User talk:AnubisIbizu

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, AnubisIbizu, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Belmont Law Review (January 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Carolina2k22 was: 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:Belmont Law Review 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.

Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 04:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, AnubisIbizu! 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! Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 04:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Belmont Law Review

Hello, AnubisIbizu. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Belmont Law Review, 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) 05:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Belmont Law Review

Hello, AnubisIbizu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Belmont Law Review".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

SCOTUS Justice military backgrounds

I saw that this addition was reverted. This may be inapt for the article on the court itself, but I think it would fit well into Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. Let's work on adding it there, but with sources. BD2412 T 00:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Awesome plan! Should we get consensus first, or should I start working on it now? AnubisIbizu (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Icons

The exemption for flags regarding military history is for conflicts or units, not individuals; see MOS:FLAGCRUFT. It also doesn't extend to other icon types, which should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative (see MOS:ICONDECORATION). I see that you've been adding these across multiple articles - please stop doing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria,

Thank you for reaching out. I understand your concerns about flag usage and the guidelines under MOS:FLAGCRUFT and MOS:ICONDECORATION. However, the Manual of Style also makes clear under "Historical considerations" and "In some military history contexts" that flags may be used in narrow military history contexts, such as to identify the nationality of military units or servicemembers during specific conflicts.

These provisions explicitly allow the use of flags, provided they are relevant and accompanied by text to clarify their meaning. In the edits I’ve made, I’ve ensured that flags are used to visually support and clarify military affiliations, which aligns with the Guidelines’ stated purposes and avoids purely decorative use.

If there are specific cases you feel need adjustment, I’d be happy to review them. My intent has always been to follow the rules while improving clarity for readers, especially in historical and military articles.

Looking forward to working together to ensure the best presentation of this content.

Best,

AnubisIbizu AnubisIbizu (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The provisions you're referencing here don't refer to servicemembers, they refer to units. The inclusion of icons in the contexts you propose don't improve clarity in any way - the text provides the needed information. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No it does not. Many military awards have different emblems for the same award issued by different branches of the military. As do some ranks. For instance, a Lieutenant in the US Navy has a different rank emblem than a Lieutenant in the US Army. Stop removing emblems from military service in people's biographical infoboxes. AnubisIbizu (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

With respect to the icons of military awards, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons allows for the use of icons when they serve an encyclopedic purpose, improve reader comprehension, and are not purely decorative (MOS:DECOR). In military biographies, icons representing significant awards can reasonably be interpreted as serving this purpose by visually summarizing key distinctions in the subject's career, similar to how medals are used in sports biographies (MOS:SPORTFLAG). Additionally, the guideline for military history contexts (MOS:FLAGCRUFT) permits narrow use of visual elements like flags to clarify affiliations or accomplishments. By extension, military award icons in infoboxes, when paired with descriptive text for clarity and accessibility (MOS:FLAG), align with these principles, providing concise and meaningful representation of achievements. AnubisIbizu (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

FLAGCRUFT doesn't include a provision for use of flags "to clarify affiliations or accomplishments", and there isn't clarity provided by these that is not provided by the accompanying text. Additionally, compared to gold medals, recognition of these symbols - and visibility at low size - are both significantly reduced. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The size is standard, and this practice is used across Wikipedia and has been for years. If you want to begin a sitewide practice to prohibit the use of icons for military flags and awards, then bring it up for consensus. AnubisIbizu (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The relevant MOS already prohibits the use of flagcruft and decorative icons, and with respect, nothing you've posted here supports that these are anything other than that. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want your new interpretation of the rules to be gospel on this site, then raise it for consensus to change the status quo. AnubisIbizu (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If you go read this talk page you will see that many people have had this conversation before and permitted such uses. AnubisIbizu (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)