User talk:Very Polite Person

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Category:Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RSP entry you mention states 'unless the author is a subject-matter expert' which is the case for the stuff you are removing. See also WP:EXPERTSPS. Please seek some sort of consensus before doing blanket removal like that. MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Came to say this. Please stop the blanket removals. Feoffer (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You appear to have ignored the ongoing merge discussion and just merged these two articles. You can't do that. Am I missing something? Dan Bloch (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Department of Government Efficiency sidebox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Goszei (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment here, You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity. Ego has neither role nor allowance here is an inappropriate, disruptive personal attack. Given that you were previously blocked for disruptive behavior, and that some of your recent Edit summaries can also be interpreted as disparaging toward other editors (just one example: you guys were all a bit too aggressive and manhandled this text last year), perhaps it would be best for you to strike those inappropriate comments from the AfD and, going forward, try to tone down the hostility toward other editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw if the user concedes they nominated another article for AFD without due diligence as per Harald Malmgren, which is now sourced to the level that the repeated attempts by the user to focus on this topic in this way is patently disruptive and radical POV-pushing. I am too busy improving Wikipedia articles in the meanwhile to engage in all this petty drama, but will defend the integrity of Article space over user feelings. I have nothing further to add, as I'm busy adding all the sourcing the user curiously omitted from scrutiny on The Sol Foundation. This is now either the second or third time you have "come at me" on this page. You are welcome to not be on my page unless you wish to assist me in building, rather than harming, the project. Good day. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Sol Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2025 (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 Bonadea 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:

Per Chetsford's source evaluation (supported by my own source checks) and the recent AfD outcome.

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:Christopher Mellon 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 18:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Very Polite Person! 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! bonadea contributions talk 18:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ben.Gowar (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Have you read this article?

The subject of NHI and all the attendant phenomena has been under debate for a long time. The last decade has seen a shift, in my view. Some people don’t like it.

Matters are moving in Congress on the topic, as you may know. In the final analysis, Wikipedia isn’t very relevant, as I see it. Best wishes! Jusdafax (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]