Hi Not1Soul! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Not1Soul, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Ns1sou (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help on The Great Meme Reset of 2026. @Ivanvector and I have been helping @Codercat94 (who is the actual author of the draft/article) with this article, following a misjudgement on my part. Now that it's been tagged again, I've been feeling a bit bummed out about this situation so I'm grateful you're here to help! Again, thank you, hopefully it gets to stay this time, and if it does, that would be partially thanks to you. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 10:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bird Game 3, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Cuphead requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Greedycell (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bean soup theory 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/Bean soup theory 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.

Carolina2k22 • (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article That one friend that's too woke has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability guidelines.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. ツ indolering ^(talk) 19:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article That one friend that's too woke 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/That one friend that's too woke 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.

silviaASH (inquire within) 00:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you were doing with the addition of 'foid' and 'moid' on 14 February. You weren't slick with that. I have deleted both of them and I have stated that there is no evidence to suggest that those are 2020s slang (or even generation Z slang). It is, to my knowledge, only incel jargon. If you are going to go around dimwittedly adding bloat to that page with every known incel term, then assumedly you should also add 'rapecel' as mentioned in that source (the other source is also of questionable provenance). -- ~2026-19676-01 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add those two words out of bad faith but because I saw people use it, albeit ironically, a lot on TikTok. At the time, I thought the only source you needed was for the word's meaning and not its mainstream popularity. Apologies. New editing editor (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi New editing editor! I noticed that you recently made an edit at The Coffin of Andy and Leyley and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]