User talk:Gracememe

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Gracememe! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 21:33, Tuesday, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 20)

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

This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gracememe/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Gracememe, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Keys Success to Unversity

The article Keys Success to Unversity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Essay; see WP:NOTESSAY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on editing

My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. some articles which you have created are really not at all like Wikipedia articles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to TED (conference)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. While the content of your edit may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! -Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Flyer22 Reborn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Conversations With Myself (Nelson Mandela) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Redirect category shell/doc. 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. diff. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edits you have made to articles, it looks as though you have not realised that a Wikipedia article should be written from a neutral, objective, point of view, and should not contain personal commentary or opinions of the editors who edited the article. This applies to edits you have made at TED (conference) and Conversations With Myself (Nelson Mandela). Please make sure that you avoid making that mistake again. However, I find it more difficult to understand your edits to Category:Redirects from moves. Whereas anyone might come to edit a Wikipedia article without realising what standards are required, it is difficult to understand why anyone without experience of how Wikipedia works would edit such a category page: a new editor must surely know that he or she doesn't know how category pages work, and so should keep clear of editing them until he or she has learnt more about Wikipedia. A still greater cause for concern was your editing of Template:Redirect category shell/doc, where you completely removed all content. I cannot conceive of any reason that you could possibly think that was constructive, and it is therefore difficult to avoid the conclusion that it was vandalism. Please be more careful how you edit, as otherwise you are likely to be blocked you from editing by a Wikipedia administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cyberbullying, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also see WP:OR, as your edit may have been original research, which is not allowed. Thank you. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have received several notifications here on your talk page, and yet you are continuing to make deeply problematic edits, such as the ones you made to Suicide of Tyler Clementi and Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom. If you continue in this vein, you will soon be blocked from editing. I want to believe you are here to contribute constructively. If that's so, before making changes to any more articles, please be sure that have a basic understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In particular, make sure that any content you add is verifiable using reliable sources, and cite those sources. Take extra care never to present opinion as fact. Be extra careful to use proper grammar (including punctuation, spacing, and spelling). Do not alter direct quotes. If you're unsure, you can always ask at the Teahouse before making the edit. Thanks for your cooperation. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]