User talk:Publius In The 21st Century

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

October 2020[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{1}}}]]. Thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marquardtika, as I explain on your page, I am not a sockpuppet and welcome any investigation into my behavior. I believe you have made this allegation in bad faith to deflect from your bad faith behavior on Leonard Leo' page. I offer on a third. I welcome further dialogue on this matter. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 24)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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 organizations and companies). 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.
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 when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Publius In The 21st Century! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Publius In The 21st Century, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

October 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:BH Group, from its old location at User:Publius In The 21st Century/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathan2055: Thank you very much for this - I appreciate it! I will look forward to receiving further notification from submissions editors in due course. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carrie Severino (October 25)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary 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 people). 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.
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 when they have been resolved.
MurielMary (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CRC Advisors (October 27)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats 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.
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 when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carrie Severino (October 27)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats 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 when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Neil Corkery (October 27)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Snowycats were:
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.
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 people). 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.
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 when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: BH Group (October 27)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats 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 organizations and companies). 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:
A corp with one employee?
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 when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Judicial Education Project (October 27)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Snowycats were:
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.
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 organizations and companies). 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.
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 when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ann Corkery (October 27)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats 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:
general promotional term and reads like a profile, rather than an encyclopedic article.
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 when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Per [1] Snowycats (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snowycats Thanks for working so fairly to resolve this concern, and I'm glad to be able to clear my name on this score. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Creative Response Concepts, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Snowycats (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowycats: Glad to have resolved, this, too, as a misunderstanding. Appreciate your dilligence and your time. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Wellspring Committee (October 27)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats 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.
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 when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Publius In The 21st Century, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Snowycats (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowycats: Very glad to have resolved this as a misunderstanding; thank you for the fair and judicious treatment here. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed you![edit]

Just got your message. Feel free to reach out again soon. I should be around. Snowycats (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert-American politics 2[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— TransporterMan (TALK) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Judicial Crisis Network[edit]

I'm placing this same message on both the talk page of Seoul1989 and Publius In The 21st Century. The two of you are in violation of the Edit War policy, being involved in a slow-motion revert war at that article. I have no idea which of you has the better case for the edits in dispute, but you cannot continue to revert one another. It's time to take the dispute to Talk:Judicial Crisis Network and discuss the edits one at a time. If an editor will not discuss, consider DISCFAIL. But any additional reverts will result in a complaint to an administrator for the application of sanctions. Either discuss it and work it out through discussion or drop the stick and walk away. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @TransporterMan: - many thanks for your intervention. Since I am sure you did your due diligence before issuing these sanctions, I have no doubt you will have visited both Talk:Judicial Crisis Network and Seoul1989's talk page; you will therefore have seen that on no fewer than five occasions I tried reaching out to Seoul1989 to avoid an edit war and discuss the issues in an appropriate way. I expressed hope on several occasions that a compromise could be reached. All to no avail. I have now waited two weeks to let things cool down; perhaps you might enlighten me as to what more I could possibly do when faced by a recalcitrant editor who seems to be operating in bad faith? With best regards --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to take the dispute to Talk:Judicial Crisis Network and propose and discuss the edits one at a time. If an editor will not discuss, consider DISCFAIL; many administrators will consider continued editing or reverting without discussing to be bad faith editing. If an editor will discuss, but no consensus can be reached, consider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @TransporterMan:. I have now done so. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't place warnings to editors on article talk pages[edit]

That's not an appropriate use of an article talk page, such warnings should be put on the editor's talk page.

On a minor point, you seem to be under the opinion that you've been sanctioned - that hasn't happened. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:CRC Advisors[edit]

Information icon Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:CRC Advisors, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Neil Corkery[edit]

Information icon Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Neil Corkery, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Wellspring Committee[edit]

Information icon Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Wellspring Committee, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:BH Group[edit]

Information icon Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:BH Group, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Judicial Education Project[edit]

Information icon Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Judicial Education Project, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Carrie Severino[edit]

Information icon Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Carrie Severino, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Rosemary Vrablic's Page[edit]

Hello. I genuinely appreciate the civility with which you've communicated your opinion on my edits to Rosemary Vrablic's page. I have no conflicts of interest to declare there, however I am attempting to add more balance to the page of a successful banker whose career has been largely overshadowed by relatively weak ties to one among her several hundred ultra-high-net-worth clients. In particular, I would like to move the sentences about the Jared Kushner investigation and the connection to Trump out of the lead paragraph and into the sections about Jared Kushner and Trump respectively, where I believe they belongs. The language there is toned down appropriately relative to language you've used in the past, and I'll refer here to Wikipedia's BLP policy: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." That is why I am no longer requesting a deletion, but a truly balanced article about this woman should not lead with those statements. Thank you for your understanding. --Cookietray45 (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CRC Advisors has been accepted[edit]

CRC Advisors, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Judicial Education Project has been accepted[edit]

Judicial Education Project, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:BH Group[edit]

Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "BH Group".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: BH Group has been accepted[edit]

BH Group, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice - Sanctions for biographical articles[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Daszak[edit]

I've made an edit based on your suggestion at Talk:Peter Daszak, let me know what you think Loganmac (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of antisemitic incidents in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairfax District. 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) 05:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ann Corkery[edit]

Information icon Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ann Corkery, 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) 17:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Neil Corkery[edit]

Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Neil Corkery".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ann Corkery[edit]

Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ann Corkery".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Wellspring Committee[edit]

Hello, Publius In The 21st Century. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Wellspring Committee".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Court Theatre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carrie Severino (January 3)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon 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 people). 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 draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse.

