User talk:Davey2116



Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Davey2116! Thank you for your contributions. I am Davey2010 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! – Davey 2010 Talk 01:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Edits, minor and otherwise
I notice that you're a new editor here. If you don't mind, I'll call your attention to an inadvertent breach of Wikipedia etiquette that you've committed.

You've made a number of edits to articles in which you've added material, and you've marked these as minor edits. This is a mistake. The minor-edit box should never be checked when content is added or deleted; the only times when it's acceptable is when you're making an edit that no one could possibly disagree with, e.g. correcting an obvious spelling or formatting error. This is explained in more detail at WP:MINOR. In fact, it doesn't hurt at all to leave the box unchecked.

The reason why this is a problem is that some editors have their watchlists set up to exclude minor edits. To such an editor, marking a non-minor edit as a minor one might look like an attempt to sneak an edit of substance past article-watchers.

Sorry to pile on you with this Wikipolicy, but I thought you'd like to know lest you unintentionally give offense. Good luck with your editing endeavors! Ammodramus (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't aware of this Wikipolicy. I'll be sure to check the box only for truly minor edits as you've described. Thanks for correcting my error! Davey2116 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. It can seem at times as though there's a whole tangle of Wikipolicies that have to be figured out, but you'll learn them quickly enough.
 * If you've got questions on policy or on any other aspect of editing, I'd be glad to try to help answer them. I can't exactly call myself a grizzled old editor, but I've been at it for a few years, and would be happy to provide what help I can.  Just leave a message at my talk page. Ammodramus (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletionists
I ask if you understand the logic of these deletionists? It seems like the are motivated by running up the scoreboard of how many articles they can delete. Its the same logic of shooting spree murderers, trying to top the most killed scoreboard. Its obviously not productive in trying to build a worldwide knowledge database. Certainly as an open edit encyclopedia, we will get the crackpots who will post utter garbage to satisfy their own ego, POV agenda or malicious intent. We need a means to rout out that garbage and that depends on responsible editors. When you see a high edit count, you would assume they've been here being productive for a long time; they know the rules of the road; they have an interest in protecting the (often maligned) integrity of wikipedia. I'm still flabbergasted that they don't. What should be the deciding factor? Of course, sources backing it up. That is why we have a policy of WP:BEFORE, simply put; before you complain, look it up, or using the currently most popular search engine as a verb, "Google it." I've been pounding this for years, but I feel alone; a one armed paper hanger in a room of collapsing walls. I see articles that were created with good intent, perhaps by a less knowledgeable wiki editor than myself, but with knowledge about a missing subject on wikipedia. I try to help when I have the time. Why won't these nominating editors use their time and ability to help? Why won't the serial delete voters help? But they don't. When their one or two "me too" ivotes successfully convince an Admin to close, Wikipedia loses the content and a new editor gets their contributions wiped out, deflating their interest in contributing more content in a subject we obviously have not fully reported. Interesting when I write deletionist, my autocorrect replaces it with deflationist. Maybe it is correct. Why is it, whenever I do get involved, I am able to produce sources that they do not? Do I have a magic technique to find things in Google that nobody else can see? Or did they simply not try? Why is there no penalty against them for not trying, repeatedly?

