User talk:ZebulonMorn

This is ZebulonMorn's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Flemm (August 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 people). 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:

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL.

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:John Flemm 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZebulonMorn! Having an article draft 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! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Flemm (August 28)

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:

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 people). 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:

Fails the requirements of WP:NPOLITICIAN.

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:John Flemm 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Flemm (August 28)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. 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 S0091 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Per previous declines.

S0091 (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 09:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! -- Pemilligan (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military icon decorations

Hi ZebulonMorn. You have been adding a lot of military icon decorations to politician infoboxes. The Wikipedia Manuel of Style indicates that icons added to articles should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative.(MOS:ICONDECORATION) Also, these decorative military icons place undue emphasis on one aspect of the individual.(WP:NPOV, WP:STRUCTURE, MOS:FLAGCRUFT) Please do not add these icons back after they have been removed by another editor until you gain consensus for the addition on the talk page. Thanks. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Tom_Barrett_(Michigan_politician). There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. MOS:FLAGCRUFT BBQboffin^{grill me} 19:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted per MOS:FLAGCRUFT on two other pages, where you had previously been reverted by another editor. Please review the policy and kindly self-revert on other pages so it doesn't make more clean-up work for other editors. BBQboffin^{grill me} 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the points raised by Guest2625 and BBQboffin, you've recently re-added a bunch of these with the rationale of "Military history and significance germane to government position" - that's not an appropriate reason. No one is proposing removing the information itself, but its significance doesn't mean that decoration is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style. Also, these are not "minor edits" since they are points of dispute with multiple editors. Please review WP policy on when to capitalize common nouns like "colonel" and self-revert the WP:FLAGCRUFT on the pages you've added it to. If you won't discuss these matters here the next step is for us to ask an administrator to block your editing privileges. Please don't let it get to that point. BBQboffin^{grill me} 16:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC) BBQboffin^{grill me} 16:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamieson Greer

Hello, I'm Engineerchange. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jamieson Greer, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Engineerchange (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hi ZebulonMorn! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a 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. You've already been warned about this, please stop. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]