User talk:Landpin

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Climate change in Denmark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Alliance. 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) 19:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

[edit]
Welcome Landpin!
Hello Landpin. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm ScrabbleTiles, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:
  Introduction to Wikipedia
  The five pillars of Wikipedia
  Editing tutorial
  How to edit a page
  Simplified Manual of Style
  The basics of Wikicode
  How to develop an article
  How to create an article
  Help pages
  What Wikipedia is not
 Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
  Do be bold
  Do assume good faith
  Do be civil
  Do keep cool!
  Do maintain a neutral point of view
  Don't spam
  Don't infringe copyright
  Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest
  Don't commit vandalism
  Don't get blocked
If you need further help, you can:
  Ask a question
 or you can:
  Get help at the Teahouse
 or even:
  Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{Help me}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
  Fight vandalism
  Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome
  Help contribute to articles
  Perform maintenance tasks
            
  Become a member of a project that interests you
  Help design new templates
  Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost
  Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

  • Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
  • Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, ScrabbleTiles (talk) (Leave me a message) 12:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 18:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of short titles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accessibility Act.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia 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/Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia 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.

Orange sticker (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Warwick (Electoral Changes) Order 2014, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Janan2025 (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Would "not notable topic" be an acceptable edit summary? Landpin (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Landpin, hope you're well. Your bold redirects of several articles of secondary legislation are fair enough, but some of them should be merges. Merges have to follow a certain amount of process to ensure they abide by copyright rules on attribution. Your merges of this Warwick order haven't done that (and have left out almost all the articles content), so I'm going to revert them. If you'd like to have a merge discussion (which I would suggest, since your redirects have been reverted a few times now by myself and another editor), you can find the process here. I would ask that you don't boldly redirect this page in the meantime, since I feel we're a bit close to an edit war for my liking. Thanks! Gazamp (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I can't find secondary sources for these topics to justify writing them down on the target page with my username being attached to the edit. If I could I would just add the citation to the original page. Landpin (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I use an AfD, then I feel like other people would tell me to be bold as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Milton by-election.
And I don't want to add a lot of content to another article that just copies and pastes the text of a regulation with my username. Landpin (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Landpin, thanks for your replies. I'm not entirely against merging, but I think it'll be a much better outcome if we take a little bit of time to discuss how a merge would work - there's no rush to do this right now. That way, if we do merge, we can use as much of the content as possible while not overwhelming the target page. The more relevant information we can keep for readers, the better!
Also, might be worth mentioning that not all references need to be secondary sources, its just that secondary sources are used to show notability - on a page which already passes notability thresholds, like the 2015 Warwick Council election, reputable primary sources are often used to verify non-controversial information (the rules on this are at WP:PRIMARY). A Local Government Boundary Commission for England publication, for example, is a primary source but can be used to evidence decisions/findings of the commission or information about local government boundaries in England.
I'm a bit busy over the next few days, but it might be worth starting a merge discussion at the article talk page so we can decide how to go forward on this. Gazamp (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll do that. Landpin (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of short titles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Church of England Act and Church of Scotland Act.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Hello! I'm pretty sure you can still edit the requested move at Talk:An Act to secure handicapped persons in the exercise of their rights to replace "New name" in {{requested move/dated|New name}} and {{no redirect|New name}} with the full name you are proposing. I started to do it for you as what I think would be an allowable instance of refactoring talk pages but I thought it would be better to alert you. If you're not comfortable with the edit and would like me to do it, let me know. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of short titles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (British Columbia)

[edit]

Hello Landpin,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (British Columbia) for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (British Columbia) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes sorry.
i pressed "publish" too early and i moved the article to draft. Landpin (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to The Third Man, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:Brenda Hale, Baroness Hale of Richmond, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. SMasonGarrison 05:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Landpin. Thank you for your work on Offender Group Reconviction Scale. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

An interesting article on an important but rarely discussed topic; clear. I do wonder whether the inclusion of this as a part of a series on Algocracy detracts from its neutral point of view, but the text reads in a balanced way.

