Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

It is 2:24 PM where this user lives.

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Mcmatter was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, LuxembourgLover! 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! McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, LuxembourgLover,

Thank you for creating Luxembourg communist revolution.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article needs citations. Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.

1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Whiteguru)). Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now its been merged ☹️ LuxembourgLover (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi LuxembourgLover! Thanks for your comments on the talk page of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I just wanted to come by and offer a preemptive peace offering, in case you think my response to your comments seems a bit harsh. I hope you don't think so, but I just want to make sure. You seem to be contributing positively through your year or so on Wikipedia, and I don't want to scare you off now :) I care deeply about the article and I've worked on it now for several years.

You may also be interested to know that I am also an active church member as well. My personal philosophy is that church members should be able to understand the criticisms and controversies, and therefore be able to respond to them intelligently. For that reason, I don't believe in shying away from them.

Trevdna has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chocolately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding ((subst:Hershey Bar)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Trevdna (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been noticing that you are creating, or trying to create, articles related to the military. I think you might like to join, or at least look at, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. This is one of the best-run, and most informative, projects on Wikipedia. They can be of a lot of help to you. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maile66

Hello! I joined the WikiProject and I had a few questions. What part of the WikiProject if any can I submit the article for review? I feel like the article is good but I wanted another opinion on it. Also I feel like this unit is notable but would other flotillas be notable for wikipedia? LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you talking about joining the WikiProject Military history? And are you talking about USCG Auxiliary Flotilla 6-9? If so, that article could come under WikiProject Military history. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Depending on how you have your browser, you should see a tab that says "talk" and then "add topic". That would be the place to discuss that article and ask for advice from them. — Maile (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Go West (2023 film). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ReaderofthePack 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 films). 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 needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. User reviews and ratings on IMDb do not count towards notability and are generally considered to be irrelevant to Wikipedia. The reason for this is that anyone can post a review, so it's not really of import to Wikipedia unless there has been a lot of news coverage about the ratings akin to say, Saving Christmas. I must also mention that these ratings are also easy to sway via review bombing, another reason why they are seen as non-relevant at best and unreliable at worst.

Also, notability is not inherited by notable persons being in the film. It just makes it more likely that there will be coverage.

Other than that you need coverage of the film via avenues such as newspaper articles that are about the film and aren't heavily based on (or completely made of) press releases. Local coverage is OK to use, but be aware that some don't see those as really great sources of notability since local papers are more likely to cover local (current or former) people.

I did a quick search and it looks like there's really only one source about this, so this is at best too soon for an article. To be honest, most non-blockbuster, big Hollywood films fail notability guidelines until they gain reviews in RS.

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:Go West (2023 film) 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.

ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello LuxembourgLover and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: ((WPMILHIST Announcements)).
• The project Academy has lots of useful information about editing and writing military history articles. One very useful introductory course to get you started is Writing a good stub.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, LuxembourgLover. Thank you for your work on Luxembourg rebellions. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello! I trust you're enjoying a wonderful day. I wanted to express my gratitude for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia through your article. I'm pleased to let you know that your article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I've officially marked it as reviewed. Wishing you and your loved ones a fantastic day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SunDawn: Hello I would like to thank you for the feedback, however there is a current talk page saying all 4 articals (Luxembourg Rebellion 1918-1919, Luxembourg Rebellion, Luxembourg communist revolution, and the Luxembourg Republic should be merged. The way you talked about the review for the Luxembourg Rebellions, made it seam like it should be notable enough for wikipida. In addition one year ago a separate discussion regarding the 1918 Rebellion and the 1919 Rebellion ended with both articals being keaped. Can you join in on the discussion? LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I think it's great that you're getting into Wikipedia editing and trying to help others do the same. You probably need to read some of what you're telling other people to do, though.

You reverted one of my edits to Lake Conroe and left me the standard message asking for "an accurate edit summary." Here was my edit summary, both accurate and thoroughly describing the issue that your statements are not supported by the sources you list:

"Removed unsourced, inaccurate information about the Lake Conroe "Coast Guard base". There is no military base on Lake Conroe, and the sources don't say that. Civilian volunteers with the USCG Auxiliary help boaters on the lake."

I get that you don't agree with my edit, or anyone else's criticism of your recent edits and articles related to the USCG Auxiliary. But be honest with what you say. Don't revert an edit saying there was no edit summary when there was one that succinctly described both the problem and the edit.

