User talk:SupremelyYours
|
Your contributed article, Arthur Napiontek
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Arthur Napiontek. 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 - Arthur Napiontek. 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 Arthur Napiontek - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 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. Adjkasi (discuss me | changes) 06:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
[edit]Hi. When you recently edited Arthur Napiontek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Greek and Model (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) 15:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lady Gaga, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tay(uhoh) 03:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lady Gaga. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tay(uhoh) 03:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Tay,
The contribution I made to the article of Lady Gaga was not unconstructive in the least. While I realize that high-profile stars must have close eyes on their profiles to make sure they are not vandalized, anyone who had read the content of my addition would not think I was vandalizing Lady Gaga or Wikipedia. I am adding a factual account of a hot topic issue, in the same way as the LGBT section. I cannot see how this is vandalizing this site, so please refrain from constantly removing my contribution.
Yours Truly, SupremelyYours
- This edit contains information which is tangential to the article--one cannot list every single thing that the subject supports or opposes. Moreover, your comment is not properly verified, and a reference to a reliable source is necessary for two reasons besides WP:V--this is a biography of a living person, and it is a Good Article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Drmies,
I don't know how you came into this conversation, but I can only assume it is the prerogative of an editor. However, my contribution was not tangential; the section is about political activism, and the website is about political activism on a very current issue. How that is tangential, I don't understand, but I do agree with Tay and yourself that there must be a reliable reference cited. Had I been able to find that reference before making that contribution, I would have cited it earlier. There's probably no way for you to know this (though I have been surprised today), but this is not my first time contributing to Wikipedia and I am well aware of needing a reliable source cited, and I had every intention of citing a reliable source until I realized my entire contribution was deleted. To keep things cordial, I will immediately cite a reliable source and resubmit my contribution. However, the "tangential" thing is something I can't figure out an agreement on.
Yours Truly, SupremelyYours
- If you find a reliable source and put the information in its correct place and grammatically correct, and all that then it will stay but you can't just go making huge section changes without any reliable sources and it being important and relevant to the article. Try looking at some other bios and read more on guidelines and procedures on Wikipedia and maybe that will help, its not personal at all its just to keep up the article otherwise it won't meet the good article criteria anymore and that's bad.Tay(uhoh) 04:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lady Gaga, you may be blocked from editing. read above Tay(uhoh) 04:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Tay,
I am exhausted with this. I don't know how you can say I need to check my grammar when you say "your" instead of "you're" and "it won't be meet", but I am done trying to submit a harmless and completely rule-abiding contribution to the Lady Gaga article, for now. I will appeal my contribution to supervisors at Wikipedia, and see what they think. In disruptive editing, as you've cited, there is mention of how accusing someone of "vandalism", when vandalism wasn't actually committed as you admit, is also wrong because it discourages persons who are actually fine editors. I will submit my contribution to a person higher up. It is overdone to remove my abilities to edit on Wikipedia when I have been nothing but a rule-abiding editor, and author of two articles, who has sought to only contribute to this website.
With all due respect, SupremelyYours
- Sorry you feel that way, and I'm not the one who put "Your" Wikipedia did. Thanks for pointing out my mistake by the way it has been fixed! If you want to appeal, than take it to the talk page and who knows I could be wrong! Good day, Tay(uhoh) 04:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Drmies,
I am obliged by the rules to tell you that in my appeal I am mentioning you as one of the two editors commenting on my contribution.
Dear Tay and Drmies,
I am sorry that we have differences of opinions, but I have faith that all will work out.
Yours Truly, SupremelyYours
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Elektrik, I will do that from now on. --SupremelyYours (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 7
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neil Connery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Notoriety (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) 09:07, 7 January 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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, SupremelyYours. 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, SupremelyYours. 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)
Nomination of Arthur Napiontek for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Napiontek 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/Arthur Napiontek 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. Greyjoy talk 10:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)