User talk:Pipera

Both Bodypump and Bodybalance which you created have been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodypump and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodybalance (exercise program). jnothman ^talk 07:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care whether an organisation is profit or non-profit. Indeed, I could argue that in the general case, profitable organisations deserve articles over non-profit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so topics contained within should not conform to a particular structure or ideological merit (that would be biased towards a point of view), but on encyclopaedic notability. Please feel free to go to those articles' AFD pages and argue their notability. jnothman ^talk 10:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not argue to me! I have not claimed anything about Bodybalance and Bodypump. I only informed you of the nominations and argued against your claim of "non-profit" which seemed to be an argument for inclusion. What you need to do is go to those AFD pages and argue why bodybalance and bodypump are notable encyclopaedically, not by comparing them to something which clearly is notable, but by giving sources for an assessment of their popularity and their fame worldwide. This would include links to news articles on the programmes, etc. NOTE that I don't consider the articles currently an advertisement for the exercise programmes, rather for your blogs. If you had chosen more appropriate external links, I could possibly have excused the articles. jnothman ^talk 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, "Do not argue to me" may not be the best way to put it in that it was misinterpreted. I only meant to make the point that your argument to keep the article should clearly be made on the AFDs linked above if you want the articles to be kept.

In terms of Wikipedia:About: yes, this is what Wikipedia is about. It begins with "Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia". Encyclopedias generally only include articles on encyclopedically notable subjects, covering them in an encyclopedic way by giving the most important information and resources. That is, a single external link should be the most informative site on the topic, and not a blog that occasionally mentions something about the programmes themselves. Otherwise, the article seems like an ad for a little-known fitness programme and a related blog. If you edit the articles to make them more encyclopedic in nature, this will help your case immensely. jnothman ^talk 13:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those links. Adding links external to the blog would be more helpful. This would at least identify that Bodypump is more than a local phenomenon / business. I have cleaned up the bodypump article for style- please take a look. I may have a go at bodybalance too. But I don't even understand what "Michael J McSweeney choreographed Bodypump and Product Manager for this program. Bodypump is the original barbell class." means. Indeed, I'm not really sure what Bodypump is: I am no athlete, but this is an encyclopaedia which should be understandable by people not so familiar with the subject. I have changed my votes on AFD to weak keep, and would really appreciate it if you can find some evidence of this phenomena's notability and recognition outside of those promoting it (a website or two would do!). jnothman ^talk 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pipera. I was not particularly against your articles. But you also provided no evidence on the AFD page -- as I asked for you to -- that argued the notability and significance of the article, as well as the verifiability of the content. Have any books, for instance been written about them? Newspaper reports? This is the sort of verifiable and known content that makes encyclopedias.

I also want to point out that, although the AFD did not interperet it this way, my main objection to the articles was on the basis that they seemed to advertise a particular web site (blog) and that they may have been created for this purpose. Indeed, I did not make a delete vote on either poll.

I know this response will not satisfy you, but I am still not convinced that the articles were encyclopedia-worthy.

jnothman ^talk 11:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pipera,

Yes, I do think that Bodypump has sufficient recognition to have an article written about it. But I suggest you don't frame the article as an advertisement. Don't link under external links to personal blogs, but rather to the inventor's web site, or to large online Bodypump communities. Bodybalance, I'm still not sure about, so write the other one first.

jnothman ^talk 11:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with someone else creating an article on BodyPump? Do you intend to give a reason for wanting it deleted? It looks like an alright basic article to me... jnothman ^talk 12:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page BodyPump on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Metros232 05:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you keep removing CITED material from the BodyPump article? Metros232 06:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the administrator and owner of that site and it was not sourced from my forum.

