User talk:Moondragon21/Archives/2025/February

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Moondragon21. Thank you for your work on Andrew MacKay (Canadian politician). Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

the constituency is Oxford North according to the source

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Moondragon21. Thank you for your work on Georges Massicotte. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed and wonderful days ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Moondragon21. Thank you for your work on Roger Mantovani. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for starting this page; appropriately sources for now, although his death remains breaking news. This seems marginally better than the Italian page, at least for now!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that.

I'm really sorry to have to do a formal warning, especially to an apparently good faith and dedicated editor. But you're just WP:NOTGETTINGIT about your WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, which users can be blocked for. I'm only here to help! I truly believe in you.

I can see at a glance that you're doing lots of editing that's simply a content mill. (WP:NOT) You've been told zillions of times for a very long time, exactly why and how to stop. You have stated and demonstrated that your goal is absolute quantity of indiscriminate content. You won't engage with your Talk page, and only engage at the countless deletion discussions, many of which exist just to warn you. Somehow you don't see that your Talk page is a gigantic wasteland of pleas to stop. You have wasted inordinate amounts of precious time and energy of volunteers, for a very very long time. The zillions of deletions show that you clearly don't even value your own time and energy, and aren't trying to make content that shouldn't be deleted.

In one instance, you hand-waved away the explicit warning about notability, and replied to indicate that you kinda think notability is a suggestion.[1] (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). It absolutely is not, and it actually is a policy that we all can be blocked for violating. You've made a WP:LINKFARM of WP:ELNO WP:USERGEN WP:IMDB.[2] Back before you recently started sidestepping AfC, you spammed AfC repeatedly, like this one article three times.[3] They told you so many times to stop and why.

In one of the zillions of needless deletion discussions, it sounds like you said you did know better than to create that article, but you thought the Women in Red project is some kind of exception.[4] I know the Women in Red criteria document says that it is explicitly there to teach newbies how to game Wikipedia's system (including by dodging AfC) and to wrongfully create scattershot content in the hope that some of it might not be deleted.[5] That's brutally zealous and wrong, akin to spam, and I hope that project gets corrected, but we can't follow a bad example even if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That project runs the razor's edge of WP:RGW, and they make it sound like there could be something wrong with lacking a Wikipedia article or that the subject of women is magical. I've participated with many supplemental special projects like Women in Red or black history month, but discriminately, and usually making one permanently complete article each time. At least in this current month, you ran roughshod over Women in Red's evasive and threadbare criteria, you used even lower standards than theirs, and you used far lower standards than the policies that you're already accustomed to being constantly told about. Projects don't override Wikipedia policy.

Obviously, nobody should be making stub articles unless for literally categorically notable subjects like the National Historical Register, but you spammed the creation of about a dozen deleteable articles just today. I'm pretty sure none of them have content proving WP:GNG. Many cite their own promotional press releases, and one has your own "proud father" text.[6] (WP:PROMO WP:PRIMARY WP:NPOV) People have tried so hard to teach you how to properly collaborate, like here.

So here's an outline for anybody in this situation. But this is also especially how you stay out of WP:ANI, because your long and exhaustive history is exactly why ANI exists.

1) Absolutely stop editing until you understand what an encyclopedia is, and change your objective so that it is to create content of policy-compliant quality that is beyond question and can never be deleted. You're so close!

2) Today, move each of the stubs you ever created, ever, to be relocated under your userspace because they aren't fit for main space. Fill or delete all the empty categories you ever created.

3) Read and understand WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:PROMO, WP:EDITSUMMARY for starters. You constantly hit a lot of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Read all the dozens of deletion discussions you've needlessly forced, at least of the last couple months, and read the vital policies they linked to you over and over. They have more of the political criteria.

4) Start using your sandbox, which just means to create new documents under your user space. Resume only using (not abusing) AfC for submitting your sandbox content that you had already improved to C class. That means it's AfC-worthy and deletion-proof. Ask at WP:TEAHOUSE and compare to WP:NOT, to confirm your encyclopedic comprehension that your content is truly necessary, rather than waste AfC's time. Everybody needs another point of view, so they can stay neutral and notable. Always use meaningful edit summaries to aid fellow Wikipedians in tracking each change, not meaningless things like "updated" or blank.

5) Truly discern quality. As you go, ask yourself "is this content vitally necessary and encyclopedic?", "am I dumping a job on someone else?", "could I find or re-read a policy about what I'm doing?", and "am I guessing? could I ask WP:TEAHOUSE?"

I only wrote this because I know you're good, I know you're way better than this, and I know you want to be great! I wouldn't do that for anybody else! Good job on your exquisite formatting skills of citations, infoboxes, and templates and great stuff like that. That skillset is called a WP:WIKIGNOME which applies to impove already existing articles, but you're mis-applying that to the creation of articles.

Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 06:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think "zillions" of mistakes is a misrepresentation. I have nearly 70,000 edits over almost 6 years. Which stubs aren't fit for main space? They have been reviewed and other editors have thanked me and are contributing to them making them better. The most recent ones are in the same style as others. I have been told about formatting in the past and am comfortable with the standards. On Women in Red, I was invited to the project by User:Ipigott last year and haven't been told that I was doing the wrong thing if anything the opposite. This was my first time properly engaging with the community. I feel singled out I always act in good faith so being under threat of being blocked confuses me. Am I disruptive or am I doing good job overall? Moondragon21 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Erecia Hepburn has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Erecia Hepburn. Thanks! Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Erecia Hepburn has been accepted

Erecia Hepburn, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ron Fowler (politician) (February 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lemonaka 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:Ron Fowler (politician) 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.

-Lemonaka 10:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Moondragon21! Having an article draft 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! -Lemonaka 10:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ron Fowler (politician) has been accepted

Ron Fowler (politician), 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-Samoht27 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Women's ministers of the Maldives

A tag has been placed on Category:Women's ministers of the Maldives indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)