User talk:ΑΩ
Welcome!
Hello, ΑΩ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arnoutf (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Guide to referencing
[edit]Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.
| Using references (citations) |
|---|
|
I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can remove unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started.
A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, and authorised web sites. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research (e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research), or another wikipedia article.
The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section (unless it already exists). This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:
The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):
Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.
Open the edit box for this page, copy the following text (inserting your own text where indicated), paste it at the bottom of the page and save the page:
(End of text to copy and paste.) It should appear like this:
You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For an online newspaper source, it might look like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Note the single square brackets around the URL and the article title. The format is:
Make sure there is a space between the URL and the Title. This code results in the URL being hidden and the title showing as a link. Use double apostrophes for the article title (it is quoted text), and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). Double square brackets round the name of the paper create an internal link (a wikilink) to the relevant wikipedia article. Apostrophes must go outside the brackets. The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings to display the date in the format the user wishes.
You can use sources which are not online, but which you have found in a library or elsewhere—in which case leave out the information which is not relevant. The newspaper example above would be formatted like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Here is an example for a book:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Make sure you put two single quote marks round the title (to generate italics), rather than one double quote mark.
These formats are all acceptable for dates:
You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference
The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:
The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:
You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. You can see multiple use of the same refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.
The above method is simple and combines references and notes into one section. A refinement is to put the full details of the references in their own section headed "References", while the notes which apply to them appear in a separate section headed "Notes". The notes can be inserted in the main article text in an abbreviated form as seen in Harriet Arbuthnot or in a full form as in Brown Dog affair.
More information can be found at:
I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know. |
ΑΩ
[edit]Regarding your edits to Jack the Ripper
[edit]Thank you for your recent contributions at the Jack the Ripper article. Due to on-going issues with that article, it'd be much appreciated if you could drop a line on the talk page to discuss your edits. Of course, simple explanations in the form of edit summaries are always nice as well. Thanks. --clpo13(talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I second that request. Your edits seem pretty good, and would probably glide right through discussion. Discussing your edits prevents folk from spot-reverting your info, especially if it is contended material. Just a thought. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming to discussion. You make good points. I stick by that need for citing the profiling tag, though. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Painting
[edit]Hi I saw you are a new editor, so welcome (I added the official welcome on top of the page). I noticed you experimenting on painting. This may cause confusion among regular editors, and I would therefore kindly ask you not to experiment on "life" pages. Wikipedia has a special domain that is setup for experiment, called the sandbox. This is a nice area to play around with the pages without confusing anyone else. Once again welcome, and have a good time editing. Arnoutf (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems this was not experimenting. They were conscious edits with a view to improving the article. Ty 10:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok I understand that now. What I did see was that the editor AO made 3 edits on an article which (s)he subsequently reverted idenitifying those own edits as vandalism (using TW). This last thing "identifying your own edits as vandalism in the revert" is very strange, the tools have assumed good faith reversion options as well. Therefore I thought you were just testing how the editing worked. Sorry that I misunderstood the reasons for your edits. I hope this clarifies why I jumped to the (wrong) conclusion that you were trying out.
- Please notice that there are no owners or professionals. Also, please consider that I have not talked about vandalism, as (IMHO) it was clear that your edits were in good faith (even experimenting may be good faith unless you know you shouldn't). To be honest, I thought your edits were relevant, and I was surprised you reverted them. (It was that surprise that contributed me to jump to the conclusion).
- Anyway I hope you don't take offense, it was never meant to be given. Arnoutf (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I, or my account, was in some way the origin of this... confusion. The edit history of the Painting article does indeed make it seem as if I must have been reverting my own edits. I was wondering about that yesterday too. But I could not remember making that revert. Still, I suppose I may have. The odd thing is that it seemed as if some of the extra options were not working until the revert happened. warn - arv - csd - last - rpp - xfd - unlink - welcome; I can't say I even know what it all means, but I don't think any of those were there; most of them surely not. The optional assessment line at the top of the articles was there for some time, but disappeared. I tried to make it work by the other method mentioned in the "preferences", but couldn't. Same thing with the "categories line" at my user page - turned up after the "event" yesterday. I'm not sure, but I don't think TW worked either. So, when that revert happened, it actually made me wonder if there was some bug involved. Strange. Anyway, a misunderstanding it surely must have been. On my part too. ΑΩ (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, some of the more "advanced" automated functions/editor programmed routines tend to be fairly incomprehensible. Happy editing :-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I, or my account, was in some way the origin of this... confusion. The edit history of the Painting article does indeed make it seem as if I must have been reverting my own edits. I was wondering about that yesterday too. But I could not remember making that revert. Still, I suppose I may have. The odd thing is that it seemed as if some of the extra options were not working until the revert happened. warn - arv - csd - last - rpp - xfd - unlink - welcome; I can't say I even know what it all means, but I don't think any of those were there; most of them surely not. The optional assessment line at the top of the articles was there for some time, but disappeared. I tried to make it work by the other method mentioned in the "preferences", but couldn't. Same thing with the "categories line" at my user page - turned up after the "event" yesterday. I'm not sure, but I don't think TW worked either. So, when that revert happened, it actually made me wonder if there was some bug involved. Strange. Anyway, a misunderstanding it surely must have been. On my part too. ΑΩ (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Visual arts
You are welcome to join WikiProject Visual arts, a collaboration between like-minded Wikipedians in order to improve visual arts coverage.
