User Talk: Mlkj

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Rollback granted

right|130px ↗
Hi Mlkj. After reviewing your request for "{{mono|rollbacker}}", I have <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AMlkj enabled]</span> rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle ↗.

Rollback should be used to revert ''clear'' cases of ''vandalism'' ↗ ''only'', and not good faith edits ↗.

Rollback should never be used to edit war ↗.

If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.

Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback ↗ (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! <span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span> <span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>♠</span> 08:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Mlkj. 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)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: Nirmatrelvir ↗ has been accepted

<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;">50px|left ↗ '''Nirmatrelvir ↗, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.'''<br />

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

The article has been assessed as '''Redirect-Class''', which is recorded on its talk page ↗. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme ↗ to see how you can improve the article.

<div class="autoconfirmed-show">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.</div>

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the '''<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Nirmatrelvir help desk]</span>'''.<span class="unconfirmed-show"> 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 ↗.</span>

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider {{leave feedback/link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation|text=leaving us some feedback}}.

Thanks again, and happy editing!
–<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span> <small>(talk)</small> 13:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)</div>

Pending changes reviewer granted

right|130px ↗
Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|pending changes reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits ↗ on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges ↗, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages ↗.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

''See also:''

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes ↗, the guideline on reviewing

Wikipedia:Pending changes ↗, the summary of the use of pending changes

Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection ↗, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. <br>

DanCherek (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2022 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2022|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Revdel request

Had missed one. {{Done}}. -- Alexf<sup><i>(talk)</i></sup> 14:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This...

was not an experiment ↗. Please report those to AIV immediately, and ask for oversight. The sooner we catch these the better. Oh, if you hit rollback or whatever, then the admins have another edit summary to clean. Reverting to the previous version is the easiest for admins. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

:Hello, thanks for contacting me! I don't remember exactly what this diff was, I'm guessing some sort of grossly offensive revdel candidate? If so, my bad, I appreciate the heads up. I always contact Oversight for personal information, but I usually only rollback those. I'll make sure to try a manual revert and refer to AIV instead. Thanks again. Mlkj (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
::Sure thing. But this one, you'll recognize next time, and there will be a next time. You might as well leave it: these a-holes get a kick out of being reverted and then reinstating their nonsense. Get them blocked ASAP, and then we'll clean up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary

This ↗ absolutely cracked me up, and may be the high point of my day. Thanks for the laugh. Joyous! Noise! ↗ 18:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

:Heh, yeah, I ''might'' be using the edit summaries as a bit of an outlet sometimes, when the sheer absurdity of the vandalism gets to me! Glad you enjoyed that Mlkj (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review ↗ is now '''no longer accepting new proposals'''. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA ↗'s structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

'''Proposal 2 ↗''', initiated by {{noping|HouseBlaster}}, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship ↗ reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.

'''Proposals 3 ↗''' and '''3b ↗''', initiated by {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Usedtobecool}}, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.

'''Proposal 5 ↗''', initiated by {{noping|SilkTork}}, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.

'''Proposals 6c ↗''' and '''6d ↗''', initiated by {{noping|BilledMammal}}, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.

'''Proposal 7 ↗''', initiated by {{noping|Lee Vilenski}}, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.

'''Proposal 9b ↗''', initiated by {{noping|Reaper Eternal}}, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.

'''Proposals 12c ↗''', '''21 ↗''', and '''21b ↗''', initiated by {{noping|City of Silver}}, {{u|Ritchie333}}, and {{u|HouseBlaster}}, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.

'''Proposal 13 ↗''', initiated by {{noping|Novem Lingaue}}, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.

'''Proposal 14 ↗''', initiated by {{noping|Kusma}}, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.

'''Proposals 16 ↗''' and '''16c ↗''', initiated by {{noping|Thebiguglyalien}} and {{noping|Soni}}, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard ↗; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.

'''Proposal 16e ↗''', initiated by {{noping|BilledMammal}}, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.

'''Proposal 17 ↗''', initiated by {{noping|SchroCat}}, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.

'''Proposal 18 ↗''', initiated by {{noping|theleekycauldron}}, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.

'''Proposal 24 ↗''', initiated by {{noping|SportingFlyer}}, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll ↗.

'''Proposal 25 ↗''', initiated by {{noping|Femke}}, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.

'''Proposal 27 ↗''', initiated by {{noping|WereSpielChequers}}, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.