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

Klbrain (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of short titles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Climate Change Act.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Yorkshire police and crime commissioners moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to North Yorkshire police and crime commissioners. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because It has no content. 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. Destinyokhiria (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Police and crime commissioner by-elections

[edit]

Template:Police and crime commissioner by-elections has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Landpin. Thank you for your work on House of Laity (Co-opted Members) Measure 1937. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned in target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presumption of death, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Glen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

Category:Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SMasonGarrison 05:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down with category creation. SMasonGarrison 05:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Equality Act 2010 has been nominated for merging

[edit]

Category:Equality Act 2010 has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SMasonGarrison 22:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brenda Hale, Baroness Hale of Richmond has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

Category:Brenda Hale, Baroness Hale of Richmond has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SMasonGarrison 22:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent contributions

[edit]

Hey Landpin. I appreciate your additions to 2018 Canada Post strikes. I think the infobox is helpful; in fact, the article could be expanded to include more information about the law since it's a pretty important part of the story. It does look like the info isn't covered by any of the existing sources, though. Could you add the source you used for your edits? Viv Desjardin (talk, contrib) 00:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, also added archive urls for some citations. Landpin (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, thank you! Viv Desjardin (talk, contrib) 17:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About AfD

[edit]

Please do not WP:HARASS other editors, and waste community time, by repeatedly starting AfDs just to propose that pages be redirected. If you want to redirect a page, and nobody objects, just go ahead and perform a WP:BLAR. Do not start a full AfD. AfD is articles for deletion, not articles for redirection.

Further, if you are going to question the notability of a recent Act of Parliament, you need to actually look for coverage in the relevant editions of Current Law Statutes Annotated and (for English Acts at least) Halsbury's Statutes. The most recent volumes of these books are generally not freely searchable on the internet.

Further, would you please conduct a search of the Internet Archive before falsely claiming that an Act of Parliament has no secondary coverage like this very extensive secondary coverage: [1]. Thank you. James500 (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have a personal dislike of removing content from Wikipedia, unless others have participated in making the decision. Landpin (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

French translations

[edit]

I have removed several of the French translations you have added to articles about public sector enterprises in Ontario. While Ontario may be bilingual, you are editing on English Wikipedia, which follows its own rules, particularly MOS:FIRST, MOS:LEADLANG, and MOS:FORLANG. Unless the article significantly discusses French people, then there is no need to add translations to the French language. I would strongly recommend discussing this and gaining a consensus, rather than reverting. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ontario.ca/fr/page/centre-des-sciences-judiciaires
They have french language names, so I didn't see what was wrong.
Where should I discuss this? Landpin (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Toronto translates information into Cantonese. Please read the links to policy I provided. My suggestion for a discussion would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities. --Magnolia677 (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That page is about municipalities, rather than provincial-level government. I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario would be better. Landpin (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go where there are more eyes watching. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be ok if I started the discussion? Magnolia677 (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a good reason against adding the french language names. I hope there is a fruitful discussion, including you. Landpin (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I would like to know why I am possibly wrong!) Landpin (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario#Should articles have French language names?. Landpin (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disabled parking permit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Record.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Landpin. Thank you for your work on Climate change in the Faroe Islands. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this article on climate change in the Faroe Islands, which is consistent with others in the series of Climate change in Europe. I wondered whether a merge to Climate change in Denmark might be warranted, but there may be interest in this topic within the islands themselves. There is very little on climate in this article, with most of the page being on 'greenhouse gas' and 'mitigation'. It would be more balanced and consistent with other in the series to discuss climate in more detail.

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

Klbrain (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but can you make sure there's a redirect with a redirect category shell from "Climate change in the Faroe Islands"? Landpin (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain:
That's fine, but can you make sure there's a redirect with a redirect category shell from "Climate change in the Faroe Islands"? Landpin (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had wondered, but I decided not to propose it; others might feel differently. Klbrain (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Landpin. Thank you for your work on Climate change in the Isle of Man. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating this page, another in the series on 'Climate change in ...'. A small point, but remember that the lede should summarize the contents, and 'in various ways' is too vague to provide a summary of the article. There are sufficient sources to demonstrate Manx notability.

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

Klbrain (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Communications Act 2003
added a link pointing to Kevin Foster
Northern Ireland Executive
added a link pointing to Peter Robinson
Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003
added a link pointing to David Cairns

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Climate change in the United States

[edit]

Template:Climate change in the United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Climate change in Baden-Württemberg for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate change in Baden-Württemberg 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/Climate change in Baden-Württemberg 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.

Astaire (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Landpin. Thank you for your work on Cardiff City Council Act 1984. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

1984 isn't mentioned in the target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Landpin. Thank you for your work on House of Laity (Postponement of Election) Measure 1939. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned in target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Landpin. Thank you for your work on Enhancing Access to Justice Act. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congratulations and thank you for creating this page.

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) 12:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Landpin. Thank you for your work on Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congratulations and thank you for creating this page.