Now we have the new technique of deliberately wrecking the content, deleting or vandalizing it before or during the AfD process. What motivates them to pull this crap? We need to get to the heart of that motivation, otherwise it will embolden these idiots. Each success they get, the bigger their body count, the more they will continue to destroy what I've spent over a decade trying to support (and what I believe you support); free knowledge. Trackinfo (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Everything you said here is completely right. I don't get it either; a new editor who tries to do what they do presumably gets banned, whereas because these deletionists have been around for a while, they face no consequences. Additionally, I noticed that these deletionists are never around to explain themselves. Twice now, I've seen JPL leave a delete !vote in an AfD, with at most a few words masquerading as a reasoning, in reality showing that he barely looked at the article at all; and then JPL never checked back in the discussion again, even when we pressed him for responses. We see the same thing with Bueller (the nominator for the Chariton article); after he nominated the article he never once answered to BrendonTheWizard's and my questions as to why he vandalized the article and removed sources that were already there. Bueller also left a message on the talk page discouraging people from improving the article by creating section headers; when BrendonTheWizard and I called him out on this, he was never there to respond. I feel like this sort of behavior definitely shows a lack of dedication, both to the article that he himself nominated for deletion and to the entire Wikipedia project in general.
 * I had been confident that the Hartson article would be kept. I saw how much effort you put into it, and I thought the article was in a passable shape for a stub, definitely better than some other articles. I thought surely the closing admin would take into account that JPL's strong delete !vote was basically discredited by his vandalism. So I considered it a bit strange that it got deleted in the end, considering its potential, and it's really saddening to see that the public will lose the opportunity to view the deleted content that should not have been deleted. But I'm confident that the Chariton article will stay. There are enough citations on it, and any objective observer should be able to see that the Keep votes come from those who actually bothered to try to find sources and improve the article, and the Delete votes come from those who just want to destroy content (and for what reason? did they not consider how they would feel if it were an article on a conservative figure that is unfairly deleted?). I'm just now seeing the two delete !votes that just got added; I immediately checked the article history, and, you guessed it, neither of them tried to improve the article at all! It's beyond ridiculous. The worst part is exactly what you said: these editors are usually really experienced, and they, more than most others, could use their time and effort for good, and they choose not to.
 * I wish there were some way of addressing this besides just venting our frustration here. But you've been around for way longer than I have, and if as you say this has been going on for a while and nothing has been done, I really fear that it's going to be like moving a mountain. I'm hoping that an attentive admin will be the one to close the Chariton AfD, and he/she will notice the discussion about Bueller's and JPL's behavior and put a stop to this madness. The more I think about this issue, the more urgent I realize it is. I'm all in on combating these deletionists now; please, keep me posted on what you want to do. Davey2116 (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is step 1. Improve it, with new sources, maybe when she does something else noteworthy to pile on and resubmit the article.  Now that they are calling precedence, we can't let them win on this one either.  He has a new documentary coming out and some other old sources.  We have to resubmit.  If they successfully use precedence, they can wipe out a whole swath of related content.  Keep fighting. Trackinfo (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you reverting my edit!
I really do apologize for making a mistake like that! I wasn't fully awake, so I got confused. I thought they passed the cloture motion already, and that they were doing the final vote on Kirstjen Nielsen. I should have double checked before updating the templates. Glad you were there to fix my mistake. I'll try to be more careful next time! Sucoleo (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem! It is clear that you made your edits in good faith, so everything is all right. Davey2116 (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice try.
It was California for Clinton 'vs' the rest of the country for Trump. Whether you like it or not :) GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Alert
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 15:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
This account is ❌ to Doc9871. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * DoRD, in which case I've removed those tags, and would request that somebody unblock Davey. Thank you, Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. They've been blocked nearly a day now; I assume we can act unilaterally, now that CU has spoken?  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 13:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'll give the blocking admin a chance first. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all involved. I'm glad that the system corrects itself very quickly. I have one question: you noted that my "use of a few things" raised flags but it was coincidental; do I have to worry about using these things in the future? (If so, what are these things?) Thanks again, no need to apologize. Davey2116 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you shouldn't need to worry about this happening again. Anybody should have been able to work out that you and Doc were unrelated. As myself and SN54129 found out in five minutes, you had zero overlap with the banned editor. This is something that you're supposed to check when basing an action on behavioural evidence. Furthermore, your behaviour doesn't sync up with anything I know from Doc. Serious question, are you a conservative? cause your edits seem quite neutral to me. This was a case of egregious misjudgement and trigger happiness. It better not happen again. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I read through (and gleaned Doc's political views from) the talk page exchanges he had with "Ihardlythinkso" here. On Wiki, I make an effort to keep my political views from biasing my editing behavior too much, but I'm pretty strongly liberal and therefore disagree with Doc on the entirety of what he and IHTS talked about in that thread. Thanks for the reassurance that this sort of thing won't happen again. Davey2116 (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals
Hi,

I noticed your interest in portals. Here is what has been going on behind-the-scenes with them...

