Hello JaneciaTaylor, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Draft:Carl Limberg have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JaneciaTaylor, thank you for your interest in improving this list. But please make sure to read the information at WP:BLP and WP:RS. Information about living persons - especially personal or controversial information - needs reliable high-quality sources. Blogs and anonymous news aggregators should never be used for such details (or for most other information for that matter). You'll find more detailed guidance in the two linked pages. But please feel free to ask if you have any further question, I'd be glad to help. The WP:Teahouse is also a good forum, if you need any Wikipedia-related advice. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have moved your question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (the specialized noticeboard for such questions, or WP:BLPN focussing on BLP issues), but will leave it to uninvolved editors to offer additional advice. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. creffett (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Duplicates the purpose of Category:Animal attack victims, doesn't seem to merit a page of its own.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. creffett (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you want to link from one Wikipedia article to another, you put the article title between two pairs of brackets; for example, [[People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks]] will display as People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks. Use this method rather than using full URLs inside of single brackets. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carl Limberg, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~Kvng (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks 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/People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You can just post all the work you worked so hard on over at https://list.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page where it'll be safe. A lot of list articles deleted from Wikipedia have been saved by putting them over there. Dream Focus 23:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you JaneciaTaylor (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, JaneciaTaylor. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place ((help me)) on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! — Newslinger talk 22:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! JaneciaTaylor, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! — Newslinger talk 22:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your diligence. I did remove the template you put on the article talk page, as it is a user warning. Also, when you remove a copyright violation, you should notify the oversight team, as it must be removed from the history also. They'll need the article title, the DIFF of your removal and if possible, the diff where it was added. Also the URL of the website whose copyright is violated. Email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org with the information. Thanks! John from Idegon (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually that is not normally done by the oversight team, but by ordinary admins using revision deletion Articles can be taggged with ((Copyvio-revdel)). This places them in Category:Requested RD1 redactions which I and various other admins patrol to do the needed revision deletions. As it happens I did the Twiunsburg deletions. @John from Idegon: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've undone your edits to this article, firstly, because in practice RC cardinals are going to be notable (remembering that just because a Wikipedia article has no sources does not mean that they do not exist, possibly in print or in some language that is not English or both), and secondly, because you tagged it as an unsourced BLP, whereas this man died in 1562. Ingratis (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You need to establish notability yourself by including reliable sources. I included the tag because notability isn’t established, because it doesn’t include reliable sources, to establish notability you have to include reliable sources. If the article has no sources it doesn’t establish notability. I didn’t include the tag because it doesn’t have sources, because I know it does, but you need to establish notability yourself, and then remove the tag. It is a BLP because this is a person. The rules doesn’t state that it can’t be a BLP because it happened in a certain year. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. "I" don't "need" to do anything!
2. I think you should re-read the documentation on Notability and Sources. Some subjects can safely be assumed to be notable - including cardinals and populated places, among others - so tagging them for lack of notability, when the problem is lack of sources in the article (for which they've already been tagged) misses the point somewhat. Obviously, there are many articles with no sources which are also of questionable notability.
3. BLP = Biographies of Living Persons, i.e., people living now: see WP:BLP: in other words, not anyone dead! Ingratis (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rule WP:FAILN clearly states if a subject fails to cite the sources you can place the notability tag. You don’t have to establish notability, and cite an unsourced article when somebody else can. You clearly are assuming the reason why I put it there. I didn’t put it there because there are not reliable sources. If there wasn’t I would nominate it for deletion. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:FAILN begins: "Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines", which are not the problem. Beyond that I'm afraid it's not entirely clear what you mean (if you know there are reliable sources, you can add them yourself, surely), but I'm not assuming anything: I'm pointing out that among the unsourced articles you are tagging with "This article may not be notable [blah, blah]... may be deleted" (mostly entirely correctly) are some which very clearly are notable, so on those articles the tag is inaccurate. The Notability guidelines at WP:SNG may help make the point clearer. I note that you've removed your use of the BLP tag at any rate. As it seems clear that otherwise we're not communicating, I'll stop there. Ingratis (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:FAILN states “If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject.” You can find the sources yourself or add the notability tag. I removed the use of BLP tag because I realized you are right. You know the rules and been on this site longer than I have. I have make mistakes; I will admit that. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I notice you've been adding the ((Missing information)) template to a lot of pages but using the article's title as the description parameter (example). The template is meant to be used to indicate some specific aspect that's missing from the article, rather than essentially saying "this article should be longer". There used to be a template for that purpose (Template:Expand), but it was deleted by consensus. Colin M (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JaneciaTaylor! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 17:09, Friday, January 10, 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Indosuchus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fylindfotberserk I made a mistake. I didn’t intend on editing it was an accident. Your acting like I did it on purpose. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A single revert might be a mistake, but you did it twice, it felt like edit war. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK cool. Be mindful next time. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saint Basil's Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at WD-40, 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. Dl2000 (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dl2000: I did not add or change any sources. I simply undid it. You made a mistake. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw GratefulSteve's editing from filter 80 too. The thing to know about that filter is that it's tracking people adding a lot of links in a short time, but it doesn't check what the links are, so that filter doesn't always mean that someone is spamming. What you saw wasn't really a false positive, since he did add a lot of links in a short time. In this case it was good-faith editing, since he was adding links to county websites rather than spamming a website. Just remember that filters aren't foolproof and you should always take the time to review what the filter flagged before taking action. creffett (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Creffett: Okay, I will know next time thanks for letting me know.

