AKTC3

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dashie (December 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dashie and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dashie, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AKTC3! 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! Rusalkii (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Thank you for contributing to the article Draft:Dashie. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Dashie

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.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Dashie, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Spencer^T•C 04:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

You appear to have a close connection to the subject on Wikipedia that raises concerns about a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.

Anyone with a conflict of interest must avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your family or colleagues, your organization or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Note that 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. Even if you are not being paid, you are expected to disclose any close connection with the subject of the article, using the connected contributor template.

For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

Deb (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I am a newer editor to Wikipedia and had no intention of making this a promotional article. I do not know this Article’s subject personally, I only thought he had enough renown to be considered a subject for Wikipedia. I apologize for this violation.

AKTC3 (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a COI violation if you have no connection with him. However, the article didn't comply with the guidelines. Try the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Deb (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to save this article personally before it is deleted? AKTC3 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to have already been deleted. You can either start over, trying to be less promotional, or ask the deleting admin (looks like it's Deb) for a WP:REFUND, though she may not grant it. Rusalkii (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Indenting

Howdy. Always remember to indent your posts, when responding to an editor on a talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry, I’m using the “Reply” section on my mobile device. How would you indent on mobile? AKTC3 (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wedding of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, and Princess Alexandra of Denmark has been accepted

Wedding of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, and Princess Alexandra of Denmark, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Encanto

I know that Encanto has a lot of good songs, and I love it. Sadly, Wikipedia considers all songs in Encanto irrelevant to the plot, as it is a Musical. If the movie is not a musical (Like this or this, which isn't a movie with a song), then the song might be ok. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. I did this in line with a musical like The Greatest Showman, which has its songs embedded in a similar format within its Plot section on Wikipedia. I am sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you again. AKTC3 (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to the London Bridge Task Force

Hello! You seem to have an interest in the recent death of Elizabeth II, so I wanted to invite to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. A task force is similar to a WikiProject, which is where you can communicate with other editors who all have the same goal, which is improving all the articles around a specific topic. I hope you consider joining! Elijahandskip (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would be honored to join! Thank you! AKTC3 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

William, Prince of Wales

Hello! As you have recently been involved in edits to the form of Prince William's name in the first line of his article, I am informing you that I have begin a talk page discussion on the topic. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Hello, I'm Mr.weedle. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Profumo affair, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mr.weedle (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

British Royal Family

For some months the article has been changed back and forth to refer to Queen Camilla as " Queen" or "Queen Consort." With the recent reports re the Coronation invitations I entered the discussion by removing "Consort" I was challenged to provide a source, so I reinstated my edit and provided a source- that morning's Times.I have often thought what the best way of removing something from w/k was if a new source removes or modifies the validity of a previously sourced statement. Can you suggest anything? I can see someone who doesnt see the British press reverting this again. I could put in a statement about the change in naming policy by the Royal Family citing this source but it seems a bit off topic for the srticle itself. Spinney Hill (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Since I am quite new, I wouldn’t know much about that. All I can see is that “Queen Camilla” is starting to be in clearer use by sources. I think the most recent source itself is enough, for it would recognize that “consort” having not been put on the invitation and further references to her as “Queen Camilla” in that article and subsequent articles sends the message not to use “Camilla, Queen Consort” or the erroneous “Queen Consort Camilla” AKTC3 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you. I have been an editor for some time (since Dec 2015 but I don't count myself as an expert and I have never seen any discussion of sources for removing items. Spinney Hill (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Coronation of George II of Great Britain and Caroline

Hello. Just to let you know why I reverted the move - it's going to appear as a DYK on 6 May, and it's undesirable to have redirects on the main page. By all means, open an RM after that. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Combined portrait

