Hello, Mary Wilkes, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Gurus Character Sheet, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Gurus Character Sheet. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Gurps Character Sheet. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Gurps Character Sheet. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cahk (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Posse Comitatus (organization). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. The FBI clearly stated that "The FBI considers sovereign-citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement" - changing that to "classifies some sovereign citizens ("sovereign citizen extremists") as extremists." was clearly incorrectDoug Wellertalk19:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make edits like the one you did here. Wikipedia exists to describe topics in context and as they are described in the reliable sources. Please especially don't remove references and insert unsourced material, or material cited only to a self-published sources at odds with the independent sources.
When making changes to a controversial or politically charged topic - especially major changes - it's also worthwhile to read the article talk page. Often an issue has been discussed before, and editors have reached a consensus. Neutralitytalk07:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Oath Keepers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Wellertalk18:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mary, you have now added that material to the article three times. Please see WP:3RR. If you do it again you are likely to be blocked from editing. In this case, you not only re-added your controversial edit, but you did it in violation of the discussion at the talk page. Please also see WP:CONSENSUS. There is not yet a full consensus at the talk page, but two people oppose including your material, versus just you for including it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You posted a notice on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about the lede sentence of Oath Keepers. There has been discussion there, and an uninvolved editor has now offered to moderate the question. Your continued participation is needed there. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Natureium (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
When a single source is cited to support multiple sections in an article, we name the reference on first definition and call the named references in subsequent uses. The readers can see in the Reference section where the information came from, and all of the locations in the article that it is used. You can learn more about how to reference properly at User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. Schazjmd(talk)22:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. I'm still learn this stuff, as you can tell. Thank you for the info. I don't have time to fix it right now. I will try to get to it later. Mary Wilkes (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. I liked your edits. We were both editing the page simultaneously. I tried to preserve your changes when I merged the two edits. If I reversed any of your edits it was unintentional. Mary Wilkes (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Marshall (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arms & Hearts, I have not written many wikipedia articles and don't always know the correct wikipedia etiquette, so I appreciate your input. This is only the second time the nomination for deletion has come up on one of my articles. The nomination said that if the nomination was not deleted in a certain amount of days, the article might get automatically deleted. The other time an article I wrote was nominated for deletion, I addressed the issue and waited several days and someone else removed it. On this article I believe I had addressed the issues, and commented on it on the talk page. But the nomination had not been removed liked before. I did not want the deadline to pass and for the article to get deleted. The notice that it had been nominated for deletion did not say that I was not allowed to delete the article. Can you point me to where Wikipedia's policies on who can and cannot delete the nomination so that I can make sure and abide by them in the future?Mary Wilkes (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed your comment and wanted to explain the different types of article deletion that can occur. One type is called a "speedy deletion", and the different criteria is at WP:CSD. An article tagged for speedy deletion can be deleted by an admin immediately.The second type is called "prod", for "proposed deletion". The article Matt Marshall (politician) was previously tagged for prod. A prod tag can be removed by any editor. If the tag is not removed within a week, the article is deleted. Prod is for noncontentious deletions.The third and most common method is AFD (articles for deletion). In the AFD process, a nominator gives their reasons for believing that an article doesn't meet the criteria to remain on Wikipedia. Any editor can engage in the discussion. After at least a week, an uninvolved editor will review the discussion and determine what the consensus was. No editor can remove the AFD tag from an article while the discussion is ongoing.The AFD process is what's going on right now for Matt Marshall (politician). You can click the link on the tag on the article to go to the deletion discussion. Schazjmd(talk)21:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter de Caen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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.
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Posse Comitatus (organization). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. The FBI clearly stated that "The FBI considers sovereign-citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement" - changing that to "classifies some sovereign citizens ("sovereign citizen extremists") as extremists." was clearly incorrect Doug Weller talk 19:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
