🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TimeToFixThis/Archive
Jump to content

User talk:TimeToFixThis/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your tally update

Re: [1]

'ello. You need to update your comment in the survey section to match. As "lead follows body", tally follows survey. It's not like we throw these discussions away when they're done. This will be in the archive forever, so it's worth an effort to keep it somewhat clean. Tally disagreeing with survey is not clean. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Note of failed pings

See WP:PINGFIX.

In short, your only recourse is to start over with the pings (without re-pinging the users that I already pinged).

If the original edit botches the ping syntax (e.g. {ping|TimeToFixThis}}), or if the original edit lacks a valid signature, no ping is sent and no indication is given that no ping was sent. This presents two problems:

  • No ping is sent, and
  • It appears to other users that a ping was sent, which can be a problem in some contexts. As far as they can tell, someone was pinged and they chose not to respond.

This can drive one crazy, but technical limitations prevent anything from being done about it. I find that it's usually enough to take the time to be extra careful when posting a comment containing one or more pings. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou for the explanation. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 13:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on Javier Millei and Megyn Kelly

For NPOV:

NPOV quote box (click to expand)

"At Wikipedia, 'neutral' does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, 'neutral' means alignment with RS, including their biases.

'Neutral' in NPOV does not mean 'neutral' in the common sense of the word. It does not mean without bias from sources, only without bias from editors. NPOV does not require that sources or content be without bias or be neutral.

Per NPOV, editors should be neutral by not removing the bias found in RS. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so, and that is a very proper bias. Anything else [would] be dishonest. Wikipedia does not support dishonesty or whitewash it.

Editors are 'neutral' when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not 'move' or 'balance' content to the center to keep an article 'neutral'. That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content."

—Valjean (talk), in response to claims that certain Wikipedia pages are written with a biased point of view. (March 5, 2024)

Theofunny (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you reverted many of my edits on Megyn Kelly's page. Most of what I removed or simplified were things I originally added. After reviewing my contributions, I realized that some of the content was minor and not particularly noteworthy, making it inconsistent with Wikipedia's WP:UNDUE policy. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 15:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Theofunny (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I reverted 3 of them and sorry for this edit summary. Megyn Kelly: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Theofunny (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Megyn Kelly: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, Here, I meant to say that we as wikipedians should strive for neutrality while editing despite what we might believe. Theofunny (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
You are correct, and I agree with that principle. However, this was not a typical edit for me because I was the one who originally added that information HERE. So, "despite what we might believe"—though the rule is correct—I was the one who introduced that content in the first place. When I later removed certain parts, my goal was to make the section more concise and noteworthy without unnecessary bloat. There was no slyness, because if so I wouldn't have made the initial edit in the first place.
For example, I changed:
  • My previous version: The debate, which was hosted by independent media figures, marked a shift away from traditional establishment media, reflecting a broader trend within the Republican National Committee (RNC) to embrace alternative media outlets.
  • More concise version: The debate, which was hosted by independent media figures, was part of the Republican National Committee’s move toward embracing alternative media platforms over traditional establishment networks.
This version is more concise and refined, which was my goal overall.
The small details of the whole saga of Megyn Kelly and Trump’s back-and-forth during the 2016 campaign is off-topic for what I wanted to convey about her endorsement. He called her several things during the campaign, so placing undue weight on this one quote is unbalanced and gives disproportionate emphasis to a single moment rather than the broader context of their relationship, as per WP:UNDUE. The phrase, being at odds, gets the point across without overemphasizing one instance, and the reference: following a widely publicized debate exchange—provides the necessary context.
  • More concise version: ...they had been at odds during the 2016 campaign, following a widely publicized debate exchange, her endorsement in 2024 revealed a stark change in their relationship.
This keeps the focus on the endorsement and the significance rather than rehashing the past conflict details which are already discussed in the article earlier. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 11:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Javier Milei - Wikipedia, Also the Cryptocurrency part had already been added with reliable sources before your edits. Please check the list of perennial sources to avoid using deprecated sources or those that aren't reliable at all. Theofunny (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I noticed that as well, and thankyou for correcting that, I was unaware of the already existing section. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 16:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Sandbox issue

It was listed HERE, under Malformed requests. I don't think that page is very useful for you. Helpful links: Template:Requested move and Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. wbm1058 (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou for bringing this to my attention. When I looked it up before I started storing templates or sources there, I was lead to believe having templates in a sandbox would not affect the mainspace. Seems as though that is not the case. I apologize for not understanding your initial removal, I interpreted it as a bad actor screwing up my personal page. I have removed the problematic template in my sandbox. Thankyou. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 13:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Please note that you must not close a discussion that you yourself are involved with

