User talk:TheFriendlyFas2

December 2021

Hello, I'm Vif12vf. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Faisceau, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at National Synarchist Union, 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. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Bolivian Socialist Falange, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at National Falange. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roald Nikolai Flemestad (December 30)

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

Thanks for your good-faith efforts on this article! Unfortunately, a biography of a person has to be declined unless it clearly demonstrates the person is notable in the lead section. If you try a similar article again (about this or a more notable subject), you might find MOS:LEAD helpful: try to state only the most relevant information up front that a general reader would care about. In this case, the most notable info would be "first bishop of the Nordic Catholic Church" so the article should begin "Roald Nikolai Flemestad (born ....) is the first bishop of the Nordic Catholic Church". Additionally, you will need several references to news articles and different reliable sources which support the person's notability.

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 Draft:Roald Nikolai Flemestad and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Roald Nikolai Flemestad, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheFriendlyFas2! Having an article 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! Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roald Nikolai Flemestad (December 30)

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

The source you added is not independent, so it doesn't contribute to the subject's notability. You want independent sources about him, like newspaper articles or books.

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 Draft:Roald Nikolai Flemestad and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Roald Nikolai Flemestad, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hi TheFriendlyFas2! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Roald Nikolai Flemestad

Hello, TheFriendlyFas2. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Roald Nikolai Flemestad, 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) 10:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change your political position on your user page from fascist to third position?

Doug Weller talk 08:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I feel as though 'Third Position' more accurately represents my political views, that being said I'm still a fascist or at least some variation of it. I also don't want people to think that I'm a Nazi or a racist. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Please stop spamming articles with religious affiliations. Religion is only used as an infobox parameter when the subject is a religious leader. DrKay (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a great number of articles about non-religious leaders who have their religious affiliation listed in the infobox. Isn't the point of the infoboxes to make information easily accessible and convenient? And there are infobox templates specifically for religious leaders so why even include the option to add religious affilation? TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion may be listed if relevant, sourced and uncontroversial." Not "Religion may be listed if subject is a religious leader" also why'd you reverse my edits with the same reasoning every time? TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove it from those articles. Articles should only have one infobox. We don't include infobox royalty and infobox religious leader on people who are both. So, parameters are sometimes copied over to ensure flexibility for when people have dual roles. It doesn't mean that every parameter should be filled. DrKay (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]