Currently, there are about 1500 portals, comprised of 150,000 pages in portal space, the rest beyond the 1500 being subpages. Most of those subpages contain an excerpt, copied and pasted from some article. Such excerpts never change, and they go stale over time (no longer matching the original source material).

The Portal WikiProject was rebooted on April 17th, and has grown to 68 members. We've been busy redesigning the portal model so that portals will not need all those subpages.

The design concept called "selective transclusion", which is used for migrating excerpts (moving them to the base page), does so by displaying part of an article the same as a template. An added benefit of this is that it also keeps them fresh, by always showing the current version of the content that is transcluded.

We are also working on ways to make excerpted content, and listed entries, dynamic, so that the material or links shown automatically change over time without the intervention of an editor. Selected articles, could be set up to change daily, for example, to present a different article each day. This can even be made to show a different article every time a user visits the page. Currently, we can do this from a set list. We're trying to make it so that the list is updated automatically from an external source that is regularly maintained.

Other automated solutions are being sought or developed for each section type of portals. To automatically update and archive news, did you know entries, and so on.

Once we get a fully automated design worked out, it will be applied to all the portals that do not have dedicated maintainers. This will reduce the amount of maintenance they need. A single editor will then be able to watch over far more portals than before, ideally, with each portal taking up only a single page in portal space.

The Portal WikiProject is dedicated to updating, upgrading, and maintaining the entire portal system and every portal in it.

Come check us out, and if you like what you see, feel free to join. &mdash; The Transhumanist  05:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: there are lots of WikiGnome tasks to do, too. -TT

Thank you very much
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   00:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please ping me. Thank you. -TT

Contents list
How and why is your contents list upside down?? Govvy (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I got the source code for it by stealing it from User:Only in death's talk page:

As for why, I think the original purpose was that, even if my talk page has many sections, it's easy to click the most recent one in the contents list, since it's right at the top of the list. My talk page is not long, but I just thought it looked cool! Davey2116 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I actually found it a bit disorienting, the one that gets me is people's obsessions with colour as I am partially colour-blind. I can't read red on black and vice-versa. Govvy (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see how it might look uncomfortable. Now I'm glad that I don't use color anywhere on Wiki; I hadn't considered readability issues before. Davey2116 (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In the '60's, as a form of protest, I would stick an American Flag stamp up-side down on all letters I sent.&#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Simple but effective; I like it! Davey2116 (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Annual readership template
I saw you added the template on Alan Gilzean's article talk page, is it really needed there? Other than a spike of over 15,000 hits for the month when he died, it's going to look flat-lined, so is it really needed? Govvy (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. You can remove it if you want. Davey2116 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Rigby's Water World
Hello Davey can you move this into article thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.244.119 (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Social democracy
You might be interested in providing your insight at: Talk:Bernie Sanders. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

