User talk:Aonbheannaigh

This is Aonbheannaigh'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: Eibhlín Ní Choistealbha (July 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DIVINE 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:Eibhlín Ní Choistealbha 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:Eibhlín Ní Choistealbha, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

DIVINE 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aonbheannaigh! 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! DIVINE 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

I noticed that you are having problems in creating an article, as a fellow editor I suggest you to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and ask questions on how to write an article or see how others create their articles and learn from that. THANK YOU --Emkay2004 (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Battle, East Sussex, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Per the Oxford comma thread below, stop this campaign to impose a personal style preference against another perfectly valid one. "syntax", as an edit summary, does not indicate why the edit is required or why the existing text is deficient, which, of course, it is not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alain Connes. 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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You persist. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford comma

Hi there, thanks for your edit at Gateshead and other articles but please can you familiarise yourself with MOS:OXFORD? In this example it is only a matter of two different styles, both valid and not something which required to be "fixed". Please only add an Oxford comma when necessary to avoid ambiguity or to maintain consistency of style in an article which otherwise already employs it throughout. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out; I added for consistency as the article has used Oxford Commas previously :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonbheannaigh (talk • contribs)

Thanks for being receptive. Though there are several instances of the Oxford comma, a word count indicates that by far the more consistent usage in this article, by about an order of magnitude, is its absence.

If you do encounter an instance where there is a genuine benefit to its addition, it helps other editors if you note this in the edit summary.

I've signed your post for you but please get into the habit of doing this yourself. Best wishes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your justification now for continuing to make these apparently needless changes, what's more with no explanation in your edit summaries? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, they are not needless changes to me and are valid edits; do not really appreciate your tone or statement [• contribs) ]

Respect? As mentioned, if they are truly valid, explain in the edit summary; that would show respect, to the community. Your personal preference is not a valid reason to impose a style-only choice. Wikipedia is not for idle tinkering. What a waste of time it would be if we all spent our time flip-flopping each others edits from one valid styling to another. I appreciate you are new, which is why I have engaged with you patiently. Otherwise I would have just done a straight revert of the contentious edits. Please revert these needless changes yourself or provide a genuinely valid reason, per MOS:OXFORD, that they are actively required, in each circumstance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eibhlín Ní Choistealbha (July 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Akevsharma 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:Eibhlín Ní Choistealbha and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Akevsharma (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joanna Connor, you may be blocked from editing. Per above, respect that the existing text is a valid style. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ruby (Egyptian singer). Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aonbheannaigh, can I suggest engaging the conversation at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Gusfriend (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marking edits as minor

Hi Aonbheannaigh! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Cala Fuili 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. Gusfriend (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits as minor and Oxford commas

I noticed that you have continued to:

Add Oxford commas to articles
Mark edits as minor (see Help:Minor edit) when they should not be

Gusfriend (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia mirrors

Hi Aonbheannaigh, please be aware that wikiwand can't be used as a source – it's a copy of Wikipedia, so any reference would be circular. This also applies to other Wikipedia mirrors. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 22:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again – I saw that you added Alchetron as a source in Kobanchaya Station, but that is also a Wikipedia mirror, I'm afraid. https://alchetron.com/Kobanchaya-Station says "References Kobanchaya Station Wikipedia (Text) CC BY-SA" at the bottom, with a link to the Wikipedia article. Read Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks – it explains the issue in a bit more detail, and talks about how to identify mirror sites. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 12:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for letting me know Aonbheannaigh (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Corr Mhóna (August 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea 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 music-related topics). 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:Corr Mhóna and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

bonadea contributions talk 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Eddie Dempsey (Trade Unionist)

Hey, just letting you know that I've turned the above article you recently created into a draft. This means you can continue to work on it in draftspace until it is ready for mainspace. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot

Added as much as I can find.

Any suggestions or tips to add?

Thanks a lot Aonbheannaigh (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Dempsey (trade unionist) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Eddie Dempsey (trade unionist), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources to establish clear notability (and separate from Mick Lynch). (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Paul W (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Paul W, much appreciated

As per request, added more citations, independent sources, info on his background, RMT Trade Unionist background etc.

Submitted for draft, please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help the page/process etc :) Aonbheannaigh (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eddie Dempsey (Trade Unionist) (August 31)

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

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.

