User talk:ThirdEye96

Re: Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Hello, @ThirdEye96! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I wanted to reach out to you to explain why I twice reverted your addition of reciprocal killings to the Assassination of Charlie Kirk article. In short, I do not see this event as being notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. You can see the notability guidelines yourself at WP:N. More specifically though, I don't see either of the attached sources being enough to qualify this event for inclusion. While CNN is considered a reliable source (see WP:CNN), the article itself does not mention Charlie Kirk or his assassination once and does not allege that the killing was tied Kirk's assassination. This would mean that inclusion on this page would be an example of original research and synthesis, both of which are discouraged on Wikipedia. I would not consider NJ101.5 to be a reliable source because it seems to have more in common with a tabloid or sensationalist news source, and in particular because of the poor grammar and subject material. In short, if you do want to readd this event, I suggest you find more sources (preferably >3) that directly tie this event to Kirk's assassination. Given that the driver's identity hasn't even been confirmed by the police though, I feel you will have significant trouble doing so. Instead, it may be possible for you to try to turn it into a standalone article through the normal Articles for Creation process. Thanks, and happy editing! guninvalid (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CTOP notification

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 10:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unilteral disruptive move

Please explain here your unilateral move without engaging the consensus reached on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article naming issues have been discussed on talk at length; you didn't participate. Your move was disruptive; see the explanation by Swatjester. If you do something like that again, it will need to be called to the attention of administrators on a noticeboard. Please engage in talk discussions before again moving the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael Kovach (October 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MCE89 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michael Kovach 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MCE89 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ThirdEye96! 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! MCE89 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]