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) 16:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Landpin. Thank you for your work on Conversion Practices Prohibition Act 2024. 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 page. Your work helps in building gender equality 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) 16:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion campaign

[edit]

You seem to be nominating articles about statutory instruments for deletion at a rapid pace. At the moment, this looks purely destructive to me. These will clearly pass WP:GNG, as they are part of the official government record of the United Kingdom, and most of them already have multiple citations from other sources.

Your nomination of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 is a case in point.

Can I ask how this is intended to help the encyclopedia? — The Anome (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999 resulted in a merge.
Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 resulted in a merge.
The suggestion that I am doing this for "destructive" reasons is lacking, otherwise those would not have happeened.
I am doing these things because I think they justify a deletion, or maybe a merge. Landpin (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While *you* may see these things as frivolous, already one person has suggested a merge (seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992).
I think reasonable people can disagree but it is wrong to call these actions "frivolous" or "purely destructive".
@The Anome Landpin (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried improving the articles by looking for more or better citations, rather than just nominating them with a nomination that consists of "not notable"? If you want to nominate them for a merge, I suggest you do exactly that, rather than abusing the AfD process, which is not intended for that purpose. — The Anome (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be deleted.
It is possible that other people think they should be merged.
I am not abusing anything. Landpin (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked for better citations. I only nominated pages where I couldn't find better citations.
I would appreciate it if you stopped making personal attacks. Landpin (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your misuse of WP:AFD

[edit]

I entirely agree with James500 and The Anome. Your rapid-fire nomination of Statutory Instruments articles is disruptive. You are putting no effort whatsoever into analysing these articles, other than typing out "not notable", and your above statement that "I have looked for better citations" is quite evidently false. As I pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020, you made no effort to comply with WP:BEFORE. I was able to find large numbers of reliable third party sources by the simple expedient of typing the entire title of the article into Google, and I listed for you there nine relevant sources that I found within five minutes. There are many more.

WP:BEFORE is a mandatory guideline, you are ignoring it, and you are continuing with your disruptive behaviour after it has been pointed out to you. If you don't already know that "having citations only to primary sources" is not in itself a basis for deletion, then you need to read point 7 of WP:DEL-REASON much more carefully. Please stop. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I search for "Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020", i get these links as the first results
Reasonable people can disagree, but I do not think this suggests notability. The fact that I made an AfD request that was not perfect does not imply I am acting in bad faith or intentionally being "disruptive".
Regardless, I will not be starting any more AfDs until all the current ones are closed. Landpin (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Can you provide a list of your currently open AfD discussions? — The Anome (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Landpin (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they're all in Category:AfD debates (Society topics). Not sure. Landpin (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome I believe these are the open ones. Guettarda (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also (discussed in the section above):

Merge process

[edit]

Hi Landpin, hope you're well. Your merge of Closure of Prisons Order 2013 and Closure of Prisons Order 2014 to 2013-2014 closures of prisons in England and Wales didn't follow the proper merge process at WP:MERGETEXT. If you are making merges, you have to follow the process as laid out there (including using specific edit summaries and reconciling talk page templates); these are important for copyright and transparency reasons.

Your merge didn't use the correct edit summaries (technically breaching copyright requirements) and didn't move any of the WikiProject templates over to the new page. If you see yourself merging pages even semi-regularly, please read and follow WP:MERGE every time - I find it helps to have it open side by side in another tab so I don't miss anything. For this instance, you will need to repair the insufficient attribution. Please take your time when you're making these sorts of edits; sometimes undoing a mistake is more work than doing it right first time round. Gazamp (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the Closure of Prisons Order 2013 page today
how was this significantly different to just renaming the 2014 page? Landpin (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the attributions which are required for proper copyright are part of the page history and your merge to a new page doesn't link to those without the example edit summaries at WP:MERGETEXT. For example, my content from the 2014 article which you copied to the new page now doesn't have a proper chain of attribution back to its original edit on the 2014 article, which violates the license that Wikipedia edits are submitted under. Any time you copy and paste content between pages it's good (and often required) to say this and leave a link too - see WP:COPYWITHIN. Gazamp (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah.
Sorry for that.
I have left an attribution note on the talk page now. Landpin (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential mistake

[edit]

Hi there. Thanks a lot for all these articles. I'm just reaching out because as I was creating talk pages the one for the Education Amendment Act, 2024 really stumped me - the lead seems to be talking about a different act than the body? Maybe you can take a look. All the best, MediaKyle (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes sorry my mistake Landpin (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
corrected Landpin (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]