Per WP:INVOLVED, when you have initiated a discussion, you must wait for an uninvolved editor or administrator to close the discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, which discussion are you referring to? TimeToFixThis | 🕒 09:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
This concern was with respect to Talk:Chris Wright#Requested move February 2025. I have had this one taken care of already. BD2412 T 16:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Hey @BD2412 Isn't it true though that per WP:RFCEND, if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize and close a discussion. Thanks again for your insight. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 10:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
WP:RFCEND applies to WP:Requests for comment, which is a specific kind of discussion format. It does not apply to WP:RM and WP:XFD discussions. BD2412 T 18:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Thankyou that clears things up. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 07:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for speedy deletion of Ground News

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ground News requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground News. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris talk! 22:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Why was my article deleted? That was all my own work, what was wrong with it? TimeToFixThis | 🕒 22:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Ok, I see why it was deleted now. I had no knowledge of the previous pages created. Do you know, is there a way to contest the previous decision or create a new discussion? I don't see why the page cannot exist in a way that does not violate Wikipedia's policies like WP:Promo for example. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 23:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
You can create the page via the AfC process, as to overturn the consensus that was established at the AfD. I also suggest speaking with the deleting admin, JBW, and maybe they can draftify or send the draft to your own userspace, so you can continue working on it there. CycloneYoris talk! 00:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 03:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Carney infobox

Please *read* the infobox carefully before changing it again. What office is he assuming on March *14*? Prime Minister. He does not *become* prime minister designate on March 14 but that is what your changes state. He is actually *assuming* the office of PM tomorrow so the infobox is correct to state that. The infobox says "assuming office" of Prime Minister on March 14. Once he is sworn it will change to "assumed office" on March 14. Please stop changing the office in the infobox to PM-Designate because it is nonsensical to say he is assuming the office of PM-designate tomorrow.

Once he is sworn in change move Justin Trudeau to "predecessor" instead of "succeeding" and the infobox will then say Carney "assumed office" on March 14. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. There is no incumbent banner because it is implied he is assuming office on the 14th. He is the Prime Minister-designate until he is sworn in as PM. If you put 24th Prime Minister of Canada it would mislead readers of the article who are not taking a closer look. He is the prime minister-designate, assuming office as prime minister on March 14th. This is how it has been done, so you can take it up with an RFC or read some past consensuses. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 21:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rick Kasper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It started today on Monday June 16 and will run until Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Isabelle Poupart

Hello, TimeToFixThis. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Isabelle Poupart, 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) 10:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Isabelle Poupart (June 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rambley 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.
Rambley (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, TimeToFixThis! 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! Rambley (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi TimeToFixThis. Thank you for your work on First ladies of Idaho. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congrats and Thank you for creating this valuable page. Your work helps in bridging gender gap on Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rose Dunleavy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Dunleavy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samantha Steele (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lake County.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Patrick Goodman

Hello Paora TimeToFixThis, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Patrick Goodman, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Goodman.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|GTrang}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

GTrang (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Abby Palmer Cox page issue

Hello, I'm ChildrenWillListen. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@TimeToFixThis: What this means is that you can't use ChatGPT or other large-language models to edit Wikipedia. Even things like proofreading have to be done manually to make sure things aren't being made up. The AI also made the article promotional, and articles in Wikipedia have to be neutral as possible. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for bring this to my attention. That was a sloppy edit on my part. I usually am pretty good on that. Apologies. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 01:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Abby Palmer Cox moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Abby Palmer Cox. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that. I have corrected the neutrality and promotional sounding parts of the page, and have gutted the bloat out of it. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 01:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abby Palmer Cox (September 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WeirdNAnnoyed was:
The subject is clearly notable and I think the wording is not too promotional (it could be toned down at a couple of points but that is simple editing, not sufficient to decline the article). My concern is that the citation is nonstandard. Please use the reflist format for citations, rather than footnotes. Once that's corrected the article will be ready for mainspace. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
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.

WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@TimeToFixThis: Apologies your message on IRC was missed. I have added the reflist for you now. Please resubmit
@WeirdNAnnoyed: If that was the only reason for the decline, it's very silly... you could have easily added the reflist yourself, then accepted it - RichT|C|E-Mail 07:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, TimeToFixThis! 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! WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:TimeToFixThis/sandbox6

User:TimeToFixThis/sandbox6, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TimeToFixThis/sandbox6 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TimeToFixThis/sandbox6 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Please engage with the talk page on Dallas Brodie

  1. My reversion reversion of that sentence is not vandalism. Providing cherry picked information like that supports a narrative of residential school denial. It's a complex topic and it's problematic to sum up the issue with one line.
  2. Please engage with the talk page. This is the appropriate place to hash out this issue. Surely, you have a reason for why you disagree with me. Please put in the talk page.
  3. Wannabee isn't actually a sock puppet. I know you probably won't believe that but lots of people are concerned about residential school denialism. I think their post was a good compromise.