'''Proposal 28 ↗''', initiated by {{noping|HouseBlaster}}, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals ↗. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ↗ (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review ↗ has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

'''Proposals 2 and 9b''' ('''phase II discussion ↗'''): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA ↗ and Require links for claims of specific policy violations ↗

'''Proposal 3b''' (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only ↗

'''Proposal 13''' (in trial): Admin elections ↗

'''Proposal 14''' (implemented): Suffrage requirements ↗

'''Proposals 16 and 16c''' ('''phase II discussion ↗'''): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs ↗ and Community recall process based on dewiki ↗

'''Proposal 17''' ('''phase II discussion ↗'''): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions ↗

'''Proposal 24''' ('''phase II discussion ↗'''): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process ↗

'''Proposal 25''' (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed ↗

See the project page ↗ for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron ↗ (talk ↗), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the <strong>RfA discussion-only period</strong> passed at WP:RFA2024 ↗ has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at '''Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period ↗'''. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Stop

Stop trying to edit war me and harrasing me DodgeOnTop25 (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, I was actually just reaching out on your talk page ↗ when I saw your last edit summary. I'm actually only watching recent changes and not following you around, so I'm happy to move on, but please notice that I'm not the only editor reverting you. You made a lot of those edits in quick succession, and there are some problems with the way you add your own ideas into articles without sources. Happy to go into more details if you want. Mlkj (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::so i cant use research DodgeOnTop25 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You can use what we call Reliable Sources ↗, which can be books, some news articles, and other publications generally thought to be trustworthy. Original research ↗ means bringing your own ideas or you own conclusions into an article. That's the part that's not allowed on Wikipedia.
:::All we really do in Wikipedia articles is summarize what other reliable sources (websites, books) say! Even if you think something is common knowledge, it should come from another source, not from you, or me. Mlkj (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::See WP:NOR ↗ and WP:RELIABLE ↗. Drdr150 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Undoing unhelpful edits is not edit warring, even if the reverts continue to come from the same person. Drdr150 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

A goat for you!

left|150px ↗
Thank you!

ToTheDemosToTheStars (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>

Hi, random user from ip address here

Thanks for all you do in crafting constructive edits and advance happy birthday <small class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by 96.224.247.75 ↗ (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)</small> 

:Hey random IP user, I think I remember writing on your talk page recently. I have to say you leave some pretty interesting edit summaries. Is everything alright?
:Oh, and happy unbirthday ↗ to you too. Mlkj (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

WikipediaのガイドラインはGoogle翻訳するには長すぎる

WikipediaのガイドラインはGoogle翻訳するには長すぎる約束はまだ残っています (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Help with Revision