User page
Very interesting. Sca (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What's very interesting? Davey2116 (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Weygand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Reed ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Robert_Weygand check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Robert_Weygand?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bannon criticism in Mitt Romney article
No relevant reason in include Bannon's criticism in the article (especially where it was included). Wikipedia BLP are not a chronology of every insult directed at an individual. Bannon's comments are not needed to properly describe/characterize Romney's activities during his Senate run. Bannon's comments did not have any significant bearing over/ serve as a significant factor over Romney's activities. It appears to have not even have warranted a direct reaction from Romney. There is no clear reason for why it is essential to include it in the article.SecretName101 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Davey2116
Davey2116 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Wilbur Ross‎, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A sock or a phony sock?
Howdy. I'm gonna assume that It tolls not for thee isn't Therequiembellishere evading his block. But, rather a troll editor, seeking to get Therequiembellishere further blocked. Anyways, I'll leave it to you to decide. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. That account is not me, and I don't think it's Therequiembellishere either. Davey2116 (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Notre-Dame de Paris
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Polly Higgins
Stephen 22:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
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. Thank you. Jay D. Easy (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Richard Lugar
Stephen 00:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Nils John Nilsson
Stephen 00:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Boxes
Tell where where splitting every code into completely useless (and TRULY unreadable) spaces is an accepted practice and where other editors besides yourself use it to demonstrate who is actually the "one [with] personal preferences". Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm also going to bed. Would love to deal with this whole stupid and ridiculously slow-burning thing when I'm back. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Using precise dates is the main point of my edits and it is the accepted practice according to the SBS documentation. Many other articles use precise dates in succession boxes, and there is no reason to remove them. Your decision to do so is your personal preference. As for the spacing, it is more readable, and if you don't see this then it is you who needs your eyes checked. Finally, you admit that you think this is just a "stupid and ridiculously slow-burning thing", especially since the spacing issue does not affect the final output at all, yet you insist on doing it your way; I don't know if one can scream "personal preference" more palpably. Davey2116 (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Megan Beyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Allen ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Megan_Beyer check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Megan_Beyer?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Boris Johnson
Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Robert Morgenthau
Stephen 01:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Chaser (dog)
Stephen 00:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Pal Benko
 Spencer T• C 12:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Hong Kong protests ‎
Just one example of my reasonable edit that was quickly removed. - STSC (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that this edit was reasonable. "Aggressive actions" as a header is, in my opinion, a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV, which is why you never see this section title in any other article on Wiki. In case you are a new editor, I would recommend that you describe within that section some violent actions by protesters, and attribute the "aggressive actions" claim to a reliable source. To most closely follow WP:NPOV you should then include a properly-sourced rebuttal, but it is alright if you ask someone with a different point-of-view than you to do this. Also, try to use the talk page to discuss your edits; if you think that this edit was reasonable and should not have been reverted, you should discuss it with the other editors on that page. Remember to WP:AGF; do not assume that they are "activists" without evidence.
 * Also, this isn't the first time a clear POV edit of yours has been reverted. Please read WP:NPOV carefully. The main point is that you should never use Wikipedia's voice to push a particular point-of-view. Hopefully this will make sure that fewer of your edits are reverted. Davey2116 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

the TLJ disambiguation page
At the disambiguation page TLJ, you reverted my edit without leaving an edit summary. The MOS for disambiguation pages requires that articles use a reliably-sourced abbreviation first before it should be used on a disambiguation page. Currently, the page Star Wars: The Last Jedi neither cites nor even uses the abbreviation "TLJ". As such, I removed that entrant again. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 19:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Davey2116: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Distel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Hodges.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

2021
Davey2116 (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Myanmar coup d'état attempt
My first experience uploading a local image to protect for posting to the template. Anyways, nice work! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

2022
Davey2116 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

2023
Davey2116 (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

2022–23 Pennsylvania House of Representatives dispute moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 2022–23 Pennsylvania House of Representatives dispute, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). 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.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kenvue (May 12)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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:Kenvue 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Kenvue Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Kenvue reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. Draft:Kenvue existed before Kenvue did, and I and a few other editors there had been patiently waiting for a review when someone created Kenvue. Would it be possible to delete the less detailed one and accept the draft? I'd greatly appreciate that. Davey2116 (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware that the draft existed before the article. The article is tagged to have the draft merged into it.  The information that is in the draft should be merged into it.  I have never heard of an article being deleted to allow a draft to take its place.  If you think that should be permitted, you may discuss the idea at the Teahouse or Village Pump.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:2022–23 Pennsylvania House of Representatives dispute
Hello, Davey2116. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2022–23 Pennsylvania House of Representatives dispute, 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) 13:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of United States election rematches
Hello, Davey2116. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of United States election rematches, 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) 16:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of United States election rematches


Hello, Davey2116. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of United States election rematches".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Henry Kissinger
Though, it is in extremely bad taste to state on Wikipedia that you have been waiting for someone to die. Please do not do this again, Davey.  starship .paint  (RUN) 06:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

2024
Davey2116 (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2022–23 Pennsylvania House of Representatives dispute


Hello, Davey2116. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2022–23 Pennsylvania House of Representatives dispute".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Malek Rahmati for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Malek Rahmati, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Malek Rahmati until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)