My forum does not contain the tracklists for that release and will not so until December 2006.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipera (talk • contribs)

You have no way of proving this right now. December 2006 is coming up within a matter of days, and the article could be deleted in a few days anyway, although it looks like it will be kept. So since the information is sourced, the way your are editing it does not seem to be helpful. Academic Challenger 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pipera...YOU are the one who posted it to your forum! You posted it on October 17th. Here's some of what you said:

Musically, the new class is all you'd expect from a hard-out celebration of 15 years of "pumping". After our heart-starting warm-up, the party rocks into gear with an amazing squat track to the bring-back sound of What's Up from Aussie band Zander. Awesome CD Remix Heaven

The sing-along set go crazy here, as everyone locks and loads for an awesome workout to come. Bon Jovi's Have a Nice Day takes featured on Bodypump by Michael J McSweeney us into hard-rock territory for the chest track and E-Type featured on Bodypump by Michael J McSweeney helps drive the barbells skywards with the hugely uplifting Africa featured on Bodypump by Michael J McSweeney in the back track clean and presses.

A wicked set of dips nail the triceps to the latest hot sound from Pink, while the steady, pulsating Flaunt it from TV Rock featured on Bodypump by Michael J McSweeney is perfect for smashing the front of the arms (slot in the incredible Cherry Pie here if you like our biceps bonus option.)

The focus shifts back to the legs for some new-look lunges with Angel from b*p*m; then to the shoulders and the familiar, energizing sound of One Night in Bangkok.

Next cue Shakira Bodypump by Michael J McSweeney and the innovative side plank in the Abdominals. Amici's So Far Away is a beautiful Cooldown song about New Zealand and a proud reminder of the origins of BODYPUMP in a little country at the bottom of the world.

So why are you saying your site doesn't contain such information? Metros232 06:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry its been a long day :)

The Les Mills blog is okay, but I removed the links to the blog sites you are affiliated with. There are tons of sites with BodyPump track listings online and I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should link to the particular sites you listed. You must remember, this is an encyclopedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fulkkari (talk • contribs) 10:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not remove my entries.

I have added them back.

For your information my tracklists are the originals every tracklist site comes from mine.

No other tarcklist site is as complete as mine and they are there for everyone to locate tracks.

Even if true, how does not matter? You are still linking to your own sites, which looks a bit like advertising, doesn't it? I don't have anything against tracklists per se. But also, if added, it should be integrated better to the article i.e. not under it's own header. It should also be noted that the tracklists are unofficial, not "most authoritive" lists. I think this should be discussed further at the Talk:BodyPump page. --Fulkkari 12:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sites don't need advertising. I am adding them back as they are the "most authoritive" tracklists for Bodypump. If it was not for me no tracklists would be around. --pipera

I just moved the tracklist on the page, and fixed link of the current tracklist (it linked to the same page as the other one). But let me say that there is still a problem with linking to the site, as it against Wikipedia policy. Let me cite "Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to." By the time being, I let that pass (although you could change the background color :-)

On an other note, I removed some of the "cites" about training material etc. You cannot reference to material like that in an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes. I left the reference to the Japanese site, although it seemed a bit like advertisement. There should be a better URL, but I don't know Japanese, so...

Anyway, if you can reference to something less vague than "official educational materials from Les Mills International", it would be superb. Take care. --Fulkkari 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the Japan Link to the correct location. Other citations will be added as well. Take care yourself pipera

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pipera (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I not done anything wrong to be blocked here can someone please unblock my account please as I have editing and posting here for the past several years

Decline reason:

