Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Young Frankenstein, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at David McCormick, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TEMPO156 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With Lutnick currently two steps removed from holding the office of Commerce Secretary, it is premature to add that office to his infobox at this time. Editor ElijahPepe put that office in an invisible <!-- --> comment because the rumors of Trump nominating Lutnick first need to come true, and then the Senate needs to confirm Lutnick to that position. In comparison, the article for Lee Zeldin refers to him as the presumptive nominee for EPA Admin because he was officially nominated. Hope this helps! ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a formal discussion about this. I have considered opening an RfC, but I don't know what the appropriate venue is. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Standing on the Shoulders of Kitties is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standing on the Shoulders of Kitties until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Nxcrypto Message 11:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to The Comments Section. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Reagan Conrad. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Reagan Conrad. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JTtheOG (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Phyllis Smith, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. see WP:DOB - unsourced added birthdate contradicts the sourced DOB Waxworker (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only source that was cited for Smith’s birthday to be in 1949 was a Cleveland, Ohio based local news outlet. Smith is a resident of Missouri. In addition, the majority of sources documenting the actress, including IMDB and Famous Birthdays, cite her birthday as being in 1951. Since her birth certificate has not been made public, I’d argue these sources are more reliable than the one currently cited. I respectfully request permission to change her birthdate back. Mliv717 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is an unreliable WP:USERGENERATED source per WP:IMDB, and Famous Birthdays is blacklisted per WP:FAMOUSBIRTHDAYS - The Plain Dealer is a major newspaper and seems like a fine source, particularly in comparison. Waxworker (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but both reliable and unreliable sources across the internet cite her birthday as being in 1951. If you can find more than one source to paste in this chat that cite her birthday as being in 1949, that might add some more credibility. Mliv717 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 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 SafariScribe was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Comments Section 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mliv717! 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! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

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.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Reagan Conrad 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you had intended to delete the draft in Special:Diff/1273353984, you may want to replace it with {{db-g7}} instead. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just wanted to reiterate that Spouses of PMs aren't like First Spouses or Consorts (i.e. spouse of the monarch or Governor-General) and that is why they don't have the officeholder infobox that you keep on adding back. If you want to make a change this big, you will need consensus. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'll start it here. @RedBlueGreen93, Mliv has unilaterally changed the infoboxes of all Canadian PM spouses to ones like those of a Presidential spouse. But this has just left them an outlier as other countries' PM spouses are still the usual way. I'm not against it but I think there should be some consensus since it would require changing all infoboxes of this sort. What do you think? Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors keep reverting your edits because the 170 seats the Liberals have already include Milton East—Halton Hills South; the recount confirmed the result, it didn't change it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mliv717. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Comments Section, 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) 13:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Michael J. Fox did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Thedarkknightli (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Orlando Bloom, you may be blocked from editing. Is the inline note unclear? DonIago (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources have credibly reported Perry and Bloom’s separation. It is not factually incorrect to report so. This editing is not disruptive. I only edited his article once. Mliv717 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to block me, I will temporarily refrain from

editing articles for now. Mliv717 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to add one or more sources verifying the separation and then re-add your update to the infobox, but, as per the note that you overlooked, there was no content in the article discussing their separation when you updated the infobox. In general, content in infoboxes should only reflect the text of the article, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Another option, though less ideal, would have been to include a source at the time you updated the infobox (but that would create inconsistency with the prose, where there's no mention of the separation). Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Connormah (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mliv717! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Michael J. Fox several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Michael J. Fox, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE clearly states, "... information should be presented in a short format wherever possible ..." Thanks. Thedarkknightli (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mliv717. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Reagan Conrad, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 04:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Avoid using New York Post as a citation, and implementing subpar sources like it for personal claims involving people who are alive violates the WP:BLP policy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Just to be clear, which article are you referring to? Mliv717 (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mliv717. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Reagan Conrad".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RECENT. You should never have moved this page. The basis for his notability was his athletics performances. He would never have had a WP bio as a superintendent, only as an Olympian.

I'm going to get an admin to undo your disruption if you don't revert yourself. 92.40.192.165 (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. Infobox listings on their own are insufficient when you don't provide any links to back claims up. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mike Finnigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musical. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

pleaso do not edit war as you did in The Wild Robot by reinserting material, that was put out for good reasons (and multiple times). Thanks! ~2025-31132-16 (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which reasons? Mliv717 (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See article history. ~2026-74283-5 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]