Jump to content

User talk:LuxembourgLover/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Golden Boi$ (April 25)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Mcmatter was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, LuxembourgLover! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

LDS Church article discussion

Hi LuxembourgLover! Thanks for your comments on the talk page of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I just wanted to come by and offer a preemptive peace offering, in case you think my response to your comments seems a bit harsh. I hope you don't think so, but I just want to make sure. You seem to be contributing positively through your year or so on Wikipedia, and I don't want to scare you off now :) I care deeply about the article and I've worked on it now for several years.

You may also be interested to know that I am also an active church member as well. My personal philosophy is that church members should be able to understand the criticisms and controversies, and therefore be able to respond to them intelligently. For that reason, I don't believe in shying away from them.

Trevdna has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chocolately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Trevdna (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Go West (2023 film) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Go West (2023 film). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Go West (2023 film) (July 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ReaderofthePack was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. User reviews and ratings on IMDb do not count towards notability and are generally considered to be irrelevant to Wikipedia. The reason for this is that anyone can post a review, so it's not really of import to Wikipedia unless there has been a lot of news coverage about the ratings akin to say, Saving Christmas. I must also mention that these ratings are also easy to sway via review bombing, another reason why they are seen as non-relevant at best and unreliable at worst.

Also, notability is not inherited by notable persons being in the film. It just makes it more likely that there will be coverage.

Other than that you need coverage of the film via avenues such as newspaper articles that are about the film and aren't heavily based on (or completely made of) press releases. Local coverage is OK to use, but be aware that some don't see those as really great sources of notability since local papers are more likely to cover local (current or former) people.

I did a quick search and it looks like there's really only one source about this, so this is at best too soon for an article. To be honest, most non-blockbuster, big Hollywood films fail notability guidelines until they gain reviews in RS.
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.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello LuxembourgLover and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, LuxembourgLover. Thank you for your work on Luxembourg rebellions. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello! I trust you're enjoying a wonderful day. I wanted to express my gratitude for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia through your article. I'm pleased to let you know that your article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I've officially marked it as reviewed. Wishing you and your loved ones a fantastic day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Hello I would like to thank you for the feedback, however there is a current talk page saying all 4 articals (Luxembourg Rebellion 1918-1919, Luxembourg Rebellion, Luxembourg communist revolution, and the Luxembourg Republic should be merged. The way you talked about the review for the Luxembourg Rebellions, made it seam like it should be notable enough for wikipida. In addition one year ago a separate discussion regarding the 1918 Rebellion and the 1919 Rebellion ended with both articals being keaped. Can you join in on the discussion? LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

USCG Auxiliary articles

Hi, I think it's great that you're getting into Wikipedia editing and trying to help others do the same. You probably need to read some of what you're telling other people to do, though.

You reverted one of my edits to Lake Conroe and left me the standard message asking for "an accurate edit summary." Here was my edit summary, both accurate and thoroughly describing the issue that your statements are not supported by the sources you list:

"Removed unsourced, inaccurate information about the Lake Conroe "Coast Guard base". There is no military base on Lake Conroe, and the sources don't say that. Civilian volunteers with the USCG Auxiliary help boaters on the lake."

I get that you don't agree with my edit, or anyone else's criticism of your recent edits and articles related to the USCG Auxiliary. But be honest with what you say. Don't revert an edit saying there was no edit summary when there was one that succinctly described both the problem and the edit.


Try also doing a spell check when you're editing on Wikipedia, especially before you criticize others' contributions. 149.101.1.117 (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Some editing helps

Please take a look at:

Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And

The
Adventure
The Wikipedia Adventure guide

Hi LuxembourgLover!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lego Winter Village Collection (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Luxembourg communist revolution

You claim that "Luxembourg communist revolution" was nominated and kept in the past. Do you have any evidence of that? Page Curation and Merge discussions are separate processes from Articles for Deletion. The Banner talk 20:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I first made the articles in 2022, another editor believed they were the same event and nominated one of them for deletion. I had to clarify the difference between the 1918 and 1919 rebellion. This was in the talk page of "Luxembourg Rebellion" under contest deletion. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Ow, it was Luxembourg rebellion] that got nominated, not the communist revolution. The Banner talk 21:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Go West (2023 film)

Information icon Hello, LuxembourgLover. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Go West (2023 film), 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 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) 16:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Lot Smith

Hey, I again reverted your edit on List of brigadier generals in the United States Regular Army before February 2, 1901. Lot Smith held the rank in a militia and does not belong on that list. As for why Bloomfield is there; he had been a brigadier in a militia, true, but he was made a regular Brigadier during the War of 1812 so he belongs there. Regards ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification! LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Concern

I am really concerned about the quality of your work on Wikipedia. Making separate articles for minor events, cutting them out of their context. Place pictures in the wrong articles. Giving ranks without evidence of sources. etc etc.