Your account is not blocked; perhaps the address you are editing through has been blocked, or you have been caught in an automatic block of another user. Please use the template {{unblock-auto}}, as instructed in your block message. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Pipera. There is no reason to unblock this user. They probably violate username guidelines. And it will have absolutely no effect on the business name and reputation of Ozymate whether there is a Wikipedia user by that name.12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware the article was survived the AfD discussion - I was the one who closed the debate. The consensus at the discussion was that the program is sufficiently notable, though the article is still a bit promotional in content. The template that was added is designed to facilitate discussion and prompt improvement. If there is a legitimate concern, then the normal process is to leave the template on until the concerns have been addressed or there is a consensus that the template is incorrect. Someone else added the template, I agree with the concern, and several commentators at the AfD discussion also agreed. Therefore, there is clearly a legitimate concern. Please don't continue to remove the template without discussion or building a consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia process is that a content template should generally not be removed unless it's been placed in bad faith or the concerns have been addressed. I hope you are not suggesting it's been placed in bad faith. I have started a thread on the talk page of the article to discuss the specific concerns, and I suggest we continue the conversation there.--Kubigula (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding links to your personal blogs to the BodyPump article. Please read this #11 - Links to be avoided: Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.. You've been told this before and I really don't want to have to tell you again. Glen 03:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Hi I suggest you read the history of this topic, where I have been given permission to place them there. They are going back. BTW I helped write this article and was a major contributor to this article being here. Also under no circumstances ever speak to me like this again "You've been told this before and I really don't want to have to tell you again." or I will report you for abuse. There was major discussions about this about 6 years ago, I suggest you read the history of this thread, before you say rude remarks to contributors to this site. of which your language is not appreciated in a condescending manner and rude. Cheers!Pipera (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to direct you to WP:OWN, and WP:COI - and then WP:3RR and be aware that if you continue to add links to your blog the article may be protected and you could well be blocked. Thanks Glen 07:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)I wrote this article and I will add the links back, for your information, it is not a blog it is a tracklist site, I refer you to to the following converstation. I just moved the tracklist on the page, and fixed link of the current tracklist (it linked to the same page as the other one). But let me say that there is still a problem with linking to the site, as it against Wikipedia policy. Let me cite "Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to." By the time being, I let that pass (although you could change the background color :-)[reply]

On an other note, I removed some of the "cites" about training material etc. You cannot reference to material like that in an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes. I left the reference to the Japanese site, although it seemed a bit like advertisement. There should be a better URL, but I don't know Japanese, so... Anyway, if you can reference to something less vague than "official educational materials from Les Mills International", it would be superb. Take care. --Fulkkari 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Fulkkari allowed the links to be kept there, I do note that you left the adverting link back to fitpro?If you don't argue a logical reply I will as Fulkkari said they are OK, so clearly you are incorrect, I can also pull other talk on this matter,aargue away. It was allowed in 2006 and sill is allowed today. I suggest you do research before you say something incorrect in future. I also suggest to you it is a HTML site, website, it is not a blog. So please don't argue and say blog, when clearly the argument in your language is blog, so the argument is incorrect. The site is a URL link, it is not a blog link, argue about that!Pipera (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC) So am I allowed to place my links back?[reply]

Please be aware that you have not followed the hidden instructions. Please follow those instructions. If you feel you need to change something, open a discussion on the talk page. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC) If you continue to revert the edits with out explanatiion and do not follow the hidden instructions you may be blocked from editing, - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Block (Australian TV series). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Please do not alter the article subheadings and damage the entire article for no reason. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 04:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. livelikemusic talk! 02:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pipera. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on MIX5 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with MIX5. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Hi I have removed the deletion button because you placed it within 5 or so minutes of me starting the page, it has been expanded now.[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Robert McClenon, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pipera. As per the the warning above, you should not have removed the speedy deletion notice since you are the creator of the article. Instead, you should just click on the blue "Contest this speedy deletion" button in the template. This will start a discussion on the article's talk page where you can contest the speedy deletion and give your reasons why you feel the article should not be deleted. An administrator will eventually review the article including your comments and decide whether what should be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pipera - You stated, on the talk page of User:Marchjuly, that you will be conferring with the group MIX5 and adding to the article. Exactly what is your connection with MIX5? If you have a connection, you must declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Pipera (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)pipera I was asked to confer with the Latin music section of Wikipedia of which I will to expand the section. I have no connection to them besides watching them on La Banda that is it.[reply]

User:Pipera - Since you have made statements that imply that you are working for MIX5, I have tagged the article with a COI template. Please answer what your connection is. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Pipera (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)pipera[reply]

I am not working for them I watch the show and purchase their music. I have no commercial arrangements with them and have never ever worked or met any of these people. Please explain?

