Quixilver391

Your submission at Articles for creation: Derek Selby (August 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt 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:Derek Selby 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:Derek Selby, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Quixilver391! 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! Dan arndt (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Derek Selby Reply

It is highly unlikely that there is an existing articles that information from your draft could be incorporated into. I would suggest moving your article to a sandbox, that way you can edit and add any supporting references/sources when they occur without the draft being deleted. If you need any further help then I suggest that you raise the question at the teahouse, where other editors may be able to help you with a specific query. Dan arndt (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Derek Selby

Hello, Quixilver391. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Derek Selby.

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. If 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [1] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Susan, I am still interested in this WikiProject, however my time for the last few months has been entirely absorbed in a different project. Also I have been casually monitoring the pages that I had edited and it appears that almost without exception my edits were either rolled back or deleted within 6 weeks, often without giving a reason, which made me wonder whether it was truly worth the time and effort. Quixilver391 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hi Quixilver391! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Mímir that may not have been. "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. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

A "see also" weasel-word link outside the main article that tries to suggest a correlation between two disparate concepts (without offering any sources) makes no difference to the body text of the article (at least IMO), and is little different from vandalism, which is why I considered the edit minor. Thank you for your input though! Quixilver391 (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)