RedactedSagan (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Copying within WP

I saw that you created an article for the Prosecution of Letitia James. It looks like some of the content was copied from the Indictment section of the Letitia James article. Just a heads up re: the guideline for copying within WP: WP:CWW. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I did use some of the content over there to help build the page. I will be more careful next time with that in mind. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 08:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not a problem to copy. You just want to note it in the edit summary and/or on the talk page, for attribution. You can still add the copied from / copied to templates to the talk pages. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Sébastien Lecornu caretaker term

Hello. I don't want to engage in edit warring and would rather sort this out here. You believe it's necessary to include that Lecornu was caretaker prime minister for four days in the infobox, while this little detail is (with exception of examples you provided?) left out. And while WP:ONUS is technically on your side, I'd like to tell you why it shouldn't be added anyway...

First, MOS:IBP says “The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Is the fact that he was caretaker PM for just four days really that important for understanding the article, or does it just clutter an already long infobox?

Second, MOS:STYLEVAR notes that When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. I haven't seen any other articles on French prime ministers or ministers use such a label. Technically, all ministers around the world act as caretakers during cabinet transitions sometimes much longer than four days, so adding it here goes against established practice.

Lastly, MOS:SMALL discourages using small text formatting, which I think applies here as well...

Happy to hear your thoughts. Cheers! Tahōmaru 多宝丸 talk 22:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough - though I am right on this. If a caretaker was in the position longer, it would make more sense to have the underlining. I will compromise and we can just leave a note in the user box as per example Yoon Suk Yeol. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 03:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Yoon Suk Yeol's powers were suspended because he attempted a self-coup... I really don't know how these two cases are related.
The main concern is consistency in France related articles and relevance. Tahōmaru 多宝丸 talk 13:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Yoon Suk Yeol’s infobox is actually relevant here as one example - that’s how they handled the “suspended between these dates” situation when he was still president-in-name-only. After he was officially removed from office, they removed the underlining and added a note to simplify it while still providing context.
I’ve been working on officeholder biographies for about two years now, so I do know what I’m talking about. You might want to get a bit more experience with these types of articles before reverting edits and offering advice. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Seniority isn't really the deciding factor here. Consistency and policy are. Tahōmaru 多宝丸 talk 04:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
It is if you only have 300 edits. Experience is a huge thing around here, especially with unobvious things like this. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 19:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Infobox dispute at Sébastien Lecornu

Hi, TimeToFixThis. I noticed a minor Infobox dispute involving some edit-warring recently at Sébastien Lecornu. This was followed by your creation of this Rfc at Talk page. First of all, I wanted to commend you on a really interesting way of demonstrating different Infobox options; I may have to steal that idea some day. Was that original with you, or did you see that used somewhere? Anyway, I removed the Rfc header from that discussion, for reasons already explained there. Thanks for raising that discussion, and for formatting it in a way that makes it pretty clear where the locus of the dispute lies.

One minor, niggly point: when I first looked at the explanatory notes attached to Options B and C, I thought the whole dispute was about whether you should say, "four days later", as in Note [a], or "4 days later", as in Note [b], and I was all ready to vote for Option B per MOS:NUMERAL, until I realized that the wording difference in the number of days was not your point at all. I would recommend you change the notes so they both say "four days later", lest you have other editors getting side-tracked or misunderstanding what the central point is. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, yes that was my idea - thanks. How would you go about getting other editors to comment on this dispute? It seems as though there is not much comment so far, and I'd like for someone to close this Rfc. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 02:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi, your signature, as used in edits like this, contains an unescaped pipe character in contravention of WP:CUSTOMSIG. I have fixed some recent instances (examples): please ensure that it does not happen again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Weird, I do not know why that might have happened. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 22:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
You're still doing it. It's right there between '''[[User:TimeToFixThis|<span style="color:black;">TimeToFixThis</span>]]''' and [[User talk:TimeToFixThis|🕒]]. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Is this better? TimeToFixThis | 🕒 23:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abby Palmer Cox (October 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 Drmies 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.
Drmies (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, TimeToFixThis! 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! Drmies (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Politicial office holders

Howdy. We wait until the successor is sworn in, before adding them to their predecessor's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TimeToFixThis/Archive&oldid=1325902161"