I have again reverted your additions to the William White page because it has every appearance of representing your personal genealogical research findings, and hence would represent Original Research, which is prohibited. All material on Wikipedia should come from reliable published sources. I have explained this on the William White talk page, but there are other issues that I have yet to raise - this seems excessively detailed information for a general biography, and it seems to be in the wrong place int he article, which discusses his marriage and children further down. I note that some of that is also in violation of policy (for example it cites simply the Leiden Records to document the statement that the Anna Fuller marriage has been disproven long ago), so the page clearly needs some work, but this is best hashed out on the Talk page first, rather than inserting your own opinions into the article itself. Agricolae (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pipera (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC) I will place referenced materials and links to original parish registers to back up my claims There is current research that the Mayflower White married a Susanna Jackson. Not Susannah or Anna Fuller. That William White and this Susannah Jackson boarded form England. And supported factual information pertaining to his family and her family.[reply]

There is current research to be posted to support the birth of the William White Mayflower, and his wife's real name, and the separation of this family from the family of William White and Anna Fuller, which I am the 10 times removed cousin, her brothers Samuel and Edward are the same.

Your information is outdated and the information in this article is not current or correct.

You should not ever be citing parish registers on Wikipedia. Their use violates the policy WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia editors don't get to do their own research and they don't get to draw their own conclusions: they just summarize what has been published in reliable sources (in this case primarily NEHGR & TAG, the Mayflower Society 'silver books', Anderson's Great Migration, etc., not the myriad of material various descendants have put online, and particularly not material you have found yourself). Sometimes this means that material on Wikipedia is wrong or dated, but it means you don't get to replace it just because you think it is wrong. Wikipedia is not intended to represent the cutting edge on a question, but rather the established consensus, as demonstrated by such publications. Agricolae (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pipera (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot suggest that what is in Anderson's Great Migration is correct and reliable, there are mistakes in this work. Also the Silver Books are also not reliable or researchers. I have access to the original parish registers, and actual cemetery records of the parish churches. I take what I do seriously as a genealogist, and have credible work create and published on line pertaining to all information I supply. Anyway, I will write this up in an academic approach and will present this to you.

You are operating under a rather severe misconception. Verifiability (WP:V), one of the core standards for inclusion in Wikipedia, is not based on the material being correct; reliability, as defined by Wikipedia, is not a common sense determination of 'is the material right?' A compilation published by a reputable genealogical society and compiled by an FASG such as Bob Anderson is ABSOLUTELY a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia (seeWP:RS). Again with the Silver Books, they were published and edited by a respected genealogical society with a tradition of accuracy - they are likewise reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia. You may have concluded that these are wrong based on the primary sources to which you have access, but this is irrelevant to Wikipedia, because you are not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, no matter how fastidious you are in your genealogical pursuits. One of the core pillars of Wikipedia is No Original Research - this is an encyclopedia based on published secondary sources, not 'The Truth!". It may sound like a skewed set of priorities, to prefer wrong published information over right information directly from the sources, but that is the way Wikipedia was originally envisioned, and that is what the enabling rules indicate is appropriate practice. As such, Wikipedia is not a host for your personal genealogical findings (Wikipedia is explicitly not genealogical - WP:NOTGENEALOGY), nor for your own novel conclusions, no matter how much superior they may be to what has been published. If you want your original research included in Wikipedia, then the only acceptable approach is to get your findings published in NEHGR or Mayflower Descendant or something similar. Then it would be appropriate to refer to these findings and cite the journal article (although you should be careful of violating conflict-of-interest rules). Primary records (WP:PRIMARY) are only to be used on Wikipedia as a supplement to a published secondary source, not alone, and no conclusions that have not been so published are to be included. Agricolae (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pipera (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC) We have established the birth of William White (proven from parish registers.) he married Susannah Jackson proven. He is the son of an Edward White proven. He is the 1/2 brother of Henry May, the father of Dorothy May whom married William Bradford which is proven. I have access to the parish registers and this is real. It all ties in with current research and I guess in time I will be proven right. Thanks for your time.[reply]