In particular, see and refer to WP:GNG for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

This draft appears to have been written in the past and not revised recently. It describes Severino in the present tense as a supporter of the Barrett nomination. That nomination was approved and is in the past, like the Kavanaugh nomination. This draft refers to Merrick Garland as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals. He is Attorney General of the United States. This draft needs review.
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 when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, Carrie Severino (whose politics I do not agree with) is notable but the draft about her needs improvement. With your consent, I could create a very SHORT version that demonstrates notablity and put it in mainspace, where you could then use your own sources to improve it. What I think the problem is now with it getting approved is that too much of its length is simply repeating things CS has said, which makes it look a bit like a soapbox for her opinions rather than an encyclopedia article. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HouseOfChange, my sincere thanks for this. I would be thrilled to proceed in the manner you suggest - I don't seem to have cracked the code for getting pages approved (I have the same issue with Julie Jenkins Fancelli and a few others in the same world as Carrie Severino), and I would be very grateful to be able to develop my Wikicraft on this score by learning from a more experienced editor who seems very well-respected. Incidentally, I hope it will also be clear that my aim is not to promote these individuals or their viewpoints; rather, it seems to me that an encyclopedia is incomplete that does not have entries on members of our society who are reshaping the world around us in notable ways, and that the public at large is well-served by knowing who such individuals are and what such individuals do. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to work on this current version of the article. You can use the page history to retrieve anything you value that I removed, or in fact to revert everything that I do. My goal is a very short article that focuses on showing notability, so please don't be hurt that my version will be minus a LOT of your hard work. I value your viewpoint although I don't share it, and your civility in discourse is a rare and precious quality, so I want to help you stick around. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HouseOfChange, I appreciate this very much - your graciousness and generosity of spirit are (in my experience) quite exceptional here, and they go a surprisingly long way in helping me re-evaluate who this site attracts and the quality of work and dialogue that can take place here. For whatever it's worth, that means a lot to me, and I'm very grateful to you for it. I also appreciate being able to learn from you on the question of starting a new page from scratch, and of course will not be offended by cuts or modifications you need to make along the way Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! The first thing I do when starting a new bio is to find 3 sources that establish notability, because I hate wasting effort on an article that gets deleted, as my first article was. Right now I am working in my sandbox on a Black labor leader; you can use the page history to see my process, if you think it will help you. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

update: I made some edits to your draft, found a few more sources. I'm not ready to re-submit it, but I'll do more tomorrow. Taking off for the night, I do the 750words.com thing every day before midnight so I need to get over to that. Best wishes, HouseOfChange (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update, OK, take a look. I believe it now clearly shows her notability. It still needs categories and a person infobox. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably saw, I left a message asking the most recent reviewer to take another look. That was meant as a courtesy, but since he has not responded, I assume he is busy and re-submitted the draft for review. I think it is in good shape now and should be accepted. Thanks for your hard work originating an article about this notable person. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Update: and the article is now live at Carrie Campbell Severino -- also, I nominated the article for DYK, which means it gets more help from other editors and possibly more attention from Wikipedia users. See if you can think of a better "hook," remembering it needs to be NPOV. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Julie Fancelli has been accepted[edit]

Julie Fancelli, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

S0091 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATEVAR[edit]

Hello. Just a reminder, if an article you edit uses a particular date format (DD/MM or MM/DD), you should follow the same format. Cheers, Number 57 13:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Number 57 (talk · contribs). Will do. --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Carrie Severino[edit]

It passed DYK, so now it will go into the queue to be on the main page someday. I learned a lot more myself about editing from the discussion to get it passed, so you might also want to take a look. Happy editing! HouseOfChange (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HouseOfChange, thank you so much for your extraordinarily kind efforts on this - I'm very sorry that this has been such a busy period, and that I haven't been able to engage with Wikipedia in a serious way for a few weeks. I hope I will have a bit of spare time this coming weekend, and I will look forward very much to having a look at all the wonderful things you have done. In the meantime, let me simply say how grateful I am, and how much I appreciate all your superlative bridge-building efforts - you've really gone above and beyond! --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Publius In The 21st Century: Glad our collaboration turned out well, after all that hard work by us both! HouseOfChange (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Carrie Campbell Severino[edit]

On 20 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carrie Campbell Severino, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that legal activist Carrie Campbell Severino, who co-authored a book about Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination, was once a law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carrie Campbell Severino. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Carrie Campbell Severino), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Iskandar323 (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1RR breach[edit]

Your second partial revert within a space of 24 hours on Amnesty International came an hour after I notified you (above, or see this diff) of the broadly construed discretionary sanctions applying to content related to the Israel-Palestine conflict (alongside a notice on the associated article talk page). The relevant page restrictions prohibit multiple reverts within a 24-hour period. I invite your to self-revert to avoid risking sanctions. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: I'm just a friendly talk page follower here, but from experience, this user Publius doesn't edit every day and is a well-intentioned person. So please give Publius the benefit of the doubt concerning this mistaken edit. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: I'd just like to see that the restrictions are understood, noted and complied with. I'm not in any hurry to waste time filing AE cases. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope, Publius, you don't mind my adding a word of advice. In Wikipedia, you can "win" disputes only by convincing OTHER editors. There are a lot of editors in the Israel-Palestine area who are so dug into their position, pro or con, that you can never convince them. But stick to policy rules like AGF anyway, and you will have a much better chance of succeeding. The more polite you are to annoying editors, the better chance you have of convincing OTHER editors of your point of view. And use the article talk page to make your points, not edit summaries. Good luck. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Publius_In_The_21st_Century&oldid=1124499751"