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:Eddie Dempsey (Trade Unionist) 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eddie Dempsey (trade unionist) has been accepted

Eddie Dempsey (trade unionist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Paul W (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you for all your help @Paul W! Aonbheannaigh (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced tag

Hi! Thank you so much for adding all of the references to various articles, we at WikiProject Unreferenced articles really appreciate it (and would love if you joined us!). For tracking purposes, could you please remove the Unreferenced Tag (usually at the top of the page) when you've added a reference, or replace it with the 'Additional references needed' tag as appropriate? Thanks! Kazamzam (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and will do so. Much appreciated @Kazamzam :) ---- Aonbheannaigh (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! If you need any help or have any questions, please let me know :) There's over 137,000 articles tagged as unreferenced so every bit helps. Kazamzam (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia copies as a source

Hi Aonbheannaigh, if you use a book as a source in Wikipedia, it is essential that you have access to the book so that you can check the claims in it. It is also essential that the book is in fact a reliable source published by a trustworthy publisher. "General Books, LLC", which published the source you used in this edit, is not a reliable publisher. They publish Wikipedia articles (also using the imprint "Books, LLC") with autogenerated titles, and collections of public-domain materials copied and OCRed from the Internet. If you have access to the book you'll see that it says "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online" (that disclaimer is also included in the blurb shown by Google Books). You even stated that the "author name" for this source was Wikipedia, so you must have been aware of the fact that this was yet another Wikipedia mirror, albeit in a different form. Please be careful when checking the sources you add; if you are in doubt about a source, you can ask about it at the Tea house or the reliable sources noticeboard. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello, I'm Robertsky. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Masjid Sallim Mattar have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. please do not add references that are advertising/solicitating product/donations/platforms. – robertsky (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking through your recent edits impact on Singaporea related articles. I suggest that you stop adding websites as references until you are clear on WP:SOURCES. Many of your additions looks troubling for various reasons. – robertsky (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are well-known official sites of the Mosques or non-orofit orgs giving info on the Mosques

Your ascertain these are "troubling" when I am adding reference to mosques for info is something I find incorrect. Aonbheannaigh (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding:

primary sources, i.e. their own websites, which many are already linked as official website in the External links section or in the infoboxes.
directory listings which only useful reference that is apparent that they are in Singapore, but it is already demostratably so in the infobox, and also linked through the External links;
website/pages that are also asking for donations for the mosques.
MUIS directory links, see above.

Many of these links may not be troubling itself, but your placements of these links are. – robertsky (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree and not very welcoming to a fellow editor at all, but not interested in arguing/fighting with you. Aonbheannaigh (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you take of this, but at the very least, it sure does bring attention to a group of articles that has been much neglected even by local editors (primarily because much of the relevant sources for mosques are in Malay), and thus there's now some work done to expand the articles. – robertsky (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I want to fight with you over this, but I'll add to concern Robertsky had--your revert on Mick Lynch (trade unionist) is silly. What soccer club someone supports seems to be important for some British editors, but it's completely trivial, unless, as I explained in my edit summary, how this is relevant. You didn't, you didn't even try to make it relevant. Your explanation, "Personal life is relevant, as in this case Wikipedia would have next to no entries with personal life added for any people", is trifling: some things are relevant and some things are not. That he goes to see Ireland play might actually be relevant given his background, and one might argue that for the Gaelic sports as well, but not as bare factoids, without context or relevance. But that would take a bit of work, more work than just reverting. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eibhlín Ní Choistealbha (November 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman 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:Eibhlín Ní Choistealbha 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.

Greenman (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Corr Mhóna (November 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Thatguy1987 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 music-related topics). 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:Corr Mhóna 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.

Thatguy1987 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Erling Haaland have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Giant Snowman 18:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not very polite or respectful.

The stats were updated after he subbed and legit info on his favourite food [Talksport is legit source for sports] Aonbheannaigh (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The stats update was wrong and undated. Giant Snowman 18:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman doesn't change the fact talksport is not a nonsense source as you stated and legitimate information was provided

You should show kindness to others rather than condescension , no wonder people don't want to edit or stay on Wikipedia Aonbheannaigh (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's nonsense trivia, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Giant Snowman 19:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Erling Haaland. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per MOS:REPEATLINK. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Corr Mhóna

Hello, Aonbheannaigh. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Corr Mhóna, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Corr Mhóna

Hello, Aonbheannaigh. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Corr Mhóna".

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. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Pep Guardiola, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per MOS:REPEATLINK. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Eibhlín Ní Choistealbha

Hello, Aonbheannaigh. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Eibhlín Ní Choistealbha, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Heinätorinpuisto Park

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Heinätorinpuisto Park, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Eibhlín Ní Choistealbha

Hello, Aonbheannaigh. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eibhlín Ní Choistealbha".

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. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]