User talk:Tommypelegrin

July 2018

Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Disappearance of Maura Murray, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Disappearance of Maura Murray, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add sorces

Add sources so that the page doesn’t get nominated for speedy deletion and don’t use any social media stuff such as. YouTube, Instagram or any social media. Enjoy your day man ARMcgrath (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at José de San Martín. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. I am One of Many (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Judith Vigna (July 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Judith Vigna 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:Judith Vigna, 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tommypelegrin! 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! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Dates

WP keeps whatever date format has been established in an article. Clean Copy^talk 00:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Judith Vigna, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sarah Winchester, 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. General Ization ^Talk 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, my friend, i took that info from the bio of other wikipedia's lenguages

In addition, please stop changing European-style dates (DMY) to American-style dates (MDY) for European subjects. See MOS:DATE. General Ization ^Talk 18:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the format of dates. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Caravaggio, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 03:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Judith Vigna

Hello, Tommypelegrin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Judith Vigna".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Judith Vigna for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judith Vigna 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/Judith Vigna 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]