Try also doing a spell check when you're editing on Wikipedia, especially before you criticize others' contributions. 149.101.1.117 (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take a look at:

• Your first article
• Referencing for beginners
• Reliable sources
• Good Articles about various websites...You're going directly to the "Websites and the Internet" section. As you work on writing your article, you can use these Wikipedia Good Articles as examples of what your article should be like.

Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And

The

Adventure

Hi LuxembourgLover!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi LuxembourgLover! 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

-- 17:21, Monday, November 20, 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lego Winter Village Collection 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.

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You claim that "Luxembourg communist revolution" was nominated and kept in the past. Do you have any evidence of that? Page Curation and Merge discussions are separate processes from Articles for Deletion. The Banner talk 20:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I first made the articles in 2022, another editor believed they were the same event and nominated one of them for deletion. I had to clarify the difference between the 1918 and 1919 rebellion. This was in the talk page of "Luxembourg Rebellion" under contest deletion. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ow, it was Luxembourg rebellion] that got nominated, not the communist revolution. The Banner talk 21:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, LuxembourgLover. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Go West (2023 film), 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) 16:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add information to an article that is not backed up by the given source, as you did with Luxembourg rebellions. The Banner talk 23:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read the article properly and you will see that governor Porter was not the leader in the field. That was somebody else. The Banner talk 19:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok? The governor still was the supreme commander. Also if you see who the commander was why don’t you fix it instead of reverting my edits. This is wp:FOLLOWING. LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You better start delivering better work. And your works is poor enough to keep an eye on it. But don't worry, you will not see me on any Middle- Eastern subject you edit. I keep well away from that minefield.

And to throw in a shortcut myself: WP:CIR. The Banner talk 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The governor still was the supreme commander. Also if you see who the commander was why don’t you fix it instead of reverting my edits. LuxembourgLover (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I again reverted your edit on List of brigadier generals in the United States Regular Army before February 2, 1901. Lot Smith held the rank in a militia and does not belong on that list. As for why Bloomfield is there; he had been a brigadier in a militia, true, but he was made a regular Brigadier during the War of 1812 so he belongs there. Regards ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, thanks for the clarification! LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am really concerned about the quality of your work on Wikipedia. Making separate articles for minor events, cutting them out of their context. Place pictures in the wrong articles. Giving ranks without evidence of sources. etc etc.

Wikipedia:Competence is required

Please up the quality of your work here. Be more accurate. The Banner talk 21:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I understand why you may feel this way, but the edits were made in good faith.

1. Lot Smith was a general in the Utah territorial Militia per this source.
2. The only picture there was a problem with was the one about the Utah War. As stated before, a picture called “Morrisite massacre” might lead people to believe it's about the Morrisite War.
3. I do not understand what you mean by “minor events”; the Luxembourg articles have been merged.

I hope that clears up most of the information. I am genuinely trying my best to edit with competence, and I'm open to any guidance or specific areas you believe need improvement. Thank you for your attention and understanding. LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that you work in good faith, but you produce too often work that is low quality. That makes me concerned about your competence. And about Lot Smith: if you have a source, you have to provide it in the article. Now your claim that he was a brigadier general is unsourced. There is even no mention at all about his generals rank at all in the article. That is just the latest example of your low quality work. You must become far more accurate and have to provide far more reliable sources. The Banner talk 08:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accuracy, I can not emphasise that enough: ACCURACY. What makes you think that the Utah Territorial Legislative Assembly of the Utah Territory was a state legislature? Haight left the assembly 25 years before Utah gained statehood. Beside that, WP:NSUBPOL is an explanatory essay, not a policy or guideline. The Banner talk 21:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As stated before I believe that legislators in U.S. territories should be considered notable, following the same criteria and guidelines applicable to state legislative bodies. I never said that the Utah Territorial Legislative Assembly was a state legislature, I know its a territory but I still think politicians for territories should be notable. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is your personal opinion, I noticed that. The Banner talk 21:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Hector C. Haight. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion regarding if Territorial goverment officals are notable. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you actually read the comment? The article is draftified due to it needs more sources to establish notability. The Banner talk 00:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but if he is notable for his political office, you would only need a few sources to say he was in office. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You really don't get the point. If it needed more sources for his office, a source request would have been enough. Draftifying means that there is much more work to do. And that is why I keep my worries about your competency to edit Wikipedia. The Banner talk 01:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]