Hello, JoaoPillon, and welcome to WikiProject European Union! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a European Union Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! |
Hello, JoaoPillon!
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! Sulfurboy (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
|
It would be reasonable to leave a brief note in neutral terms at the talk pages of the EEMU and EBU pages inviting comment (at Talk:Economy of the European Union/Archive 2#Capital Markets Union for and against your proposal. --Red King (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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) 19:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Hi Joao, I can't find it now but I am certain that somewhere there is a guidance that says that named references of the style <ref name =":0"> are nowadays considered poor practice. I know we all follow existing examples and it looks like you have found an old one.
The preference now is to use reasonably meaningful names, so that other editors can read the raw text and see fairly easily which reference is which. If it is a long article, then it needs to anticipate the need for uniquenes. A short article might use <ref name = NYTimes> but a longer one would need <ref name = NYT033020> (quotes are only needed if the name contains a space or other special character). --Red King (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from European Union law into Draft:Freedom of Establishment and Freedom to Provide Services in the European Union. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)