Hi AKTC3. I think you are the one who uploaded this combined portrait of George III and Charlotte. It is already in use in the article on their coronation, but the problem is that George's portrait was created by Allan Ramsay according to the Royal Collection, while Charlotte's portrait is a copy of the original created by Ramsay; it is usually paired with this copy of George III's portrait. The original created by Ramsay is this one. I thought since you have included George's original portrait, maybe it would be better to pair it with Charlotte's original one as well? Keivan.f^Talk 18:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps so! Thanks for letting me know. I can remedy this perhaps. AKTC3 (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be much appreciated. Keivan.f^Talk 23:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Queen Camilla, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. MOS:NUMERAL allows use of words for numbers higher than nine. Don't change it simply because of your personal preference. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Also please note that some of the edits that you mark as "minor" are not minor edits, such as this one. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Read Help:Minor edit for more information. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The terms also say that “Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words…” May you direct me to the discussion that was made to use “fourteen” instead of “14.” AKTC3 (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

"Either" is the operative word. There's no need to change it if it's already acceptable just because one editor prefers it a different way. Actually you make a good point. It was "14" until recently, which makes that the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Feel free to change expression of the number, but retain "the", which has been in the article since Charles became king and is not ungrammatical. Sundayclose (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I’ll keep the article “the”; I incorrectly assumed “Commonwealth realm” and “Commonwealth nation” were interchangeable. AKTC3 (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks dawg! AKTC3 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Changes in royal titles during the reign of Elizabeth II (August 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tutwakhamoe was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Changes in royal titles during the reign of Elizabeth II and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:33, 4 August 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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

You don't mean to start any edit war by reverting without using an article's talk page and the relevant section already there for discussion?! Hard to grasp what you do mean then. It's a perfect example of what we do not do.

I will revert that again unless someone says something convincing on the talk page of Ingrid of Sweden that shows she wasn't known as her Majesty Queen Ingrid of Denmark even after her husband died. She most definitely was. A change in status like the one you want requires a reliable source. None exists in that case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that you were the one to edit it in the first place from what it originally was. If you wanted to make such a change (without a source, mind you) then you are the one who is supposed to open up a talk page. So I don’t really think I was the one to start this in the first place, based on an absurd argument.

There is a difference between “Queen Ingrid of Denmark” and “The Queen of Denmark.” Just like there is a difference between “The Queen of the United Kingdom” and “Queen Mary.” Your argument assumes that there were two Queens of Denmark at the same time, which cannot possibly happen in any monarchy lest they are co-monarchs in some way. No she was not titled queen mother, but she was a dowager Queen. Literally look at any other queens dowager and you will see that my edit was line with convention here on Wikipedia and with royal titles.

You have yet to provide a reliable source that proves she and her daughter both held title “Queen of Denmark” even after the death of Frederick IX. Now what I will do is revert the edit back to what it was originally, lest you wish to open up a talk topic on the subject and get a consensus on your edit and argument.

You think that’s fair? I believe that’s fair.

Thank you. AKTC3 (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024 (2)

An "absurd" argument borders on a personal attack, as does your assertion that I started a controversy by changing article text "from what it originally was". Making such changes in good faith is never controversial, but when you start reverting, that's when the talk page must begin to be used. I've been at WP for 14 years & I'm trying to give you some good advice. Try not to be personally insulting. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024 (3)

Why are you still arguing here? You're backtracking on your own entries and arguing about things that have been settled and complaining about things that do not exist in article text. And you are repeatedly trying to reprimand me (a very experienced Wikipedian, owner of over 500 volumes about royalty & writer of several scholarly books on these subjects) over and over and over about things that nobody has asserted, such as "The Queen". Please atop being overly argumentative! It's starting to get disruptive. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because you declared a subject settled, doesn’t mean the other party involved regards it so. You can throw your experience up in my face all you want, but such a fallacy holds no weight on the fact that you seem to have some confusion on the subject of how titles work and it’s difference with a style. And I think rather that only you seem to have a problem with something that’s generally understood to be case for the article subject and thus have resorted to awkward additions. Now I’m trying to be patient with you and help settle this for the sake of clarity and accuracy. Anyone with a lick of understanding of reading and article-writing would agree that your mention of her title in the lede is wholly irrelevant, and so I proposed an alternative. You say it’s argumentative. I say it’s necessary. No, the matter doesn’t seem to be settled then. Take it to the talk page. AKTC3 (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Changes in royal titles during the reign of Elizabeth II

Hello, AKTC3. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Changes in royal titles during the reign of Elizabeth II".

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. When 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. ✗plicit 12:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)