User talk:Olivia comet

Nomination of The Base (platform) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Base (platform) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Base (platform) 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. Meeanaya (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Nightcrawl" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nightcrawl. Since you had some involvement with the Nightcrawl redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Zerach (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"SWOSC" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SWOSC. Since you had some involvement with the SWOSC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ischiocavernosus muscle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crus (check to confirm | 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) 11:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Fat Disappointment" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fat Disappointment. Since you had some involvement with the Fat Disappointment redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, WNED-TV, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"FOLM" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect FOLM. Since you had some involvement with the FOLM redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

– bradv🍁 04:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve RetroMUD

Hello, Olivia comet,

Thank you for creating RetroMUD.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add more sources to establish notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Elliot321}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of RetroMUD

The article RetroMUD has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as List of MUDs requires each row to have its own article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. czar 01:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of RetroMUD for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RetroMUD is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RetroMUD 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. czar 08:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]