Anti-Americanism
[edit]Hi there! Glad you are making constructive edits to the Anti-Americanism article. I've been like Horatio At The Bridge for the last month in a lone stand trying to protect that article from being butchered by one highly persistent individual. Colin4C (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, ΑΩ, I was wondering if you could chime into the discussion going on at Talk:Anti-Americanism. Since you've been contributing to the article, your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
[edit]Hi AQ. I apologize for being so brusque on Anti-Americanism the other day. I said the edits were sloppy, but I should also have said they were helpful and provided worthwhile information. (I am a jerk, particularly, for dealing badly with a new editor.) I did shorten the additions but note that your main points are still there and do improve the usage section. Marskell (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Robert Donston Stephenson
[edit]This is Howard Brown, right? Sorry, How, but you can't link to your own blog on Wikipedia, as blogs and messageboards are expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:External links policy.
I also find it odd that you spent so much time advancing the Donston theory on "Juives" without mentioning the all-important bit that Juives is NOT a word in French. I added a line linking to the letter in the Pall Mall Gazette correcting that claim to the main Jack the Ripper article (and cut down on the blockquote of Donston, as it's a lot to quote for no good reason). You should probably add extended information about it to the Donston article just to not mislead people into thinking Donston was right about his claims.
Also, your claims on the Ripper talk page that the term is not "Goulston Street Graffito" is all fine and good, as I know you personally object to the term, but it is the term used by most authors in the field. DreamGuy (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- NO. This is NOT Howard Brown. And how wide off the mark you are... somehow fittingly, considering the subject. Your "misinterpretation" may perhaps go to show what a tricky subject philology can be... You're most certainly wrong about your claim here; Stephenson may or may not have been wrong about his. And it is really not for us to say, is it ?
- I have read the article from the native French speaker countering Stephenson's claim. It ought perhaps to be mentioned in the article about Stephenson. I'm not quite sure, but perhaps there could be a quote from Howard Brown too: "The GSG’s message remains buried with its author; end of story. All else, from the two attempts by Roslyn D’Onston Stephenson to anyone else’s ideas, are conjectures for now." (Ripperologist, May 2005) Says nothing about Stephenson being right or wrong. "Conjectures...", sounds about right to me. But I'll say the true experts on a question like this would have to be philologists in some way specifically trained for it. Though I suspect any such reference will probably be hard to find. As for 'Juives' being a French word or not, it has been pointed out before - it is indeed a word in French, though most obviously an adjective.[1] And if blog links are expressly forbidden, that link to Howard Brown's blog will simply have to go. ΑΩ (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, you sure don't speak like Howard... he'd never talk about "philology." I'm just kind of shocked anyone would link to his blog or even know of it at this stage considering that it's only been online a very short time. As far as Ripper authors go he's pretty obscure.