I am not questioning your competence, I am not questioning your conclusions, but the same original research in primary records that is the only proper way to do genealogy is absolutely, explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia. You really should write it up for TAG, NEHGR, TG or MD (not the inferior MQ). I would look forward to reading what you found. Agricolae (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pipera. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pipera. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A number of your recent genealogical additions have been problematic. Much of the genealogical material one finds online is not trustworthy, by Wikipedia's standards, and so addition of unsourced material that one happens to find on a genealogical web site is likely to be reverted, as I have done to many of your recent changes. Agricolae (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC) (Pipera (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)) Allot of the entries here are speculative, and are narrative in format TBH. You visit around the different language versions of the same person some name date etc and the content is different in all aspects.[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry,_son_of_Robert_I_of_Burgundy

Henry of Burgundy (c. 1035 – January 27, 1070/1074), called the Gallant (le Damoiseau), was the eldest surviving son and heir of Robert I, Duke of Burgundy, second son of Robert II of France, and his wife, Helie of Semur, granddaughter of Henry I, Duke of Burgundy. Little is known about his life. He died shortly before his father and was never duke himself.

That is unreferenced, are they using a Julian Calendar? The C 1035 should not be there.

Henry and his wife had the following children: where does it state that this is definitive? It does not. The dates are they Julian Calendar? Should that not be specified?

The name of Henry's wife is not known: both Sibylla and Clémence have been suggested. Where is the reference point for that? It is problematic that this occurs in the entry. Most of that paragraph is not referenced and has no structure and paragraph breaks. http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BURGUNDY.htm#Henridied10701074

BTW my pedigree chart not referenced using wikipedia is exactly as your stated Including the parents of Helle of Semur.

As stated I know his wife's name and I stand by what I said and the article needs cleaning up.

BTW I was right about William White and Susannah Jackson.

http://www.pilgrimfathersorigins.org/pilgrims-william-white---susanna-white-winslow-jackson.html

The WP:BURDEN is upon you to prove your source is reliable. Take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Joseph Gardner Bartlett is not an academic historian and the book is self-published.

Considering this is not your first warning concerning your editing, I would suggest you refrain from edit warring(Richard II of Normandy, et.al.). --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Pipera (talk) Suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gardner_Bartlett from Wikipedia so I am placing his reference back if you have any issues dispute the book and what was presented. He was a member of the American Society of Genealogists,a and I consider him a subject master in this issue, have an issue with this then you need to argue that elswhere.[reply]

Re the Warning I was not aware you can warn someone on a date that you have an issue with.

Bartlett source is self-published as such it is an unreliable source.

• "He was a member of the American Society of Genealogists.."

Which means nothing. The articles you are editing are medieval history of which Bartlett has no specialization. Continue edit warring at your own risk. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pipera (talk) with all due respect you need to prove the materials in his book are incorrect, as you are challenging the credibility of the authors work.

Pipera (talk)Also you have given a vague response to the authors research which is highly disrespectful to the authors work without challenge to his work as a whole. Please respond to this. The book is stored at the Public Library of the City of Boston and they would not house works that are not a reliable source. As they are a reputable recognised library.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pipera (talk) I have not been disruptive here I added the additional date as it is widely accepted. The 850 came about via a family tree that connected her to the Danish Royal Family of which had no children. https://www.genealogieonline.nl/en/stamboom-weijerman/I1956.php this is their reference point. Her parents are unknow, and her heritage is also unknown.

Also check out: https://www.geni.com/people/Herbastus-de-Cr%C3%A9pon-hypothetical-person/6000000000424705521

As I said I know this family tree and this is incorrect and I have pointed that out. Feel free to check and get back to me.

FYI, geni.com is not a reliable source.

And this, an online crowd-sourced genealogy, is also an unreliable source.

You would do well to learn what a reliable source is on Wikipedia.