Wikipedia:Competence is required

Please up the quality of your work here. Be more accurate. The Banner talk 21:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I understand why you may feel this way, but the edits were made in good faith.
  1. Lot Smith was a general in the Utah territorial Militia per this source.
  2. The only picture there was a problem with was the one about the Utah War. As stated before, a picture called “Morrisite massacre” might lead people to believe it's about the Morrisite War.
  3. I do not understand what you mean by “minor events”; the Luxembourg articles have been merged.
I hope that clears up most of the information. I am genuinely trying my best to edit with competence, and I'm open to any guidance or specific areas you believe need improvement. Thank you for your attention and understanding. LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I believe that you work in good faith, but you produce too often work that is low quality. That makes me concerned about your competence. And about Lot Smith: if you have a source, you have to provide it in the article. Now your claim that he was a brigadier general is unsourced. There is even no mention at all about his generals rank at all in the article. That is just the latest example of your low quality work. You must become far more accurate and have to provide far more reliable sources. The Banner talk 08:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Accuracy, I can not emphasise that enough: ACCURACY. What makes you think that the Utah Territorial Legislative Assembly of the Utah Territory was a state legislature? Haight left the assembly 25 years before Utah gained statehood. Beside that, WP:NSUBPOL is an explanatory essay, not a policy or guideline. The Banner talk 21:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
As stated before I believe that legislators in U.S. territories should be considered notable, following the same criteria and guidelines applicable to state legislative bodies. I never said that the Utah Territorial Legislative Assembly was a state legislature, I know its a territory but I still think politicians for territories should be notable. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
That is your personal opinion, I noticed that. The Banner talk 21:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hector C. Haight moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Hector C. Haight. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion regarding if Territorial goverment officals are notable. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Did you actually read the comment? The article is draftified due to it needs more sources to establish notability. The Banner talk 00:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but if he is notable for his political office, you would only need a few sources to say he was in office. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
You really don't get the point. If it needed more sources for his office, a source request would have been enough. Draftifying means that there is much more work to do. And that is why I keep my worries about your competency to edit Wikipedia. The Banner talk 01:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Amalienborg (March 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
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.
Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This article seems to be a copy-and-paste from German invasion of Denmark (1940). As it is a minor detail of the war, this does not need a separate article at all. The Banner talk 12:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Lot Smith Cavalry Company

I had no idea that the Lot Smith Cavalry Company even existed, and I thought I knew everything about Latter Day Saint history. Thanks for increasing my knowledge! Don't get discouraged editing Wikipedia with getting your edits reverted and such. It can be depressing (at least it was for me when I started), but ultimately made me a better editor, better researcher and better writer. I for one, am glad you are here. We need people like you to help Wikipedia become a better place. Don't give up! Would you like to take the lead on the Utah Territorial Militia split? Epachamo (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the kind words. I do love reading Wikipedia, and as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I enjoy focusing on church history on Wikipedia. I would be more than happy to take the lead on the Utah Territorial Militia split. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
But please be accurate. And do not write articles about small details that are already covered in other articles. The Banner talk 09:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
👍 LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Latter-day Saints Militias and Military Units (March 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Potentially notable, however, FamilySearch is not WP:RS. Needs more robust sourcing.
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.
Chetsford (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with Utah Territorial Militia

I noticed your submission was recently shot down for Latter-day Saints Militia and Military Units. If I could offer some hopefully constructive criticism, that will prevent this in the future. Wikipedia seeks to be as high quality as possible. Every single sentence should be verifiable by a reliable secondary source. Follow this rule and your chances of being reverted will go down and the impact you make as an editor will go up. It might seem slower, but in the long run it is faster.

One of the things on my bucket list is to bring up the quality on Utah Territorial Militia. Right now there is a cleanup template on that page which I took from the Nauvoo Legion page. There are very very few references for many of the statements. Do you want to work on this project together? Here are the steps I propose:

  1. Rather than add to the article, the first step is to verify the statements that are already made in the article, so we can remove the cleanup tag. After each sentence, we need to add a reliable secondary source. When looking for sources, a good place to go is: jstor, google scholar. Even then, check out this list to make sure it is a reliable secondary source: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement/Sources
  2. Propose on the talk page any section that we think needs expanding, or added.
  3. Write-up on the talk page a draft for what needs to be added.