{{cot|title=Cassey Ho discussion|left=true|bg=LightGrey}}
You literally reverted the ENTIRE page that just took me hours of work. May you please IN DETAIL let me know which sources you are deeming as "inappropriate" so I can remove them? Everything was cited and sourced accurately and carefully. Pease advise ASAP. Kinlphill (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, I reverted your series of edits for multiple reasons, including adding external links to a commercial store page ↗ for a "patented Pirouette Skort", copy-pasting a long lists of LinkedIn awards with Cassey Ho's LinkedIn as the only source, and making additions in an excessively promotional tone. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view ↗, the purpose of articles is not to make a long list of LinkedIn awards and external links to online stores.
:Some of your earlier edits were not as obviously objectionable, and I did see that you spent some time editing the page, so I reverted an intermediate version, but there remain serious issues with the promotional tone of this article and the content you tried to add.
:I see that you've previously been informed about our conflict of interest ↗ policy in relation to this same page. If you have a personal connection to the topic, or any other conflict of interest, please note that you are required to disclose it ↗. Mlkj (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::I want to clarify that all of the content I added is accurate, factual, and carefully cited. The honors and awards section is sourced directly from Cassey Ho’s official LinkedIn page, which is a verifiable and reliable source — other Wikipedia pages list similar information for public figures without being flagged as promotional. Since when listing verified awards and honors that someone has received becomes promotional?
::Regarding the links to the commercial store page, these were only added to reference the patented Pirouette Skort and its design description; they were not intended to promote sales. I am happy to remove any links that you are deeming promotional.
::Given that, is there a way to have the full page reverted back with only the promotional links removed, rather than undoing all of the factual content I added, and the removal of all unneeded and outdated content? Everything else on the page is carefully sourced and factually accurate, and I would like to ensure this information remains on Wikipedia while complying with guidelines.
::If you still believe there remain serious issues with the promotional tone of this article and the content I added, please list in detail exactly what those issues are, so I can address them and fix the page accordingly. Kinlphill (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tqi|I want to clarify that all of the content I added is accurate, factual, and carefully cited. The honors and awards section is sourced directly from Cassey Ho’s official LinkedIn page, which is a verifiable and reliable source}}
:::No, LinkedIn is definitely not a reliable source ↗! It is a self-published first-party source. Anyone can write whatever they want on their LinkedIn page. Please see WP:RSPLINKEDIN ↗ for more on LinkedIn specifically, but I also strongly recommend reading more about what we call verifiability ↗ and what we mean by reliable sources ↗.
:::{{tqi|Regarding the links to the commercial store page, these were only added to reference the patented Pirouette Skort and its design description; they were not intended to promote sales. I am happy to remove any links that you are deeming promotional.}}
:::There is more information on this page about what is allowed and not allowed: WP:EL ↗. As a rule of thumb, it is almost never OK to link words in the middle of a Wikipedia article to a commercial store page. There is also a difference between an external link and a citation ↗.
:::{{tqi|Given that, is there a way to have the full page reverted back with only the promotional links removed [...]}}
:::Nothing has been lost, you can find everything you wrote in the page history. But if you try to make the same type of edit, someone else will come by and revert it again. You've already been warned before by someone else about your contributions to this page. I strongly suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies before trying to restore the same type of content. I tried to link many of the relevant pages in my posts above, please do read them, they will explain in considerable details what the problems are and what you need to do. Mlkj (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you for explaining the rules around LinkedIn not being considered a reliable source, I wasn’t aware of that. As I mentioned before, I am happy to remove any links that you or anyone else deem promotional, and I will not link to external commercial sites again.
::::However, I feel as though I am being told that any edit I make will just be reverted, and I’m asking for clarity. Since you were the one who reverted the page, I need you to specifically explain what you are deeming promotional or otherwise inappropriate so that I can fix it. Simply linking to the general policy pages doesn’t address the specifics of what and why (some) other edits got deleted that you are not mentioning. There were many edits that you deleted which were factual, properly sourced, and in line with Wikipedia standards, those should not have been removed. At the same time, some outdated and unnecessary information that you added back to the page was not needed and does not improve the article in any way.
::::Again, I am happy to remove any links that are deemed promotional. However, there are still edits that I made which have nothing wrong with them and should be restored. Is there a way to have the page reverted back so that the accurate, verifiable content I added can remain while removing only the promotional or other unapproved material? I want to make sure the page stays factual, up to date and well-sourced without violating Wikipedia policies, and I need clarity on what specifically needs to be removed versus what can stay.
::::Thanks. Kinlphill (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::I appreciate that you've spent some of your time, and you're of course welcome to continue editing, but my free time is also limited. I don't think you've quite been able since the last message to read the pages I sent you. I unfortunately don't have the time to rewrite all the relevant policy for you in this talk page, that's why I listed the specific pages that are relevant here. I tried to give you a high-level explanation above, I explained the main issues I see with those edits, now you should have all the information you need. I can't do the reading for you.
:::::The issues I detailed above were not subtle mistakes. This is why it's important to familiarize yourself with what's expected in Wikipedia articles. I don't have any particular interest in this article, and I don't have any desire to revert any more of your edits, but you've already been contacted by someone else before about your edits to the same page. If you don't course-correct, someone else than me will very likely find the same problems in the future. Mlkj (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::No one asked you to do the reading for me, but again, I am focused more on the content you reverted and deleted with '''no''' explanation at all, that had nothing wrong with the explanations you are choosing to give me (which apparently you didn't do the reading there regarding my last message). Again, there were many edits that you deleted which were factual, properly sourced, and in line with Wikipedia standards, those should not have been removed. At the same time, some outdated and unnecessary information that you added back to the page was not needed and does not improve the article in any way. Kinlphill (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It's okay to resubmit just the parts that you think are up to standard, written in a neutral encyclopedic tone ↗, and citing independent ↗, reliable sources ↗. I'm sorry if some legitimate content was reverted along with the rest, but the onus is ultimately on the person making edits to not add problematic content. The goal is to write a neutral article, the article shouldn't be solely trying to promote ↗ a person's accomplishments, awards, and products. Mlkj (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
{{cob}}

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

60px|left ↗
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ↗ regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Panties ↗. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}} Meters (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)