• "As I said I know this family tree and this is incorrect and I have pointed that out."

Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, not what you think you know.

• "Feel free to check and get back to me."

I have multiple academic sources, you have online crowd-sourced genealogies. Feel free to take both of them to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and get back to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman rule[edit]

Starting with Rollo, Normandy was ruled by an enduring and long-lived Viking dynasty. Illegitimacy was not a bar to succession and three of the first six rulers of Normandy were illegitimate sons of concubines. Rollo's successor, William Longsword, managed in expanding his domain and came into conflict with Arnulf of Flanders, who had him assassinated in 942. This led to a crisis in Normandy, with a minor succeeding as Richard I, and also led to a temporary revival of Norse paganism in Normandy. Richard I's son, Richard II, was the first to be styled duke of Normandy, the ducal title becoming established between 987 and 1006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Normandy

Normans - Trevor Rowley - Google Books

Trevor Rowley

History Press, 20 July 2009 - History - 240 pages

The Normans were a relatively short-lived cultural and political phenomenon. The emerged early in the tenth century and had disappeared off the map by the mid-thirteenth century. Yet in that time they had conquered England, southern Italy and Sicily, and had established outposts in North Africa and in Levant. Having traced the formation of the Duchy of Normandy, Trevor Rowley draws on the latest archaeological and historical evidence to examine how the Normans were able to conquer and dominate significant parts of Europe. In particular he looks at their achievements in England and Italy and their claim to a permanent legacy, as witnessed in feudalism, in castles, churches and settlement and in place-names. But equally from the political stage. The reality is that, even within this short time-span, the Normans changed as time and place dictated from Norse invaders to Frankish crusaders to Byzantine monarchs to Feudal overlords. In the end their contribution to medieval culture was largely as a catalyst for other, older traditions.

So, Wikipedia on two sites state I am right.

Prove me wrong. Pipera (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in an edit war I sated events from Wikipedia. This has been the situation you stated she is Dutchess of Normandy this site Comté de Rouen — Wikipédia (wikipedia.org) says differently. Further, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II,_Duke_of_Normandy states he is a Duke further https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Normandy states he is a count not duke.

Richard II was the first Duke of Normandy as stated in the URL provided.

Rollo, William and Richard are Counts of Rohen and are not dukes she https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnor is not a Dutchess and was a Countess. She was a concubine of Richard 1 as he was married to Emma who was his first wife.

If you can disprove this then we are not in an edit war.

So, I am asking for a revert until you have proven me wrong. Pipera (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with Rollo, Normandy was ruled by an enduring and long-lived Viking dynasty. Illegitimacy was not a bar to succession and three of the first six rulers of Normandy were illegitimate sons of concubines. Rollo's successor, William Longsword, managed in expanding his domain and came into conflict with Arnulf of Flanders, who had him assassinated in 942. This led to a crisis in Normandy, with a minor succeeding as Richard I, and also led to a temporary revival of Norse paganism in Normandy. Richard I's son, Richard II, was the first to be styled duke of Normandy, the ducal title becoming established between 987 and 1006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Normandy

Normans - Trevor Rowley - Google Books

Trevor Rowley

History Press, 20 July 2009 - History - 240 pages

The Normans were a relatively short-lived cultural and political phenomenon. The emerged early in the tenth century and had disappeared off the map by the mid-thirteenth century. Yet in that time they had conquered England, southern Italy and Sicily, and had established outposts in North Africa and in Levant. Having traced the formation of the Duchy of Normandy, Trevor Rowley draws on the latest archaeological and historical evidence to examine how the Normans were able to conquer and dominate significant parts of Europe. In particular he looks at their achievements in England and Italy and their claim to a permanent legacy, as witnessed in feudalism, in castles, churches and settlement and in place-names. But equally from the political stage. The reality is that, even within this short time-span, the Normans changed as time and place dictated from Norse invaders to Frankish crusaders to Byzantine monarchs to Feudal overlords. In the end their contribution to medieval culture was largely as a catalyst for other, older traditions.