- You don't talk like Mike Covell or Ivor Edwards either... and Melvin Harris is dead... and if you're Spiro you're acting different. I didn't realize there even was anyone else out there in the world other than those five who was so interested in Donston's connections to the case. Well, hey, I guess more people with an interest in any academic topic is a good thing. DreamGuy (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Gouston Street Graffito
[edit]Hi there. I wanted to let you know that I redirected the above page to Jack the Ripper as it appeared that you all ready had all of that information in the article, and it didn't seem that the new article would ever be able to grow much. If you object, please don't hesitate to undo my edit either by finding it in my contribs (see my sig) or by going to Goulston Street Graffito, clickin on the "redirected from Goulston..." link at the top left of the article, then using the history tab. Sorry if you all ready knew all of that. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Possible path forward on JtR
[edit]I have posted a very rough idea of a possible path forward on stopping the fighting and personal arguing on the JtR page and JtR talk page. If you see possibility to the idea, please let me know either here or on my talk page. Please do not clutter up KB's talk page with discussion of this. If all the major players see potential, I will start up a page and talk page in my user area to flesh out the idea with all involved. If anyone wants to reject any possibility of the idea, please say so also, so that time is not wasted on something that will not work. This is an idea that can only work with the acceptance of all the major players at the JtR talk page, so if anyone rejects it, the idea is pretty much DOA. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- The initial, rough draft of the agreement is up at User:TexasAndroid/JtR Battleground. It is availible for editing, and the linked talk page, while not currently in existance, can be created and used for discussions on the agreement. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Hugo Bruckmann
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Hugo Bruckmann requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Beano (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I really should have been providing some sources right away, when I started the article, instead of merely translating it from the German. Sorry about that. I have put in a couple of references now, that might, I hope, make it sufficiently clear that this person is notable. ΑΩ (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Something else about Girard/Hobbes
[edit]It is possible to read it here [2] (there is mimetism in Hobbes' thought). French authors made also the comparison between Hobbes and Girard (Tarot, Vinolo...). You added excellent things on the Girard's page. José Fontaine (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was (somewhat) provoked into finding that paper by Grahl after reading a few posts at this web forum of one of our newspapers. So, I found that article and posted a quote that seemed fitting.[3] The article by Palawer was quite interesting. Especially how he made the École Polytechnique massacre serve as sort of a silent (silenced ?) background. It made me feel like reading The Karamazov Brothers again. ΑΩ (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Your message
[edit]Yes, he's a seems to be troll, and I try to not feed him..I agree that your edits should not have been reverted by him. I try to avoid that particular person, unless I have no choice..Thanks for your message, please don't be offended if I archive it..my advice to you - though concerning your edit on painting - is revert him, don't back down, I reverted his bs on the talk page, and you made a reasonable referenced edit..revert the guy..Modernist (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I should revert him now. After coming to think of Tapies it seems even more obvious. Though from what I've seen of this "Research Method", the resulting reciprocation seems somewhat predictable. Archiving my message seems sensible to me. So, no offense taken. ΑΩ (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
ANI Reports about other users
[edit]I've notified DreamGuy as you failed to do so. You are REQUIRED to notify other users if you post about them on ANI. Exxolon (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for making me aware. When I filed my first ANI complaint five months ago noone told me about this requirement. I can see, though, that making ones adversary aware of the complaint is also a matter of common courtesy. Sorry. ΑΩ (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ways to improve Abolfazl Ghadyani
[edit]Hi, I'm Jayadevp13. ΑΩ, thanks for creating Abolfazl Ghadyani!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article/page you created is a stub. Please help by adding more information from sources.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Disambiguation link notification for May 13
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John H. Mercer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lewis Glacier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, ΑΩ. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, ΑΩ. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, ΑΩ. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, ΑΩ. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The article Sjoerd van der Burg has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 13:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Judging by the second deletion made by discospinster talk one single reliable source is not enough. I prefer not to get into any kind of debate with that kind of person. If it had been a footballer, a politician, a cyclist, sailor or some other such "notable" person it would quite obviously have been much easier to judge for oneself. But as this concerns a scientist it seems less obvious that a person is socalled "notable" as to the "standards" here. When I at all bothered trying to start an article about this scientist it was after looking at the one about the name Sjoerd with the list of articles about persons with that name, most of them "notable" athletes. Simply thought that a full professor in immunology with these credentials would be obviously deserving of an article. If anyone else can be bothered, well and good, but after seeing the article deleted a second time, by the same nitpicker, I just won't. But at least I know now that notability in the normal sense of the word does not apply here. User:ΑΩ
- I did not delete the page, I moved it to draft space so you can work on it and add more references, to show that it meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability (significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources). Simply being a scientist or a professor does not confer notability, there are guidelines for that under WP:NPROF. Similarly, just being an athlete does not make an individual automatically notable (see WP:NATHLETE). ... discospinster talk 18:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for making me aware of the WP:NPROF. From what I can see it makes it at least conceivable, then, that Sjoerd van der Burg could be notable by the WP rules. I'll be looking into it. ΑΩ (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did not delete the page, I moved it to draft space so you can work on it and add more references, to show that it meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability (significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources). Simply being a scientist or a professor does not confer notability, there are guidelines for that under WP:NPROF. Similarly, just being an athlete does not make an individual automatically notable (see WP:NATHLETE). ... discospinster talk 18:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Sjoerd van der Burg moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Sjoerd van der Burg, does not have enough sources and citations 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 "Draft:" 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 follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster talk 14:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Sjoerd van der Burg
[edit]
Hello, ΑΩ. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sjoerd van der Burg".
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 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.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)