What say you? Would you like to work on this with me? Epachamo (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I can use all the help I can get and would be willing to work with you. LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Alright! Lets do it! Epachamo (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Source List

Hey, I reverted your edit on April Fools day because the source you used is not considered reliable. I've found this page very useful when determining if a source is reliable or not. Epachamo (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Lot Smith Cavalry Company has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A vast majority of the article is form the source, are you telling me I could just reword for the article? LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
That's how we create articles: everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I found this source that would be really good. Epachamo (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice! Good find. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

I would like to request another perspective on edits made by TheBanner. I am uncertain about their intentions, as they seem to be consistently reverting many edits, often citing WP:CIR, I know my edits are not perfet however I have seen problems. For instance, my addition of a military service module on Chuck Norris's page—similar to those on Morgan Freeman and Elvis Presley—was removed with the rationale that Norris is "not known for his military service." Although this is true, the inclusion of such a module can be informative. Furthermore, there have been issues regarding WP:Civility; TheBanner has described my edits as "cringe" and made sarcastic remarks, asserting that competence supersedes civility. This focus on my contributions has been puzzling, and I would appreciate an external review. My editing history is publicly accessible, and I anticipate that TheBanner might respond to this discussion. I am simply seeking additional opinions on this matter. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I have a serious concern about his competency to edit Wikipedia. The Banner talk 23:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
@LuxembourgLover: The help me tag is really not for complaints about another editor, please take it to relevent noticeboards - RichT|C|E-Mail

April 2024

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Chuck Norris, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Stop the disruptive editing and POV-pushing. Plus WP:CIR-concern. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no excuse for your disruptive editing. The Banner talk 22:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I know he is not known for his military service. Elvis Presley is also not known for his military service but he has the same thing. I don't know what you are doing but saying the same thing is not going to help anyone inpove. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
And again an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-argument.But it makes clear that you fail to understand the differences between the military service of Chuck Norris (worth 2 short paragraphs) and Elvis Presley (worth a separate article: Military career of Elvis Presley). Your constant failure to judge the value of a fact, is what makes me doubt your competency to edit Wikipedia. The Banner talk 23:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Morgon Freeman has one pargrpah yet has an infobox. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about that on Talk:Morgan Freeman#Military service. The Banner talk 09:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

History of Luxembourg

I have again reverted your edit on History of Luxembourg. It was again a copy&paste from Luxembourg rebellions, except that you added a source that does not back up the claim. Sorry. The Banner talk 16:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

how does the source not back up the claim. The event is well sourced the the article. Why don't you just fix the problem and not revert all the edits. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Texas tower shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guns in the United States.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lego Winter Village Collection

Information icon Hello, LuxembourgLover. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lego Winter Village Collection, 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 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) 16:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

Hi LuxembourgLover. I'm not sure if you already know this or not, so apologies if you do, but as an extended-confirmed editor in good standing you have access to Newspapers.com through WP:The Wikipedia Library. This may help you with drafts like Draft:Hector C. Haight. Cheers, Curbon7 (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow! This has been super helpfull for my drafts. Thanks, LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Use of AI generated content

Hi there. You say in the description of File:AI-Generated Venn Diagram Comparing the Morrisite War and the Waco Siege.png that ChatGPT generated the diagram for you.

If you're also using ChatGPT to generate paragraphs text for Wikipedia articles, the current advice at Wikipedia:Large language models#Disclosure is that this should be stated in the edit summary.

If there's any past content you've added that you think should be flagged as AI-generated, you can add the {{AI-generated|date=May 2024|certain=yes}} template to the top of the relevant article or {{AI-generated|section|date=May 2024|certain=yes}} to the top of the section that contains such text. Belbury (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Would i be able to keep the picture in the venn diagram article if i correctly flag it? LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
That diagram is completely irrelevant to that article. The Banner talk 15:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
It's a venn diagram, how is it irrelevant? It shows how AI power has grown and can create venn diagrams. LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I get some clarification from you on whether edits like this one and that one were written with the assistance of an AI chatbot? Thanks. --Belbury (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I was looking at a newspaper and gave it to the AI, I wrote the original information but I used AI for spelling and grammar check. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Please state in edit summaries in future when an AI has helped you to write text content. If you have written an ungrammatical sentence and an AI has made its best guess as to what you may have meant by it, you may be introducing errors into Wikipedia. Belbury (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Alright thanks. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Good Source

Hey, hope things are going well, I found a good source here that would be good for the Utah Territorial Militia. It has lots of good information on the types of weapons used by the Utah Territorial Militia Epachamo (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a good source, good find. If you want to help me, I’m looking for public domain pictures for the Lot Smith Cavalry Company and the Morrisite War. LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Grand Ducal Gendarmerie (Luxembourg)

I understand that you want to make the article Grand Ducal Gendarmerie (Luxembourg) as spectacular as possible but by no means can you call the Luxemburg rebellions a battle. A power struggle is not the same as a battle. Please stop adding incorrect information. The Banner talk 23:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

1RR violation

You have violated WP:1RR on 7 October attacks.[1][2] Your first edit constitutes a revert of this edit. Please self-revert. Skitash (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hector C. Haight (July 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CFA was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Notable, but sounds like it was written by AI. Wording like "continuing his longstanding dedication to his faith and proselytizing duties" is not appropriate in a Wikipedia article. Please rewrite the article in the neutral point of view.
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.
C F A 💬 21:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, LuxembourgLover! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! C F A 💬 21:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Go West (2023 film)

Hello, LuxembourgLover. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Go West".

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 edit the submission 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LuxembourgLover/Archive_1&oldid=1253974000"