GratefulSteve (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you, Janecia, for your support. I was hoping that I wasn't in the doghouse. I'm trying to help.  :-)Reply[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors "Make it say what it means and mean what it says" – Wikipedia: How to copy edit

Hello JaneciaTaylor and welcome to the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE)! We are glad that you have decided to help us in our mission to improve the quality of writing on the English Wikipedia! Here are some links that you might find helpful to get started on your copy-editing journey!

• A how-to guide to Wikipeda copyediting
• Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS), a helpful guide to refer to while copy editing
  • A simplified version of the above
• A quick guide to writing on Wikipedia

You can help with copy-editing requests if you already have familiarity with the MOS and considerable English copy-editing skills, or start with articles tagged for copy editing to gain experience.

Thank you so much for joining the GOCE, we appreciate it!

For the GOCE, User:Puddleglum2.0 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Puddleglum ^2.0 16:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Marinaio.
Hi Janecia, per your request at MfD, I've procedurally moved the discussion to AfD at the above-captioned URL. I don't know if you want, or need, to re-notify the page's creator as to the new location of the AfD. Doug Mehus T·C 20:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit summary for de-PRODding this article clearly indicates you didn't read (or perhaps didn't understand) my PROD rationale. Additionally, the template you left me was incorrect, as the article in question has never been PRODded before. Please take more care when removing proposed deletion templates, as now I have to take the article to AfD and waste the community's time discussing the deletion of an article clearly and obviously created in error. (Side note: don't template the regulars.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I did read, but I shouldn’t have deprod your prod. I should have just endorse your proposed deletion, but I put your prod here Challalat El Adhaoura since it is a duplicate article created in 2014. The article you were talking about was created in 2010.

You are still misunderstanding my PROD rationale, and now you're misusing it by applying it incorrectly to other articles that should not be deleted. That's not how to fix this. You're arguing like the two articles are simple duplicates of each other, but they aren't really. There are three articles here:

• Chahbounia Chelalet El Adhaoura
• Challalat El Adhaoura
• Chahbounia

Can you see how the name of the first one (the one I PRODded) was made by smashing the other two names together? Based on the text in that article, it seems that whoever made it in 2010 was trying to make Challalat El Adhaoura, but they screwed up the title somehow by adding Chahbounia to it. Since someone else later (yes, in 2014) created the Challalat El Adhaoura article at the correct title, there is no need to keep the one titled Chahbounia Chelalet El Adhaoura. That is an incorrect name that has never been used for a real place in Algeria, so it should be deleted rather than redirected or otherwise kept. Does that make sense now?