So, Wikipedia on two sites state I am right.

Prove me wrong. Pipera (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Pipera (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard I of Normandy - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_Normandy

Richard I Count of Rouen Pipera (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He used the title Comte de Rouen/comes Rothomagensium, and from 966 Marquis des Normands/marchio Normannorum Kerrebrouck (2000), p. 50 footnote 6. The archdiocese of Rouen, which is also known as Rothomagensium in Latin. It is an archdiocese of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church in France. The archdiocese is located in the city of Rouen, which is the capital of the Normandy region. The archdiocese of Rouen has a rich history and has been led by several archbishops throughout history. The Acta archiepiscoporum Rotomagensium is a short history of the archbishops of Rouen from the foundation of the see to the archiepiscopate of William Bona Anima (1079-1110) Pipera (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have a Bachelor's degree in education and Master of Education and I as a teacher aim to provide to my students the correct information. I am also her 27th Great Grandson as well and I have been doing this family tree for over 12 years I know all facts about her and her children, and the children of Richard 1 and his various concubines of which I and a descendant of and 56 of the children of Richard 1 and Gunnora, I am also related to Emma the first wife of Richard I am a descendant of her sister. Pipera (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.oteripedia.de/Fr%C3%A4nkisches_Reich 620 - 640 see there is not mention of any Carloman repsenting himself as the father of Pippin der Ältere so based on this are you going to revert the article to omit this person as his father. Pipera (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit of Charlemagne, you put a citation in your edit summary. Please include it as an in-line reference sp readers can refer to it. I can show you how to do that, if you need guidance. Cheers. —GoldRingChip 13:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please assist me thank you. Pipera (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the information and a reference here. Is it correct? —GoldRingChip 00:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that much appreciated. Pipera (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Thurstan de Holland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced. It's entirely possible you tried to source the article through an external link, but you put in an example link by mistake.

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:Thurstan de Holland 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.

I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pipera! 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! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[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 Dan arndt was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Thurstan de Holland, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

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:Sir Thurstan de Holland 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) 04:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody (talk) The other was incorrect us this one instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sir_Thurstan_de_Holland

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 1AmNobody24 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.

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:Sir Thurstan de Holland 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.

Nobody (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[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 1AmNobody24 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.

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:Robert de Holland 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.

Nobody (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Draft:Sir Thurstan de Holland into Draft:Thurstan de Holland. 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. Nobody (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Sir is a title or honorific it is not part of the individuals name and as such should be removed from the article's title (Sir Thurstan de Holland to Thurstan de Holland). At this stage there are not multiple Thurstan de Holland articles and it needs no further disambiguation.

Secondly the article needs to be written like an encyclopaedic article, avoid using phrases like "we emerge more into the light of day, and a good deal of information and fuller details are forthcoming." as they add no value to the article. All statements in the article, such as "The Sheriff was directed, however, to release them if they would find good and sure pledges that they would appear before the King to reply to the charge." and "Thurstan is said to have married, first, the daughter of Adam de Kellet of Nether Kellet, whose grandson, Orm de Kellet, by a fine levied at York on the i8th December 1299." should be backed by an inline citation referencing a verifiable source (see Wikipedia's guidelines for referencing by beginners for how to do that).

Thirdly the structure of the article needs to be modified. The lead needs to identify the individual and what he is notable for, not his parentage or his offspring. The next section should cover his life, main achievements. Followed by a section on his death and family (i.e. wives and offspring).

The draft at the moment is fairly convoluted and has no clear flow.

Hope that helps. Dan arndt (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[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 Theroadislong 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:

There is absolutely no clue here as to why Thurstan de Holland would merit an article?

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:Thurstan de Holland 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_285_30.shtml#136. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Nicholas Audley, 1st Baron Audley may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sir Thurstan de Holland. Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Robert de Holland. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[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 Theroadislong 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.

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:Robert de Holland 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Hugh de Port has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]