Talk:Ideal Home

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

In a clear-cut abuse of process, a predecessor to this article was deleted after a contested prod was restored. Why do we have admins who don't read policy before they act? I can't even find out who was responsible for this outrage. Piccadilly 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to explain the outrage you talk about. Contesting a prod consists of more than just deleting it and doing nothing to the article. Once more, provide verifiable secondary sources to back your claims of notability and there's no problem. Easy if it's "one of the best known magazines in the UK" as you have already stated. Best wishes, The Rambling Man 18:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are just wrong about procedure. I'm not interested in this magazine, but when I see misconduct on Wikipedia, I fight it in the interests of this project. Piccadilly 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but you must assert notability by provision of reliable sources. Do that and the article remains. Lazily removing prod's without remedying the situation is wholly inappropriate. The Rambling Man 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such obligations. Prod was introduced for uncontroversial deletions, and this is not uncontroversial. I don't know anything about the magazine, but despite my complete lack of interest in its subject matter I know it is prominent. I have no duty to write any article, but I have helped wikipedia by saving an article about a topic that has been neglected due to systemic bias, ie we don't cover the interests of middle aged women well. Your attempts to make me feel guilty are absurd. If we don't want other people to be put to the (entirely voluntary) trouble of writing articles, what are we doing involved with Wikipedia at all? Piccadilly 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited out the first paragraph as it's simply stating in less certain terms the details given in the second paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.9.188.22 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ideal Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107004623/http://www.abc.org.uk/ to http://www.abc.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]