User talk:Historyexpert2#top

Image:Information.svg Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article, :Larry Uttal, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Historyexpert2,

We don't advise editors with limited editing experience to nominate articles for deletion. But if you wish to do so again, please read and follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion for each article you are considering nominating. It's important to do a WP:BEFORE before nomination and mentioning the results, as well as a policy-based reason, in your nomination statement. It also helps to do some deletion sorting so that editors who are interested in the subject matter are alerted to the deletion discussion. All of this is made much easier if you learn to use Twinkle, an editing tool that helps set up AFDs in just a few steps. I encourage you to try it out.

If you have questions about Wikipedia's deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template.

File:Commons-emblem-notice.svg You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, Historyexpert2. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Benoy (teip), 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) 07:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I really think there is an argument for deleting the whole deaths from cancer tree. In almost no cases are these people defined by the cause of death. Some of them had been out of public view for a long time when they died. I really have no particular love for the cancer specially categories. I will just warn you that since deaths from protate cancer in California is no particular more or less defining that deaths from stomach cancer in California or deaths from Prostate cancer in Arizona, I do not know this one Category nomination will succeed. Although I think things would be helped if people would consider categories on their lobe merits. The number of deaths from cancer categories Amis truly mind blowing, with many of them being very large in size. With cancer being second only to heart disease as a cause of death I really think we should delete the whole tree. I used to think we could get the by type sub-categories, but have since realized that rarely works. We really need to cut out some of these non-defining categories. While cancer has a huge impact on individuals, it is not a core defing thing to them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)