As a side note, please remember to sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of them. Thank you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I understand why you are trying to delete the article, because it has the incorrect title. I still believe that they are duplicates. End of this discussion don't waste your time trying to convince me that they are not duplicate articles just move and do something else on Wikipedia, and don't assume things that are not true by saying I’m trying to argue with you. You can't convince people you can't convince, move on with your life. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you go about copy and pasting my words to incorrectly try to get other articles deleted, I think it's perfectly reasonable to respond and try to get you to understand what you're doing wrong before you go about doing it again. This is a cooperative project, so you need to get used to other editors communicating with you, sometimes to criticize your actions. I'm not going to post here again, so don't bother pinging me, but try to keep in mind if you want to keep contributing to Wikipedia that the attitude you've shown in your response above will not endear you to other editors in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I made a mistake. People are not perfect, I’m pretty sure you have made mistakes. Move on stop wasting your time convincing people you can't convince. I shouldn't be criticized for the mistakes I have made on here. I’m sure you are probably an administrator and you have more things to do other than trying to convince me. Administrators shouldn't criticize people for their mistakes. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't give up. You have more friends here than you realize. We miss you already :)

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JaneciaTaylor, I second the sentiments expressed by editor Piotrus. I don't know you very well, but from what I've seen so far, your patrolling of new pages has been good, and you have a solid understanding of our notability guidelines. I'm actually going to ping Rosguill here as well because it would be a real loss to lose you as a New Page Patrol volunteer. :) Doug Mehus T·C 14:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Janecia, Take a short break and come back. Dont be discourage. We the editors do make mistakes at times and I have my fair share. Do not take the comments too hard when such things happen but learn from it.If you need to talk, ping or email me. I am always here to help you. See you soon Janecia. Best.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: I would like to say that you encouraged me to come back. I will be back in another week or so. We all make mistakes. I have autism, but the reason why I didn’t specify it because I don’t want to be treated differently by other Wikipedians on here. You are the only person that is able to help me when I need help. I changed my mind about retiring from editing, but I will have a break for another week or so. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Janecia, Good day. So glad that you decided to come back. A Big Welcome to you! Also thank you Interstellarity (one of my NPPSCHOOL trainees) to inform me about your incident and now I am glad that I would help to bring you back. We are make mistakes Janecia and it is hard sometimes to receive some criticism at times. I know it is hard for you as I have a mild form of Irlen Syndrome, as some editors/my trainees had aware that I do not write eloquently and do ask me politely to clarify certain sentences. However, I do received harsh/put down comments from long term editors and admins as well. One thing to note that irregardless how frustrate we are, try to look at the bright site, the comments/criticism would serve us well so we may understand and correct our mistakes and always practice WP:CIVIL in any talk page when communicate with another editors. If you want to talk further you can come to my talk page or send me email if that is your preference for me to assist you. Once again Welcome back and see you in NPP assignment. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Welcome back!
	Welcome back Janecia! Remember, I am always here to help. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
		Congratulations, JaneciaTaylor You have been recognized as the monthly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the month ending at 2020-03-01. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xinbenlv: Thank you ❤️. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Janecia,

• I'm glad that you decided to stay. Some criticism may be good for you as it may help you improve and that goes for everyone really. It is usually intended to teach but may not always come across that way. Everyone was new here at one time.
• You may want to consider looking for a mentor at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user as they may be a big help by showing you the ropes. This would give you someone else to whom you could turn to ask questions and seek advice. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Mentorship as well. The more the merrier and I imagine that would add one more Wiki-friend to your growing list.

Hopefully helpful,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconding everything Berean Hunter said, I'm glad to see you've changed your mind about leaving. creffett (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also recommend asking a question at the Teahouse if you need help with anything on Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
		Congratulations, JaneciaTaylor You have been recognized as the weekly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the week ending at 2020-03-09. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. By the way, we currently have no different barnstar image for different level (weekly / monthly / annual) champion, if you are interested in help designing, please help us. Thank you! Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JaneciaTaylor! I noticed that back in December you suggested merging some Prince Edward Island Liberal Party articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Prince Edward Island/Article alerts) but it looks like you didn't finish the next part of the process, which is to start a discussion explaining why the articles should be merged, and to link to it from the merge template. Do you need help completing the process? Or can I remove the merge notices? Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear JaneciaTaylor,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JaneciaTaylor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Frank Galvin".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JaneciaTaylor,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

HI JaneciaTaylor,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]