it will only affect year in articles.  4me689  (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would presume 'decades' too, as they're also years. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , I recommend making a separate discussion for decades collages, cuz the RFC was originally made for years in pages, not decade pages.  4me689  (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

May do so, after the Year RFC is closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to be aware that it's quite acceptable for experienced Wikipedians to keep a close eye on those of inexperienced Wikipedians who seem to be unfamiliar with the guidelines or unwilling to follow them - see Harassment. Deb (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , I would rather wait a while in my opinion.  4me689  (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If the RFC's decision is to 'delete' them from the Year pages? Then I'll be opening up an RFC on decade pages. There'll be no waiting. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

2010, 2014, 2008, 2016
@4me689 I was wondering if I had your permission to make your photomontage into a singular image map similar to articles like 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018, etc? This will be so that when someone hovers their cursor over said year article, they will see all the pictures of the montage instead of just one. I will still give you credit for it.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks The ganymedian (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @The ganymedian, yes, you do have my permission.  4me689  (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will get started. The ganymedian (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you add "2016 marked the deaths of famous musicians including David Bowie, Prince, and George Michael." on the 2016 page? Blakelyelijahl (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , well 2016 had a lot of famous deaths, including the after mentioned three, the idea for the thing came for the thing come from on talk:2022, who has said a lot of very entertainers died that year, and since we already had a celebrity lead in the 2022 article, I decided to add a celebrity deaths lead to the 2016 article as well, I will open a talk section about this in the 2016 article talk section.  4me689  (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I did to 2009. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2009 and 2016 are both well-known for more deaths of very well-known people than most years, so it makes sense to include the most notable of those deaths in the leads of those articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What about 2020? Blakelyelijahl (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just added something new on the 2016 article. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please block User:GoatLordServant and User:Deb from the Wikipedia for givin me a warning! Blakelyelijahl (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not an administrator so I can't block them  4me689  (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I also added a new paragraph on the 2018 article. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I have a new idea for 2014. How about we talk about the Ebola outbreak on the 2014 page? Blakelyelijahl (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the Ebola outbreak, I mean that happened a lot of times in the 2010s  4me689  (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it did. It killed 11,323 people and caused 28,646 cases. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * well it was really only a thing in Africa, it wasn't a pandemic like covid, it didn't really shut down the world.  4me689  (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Or, could we talk about the bad events in 2017? Blakelyelijahl (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * what bad events  4me689  (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The terrorist attacks. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Or which page should we talk about the bad events? The 2014 page, or the 2017 page? Blakelyelijahl (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you think about my edit on the 2012 page? Blakelyelijahl (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * well I don't know, but it definitely wasn't the last year the Mayan calendar was used.  4me689  (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I edited the 2012 article. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why aren’t you responding? Blakelyelijahl (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * well I'm busy so I can't get you to immediately  4me689  (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, do you know what happened to Ukraine in 2014? Blakelyelijahl (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , should we add something about the Great Recession in the lead of the 2008 article
 * (also you mind go and reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years)  4me689  (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already enough information on the 2008 article. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , you mind putting your vote on Collages on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years  4me689  (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How can I vote? Blakelyelijahl (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * you go to the survey section and put yes or no in bold and then put a summary on why, look on other replies for example.  4me689  (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And yes, I did ignore the note on the top of the 2022 article. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was trying to add the designations on top of the page because it was removed (idk why). Blakelyelijahl (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also added a new description on the 2020 article. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Advice again
Howdy. In the RFC (you've opened), you've removed the "2", I added. By doing so, you'll end up having editors being directed to the 'discussion' of an earlier RFC on that talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a spelling error, sorry.  4me689  (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Deaths in 2023
Hello, 4me689,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username EchidnaLives, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged Deaths in 2023 for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative. Also, you may want to consider working on future articles in draft space first, where they cannot be deleted for lacking content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion] but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

echidnaLives -  talk  -  edits  21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Deaths in 2023 moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Deaths in 2023, is not suitable as written to remain published. We can move it back to the mainspace when 2023 arrives, or maybe 1 or 2 days before. 1 month is too far in advance. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. echidnaLives -  talk  -  edits  22:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * okay that's fine with me  4me689  (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

One size should fit all
A compromise. Using the college at 2022 in the United States as an example. Perhaps it's alright to add colleges, if they're downsized. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Deaths in 2023


A tag has been placed on Draft:Deaths in 2023 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"article already exists Deaths in 2023"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WWGB (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 Collage edits
@4me689 Long time, no see. Before 2022 ends, would you (or I can do it) be willing to swap out a photo or two from 2022 collage? My opinion is that monkeypox did not turn out to be that big of a deal. I think this year's world cup is worthy of a spot. And maybe the picture of the kid after the earthquake can be replaced with the Honga Tonga volcano eruption, which turned out to be the largest of the 21st century so far. Let me know your thoughts ASAP. The ganymedian (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

AN/I notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Deaths in 2023
Hello, 4me689. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Deaths in 2023, 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&#32;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) 14:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)