User talk:1victoria

Welcome!

Hello, 1victoria, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Topfreedom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ], which decrease a woman's [[anxiety]] and increases feelings of [[human bonding|bonding]] and [[Trust (social sciences)|trust]. With exposed nipples revealing to unlookers' this vulnerable state,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mz7. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nudity, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mz7 (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Common Core State Standards Initiative with this edit. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Common Core State Standards Initiative with this edit. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that you take a look at the page I added to notice that is the most complete list of the opponents of core

Clarifying the above

First, "See also" sections are not for links to websites, etc but for links to relevant articles not mentioned in the main text. Our articles are meant to be based on what reliable sources according to our criteria say about a subject. Thus if you want to create a section, as you did at Top freedom, about opponents, find reliable sources commenting on or discussing those opponents and have that section reflect those sources, don't just add raw urls linking to the opponents (or comments from those opponents). Please read WP:CITE also. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please do not add material indiscriminately to articles where there is only a tenuous relevance for the information. When adding the same text to a number of articles, we get problems like this, where the text makes no sense - the text talks about "that vulnerable hormonal state" without explaining which vulnerable hormonal state is referred to. In addition, we have to be careful when adding information based on only one single, small-scale study made in a very specific contect (and for a specific purpose), and not make sweeping pronouncements based on those. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 13:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please find sources for the content you add to Wikipedia

Thank you for your contributions to the Common Core by State article. Please understand that any material added needs to have a citation. Also, please use neutral language. It's quite possible that your additions will be removed unless you fix this. Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. It is very important that you do not add your own interpretation of the sources, as you did here. Levin and Meston's research does not mention norms, and it is a form of academic dishonesty to suggest that it does. Please discuss your controversial changes on the articles' talk pages, and do not add the text until there is a consensus that the text can be added. bonadea contributions talk 07:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the note I just posted, you apparently have not had time to read the previous messages on this page since you restored the incomprehensible sentence about "vulnerable hormonal state" to Naturism. Please take a moment to read the messages left for you on this page, and to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 07:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If Levin and Meston with strong academic research, do not make an academic case for clothing in the best interest of women, Dr. Dr Linda Papadopoulos is one of the most well-known, syndicated and respected psychologist, who makes an even stronger scientific case deserving of mention, in context of far differing, less substantiated views throughout this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1victoria (talk • contribs)

Papadopoulos is not very frequently cited so it is stretching it a bit far to refer to her in those terms, but that's a side issue. There are several important Wikipedia policies that you need to familiarise yourself with before editing further. I will try to break it down here, but if anything is unclear, please do not hesitate to ask for instance at the Tea house where experienced and friendly editors answer questions about editing Wikipedia.

• First, some of the sources you added are not appropriate per Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources (please click the blue links in the text and read the information.) Here, the edit summary erroneously identifies the blog post by Heflick as "academic research". Everything a person with a PhD writes does not qualify as "academic research", and this brief blog post is simply an opinion piece, making a statement without clarifying where most of the information comes from - one study is referenced, but that does not make this an academic text. It does not claim to be an academic text, either.
• Papadopoulos' text is not actually a research study - it is a review commissioned by the Home Office, which summarises a lot of pertinent research in the field. To quote the text: "The report is based on a [...] desk-based review of available data on the sexualisation of young people. We have drawn on existing government research and statistics, lobby group publications and academic journals in order to build a comprehensive picture." (p. 17) Hence, claiming that this text constitutes research is incorrect. This is a review which was commissioned for a specific purpose, and we can't use it to prove anything other than what the actual purpose is: "[an] investigation into the underlying causes and impacts of violence against women and girls" (p. 19) Examples of statements which are not suppored by this source (nor by Levin and Meston, as shown above) include, but are not limited to, "these norms exist because female's nipples can unintentionally reveal a female's sexual arousal to a greater extent than male nipples" and "clothing is considered to prevent onlookers from exploiting visual signs of arousal in that vulnerable hormonal state for unwanted sex" (these statements are taken from the text you have added to articles, with Papadopoulos as a source).
• In the Naturism article, the text you added here seems to make the claim that the attitudes towards naturism in the UK and the US in the 1920s had anything to do with modern-day research on sexuality. The references you quote do not make any mention of naturism at all, and making claims about naturism based on those sources constitutes original research - something you have been asked to avoid. In addition, as in the other articles, the sources are in fact not what is claimed, as discussed in the previous paragraphs.

The above applies to all the text you have added, and there may be other problems with it as well - I have focused on the most important issues. I would advise you to start discussions on the talk pages of the articles where you want to add the text, in order to get input from other editors who are interested in the subject. Please do that instead of restoring the text; at least three different experienced editors have removed the text and informed you that it is inappropriate. You also need to read and understand the policies about verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 17:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The content I was adding was anything, but outsourced except for those coming to this discussion with bias and refusing to allow differing research to stand .

I am sorry that the explanations you have been given have not been sufficient, since you still are unclear about why your edits are inappropriate per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. The sources you refer to do not support the content you are adding. Please feel free to ask questions at the help desk or the Teahouse. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Modesty. bonadea contributions talk 09:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This warning above was given by a group of individuals within Wikipedia with an agenda to prevent any scientific research contrary to their relativistic worldview since although some first draft changes did not have complete referencing, all the changes this user has made have had scientific references for over a month— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1victoria (talk • contribs)

Once again, please note that the sources you provide have to support the text you add to the articles. You cannot draw conclusions that are not explicitely stated in the sources, and you cannot use sources that talk about something that is only tangentially related, to make a general statement. When you add text and sources, where the sources do not say what the text says, it is the same thing as added unsourced material. I'm not sure how to phrase this differently, in order to make it more clear. Did you have time to read the information provided above? If not, please take the time to do so. And I am not a group of individuals, neither am I an administrator here, but it is true that several individual editors, independently of each other, have attempted to inform you of how Wikipedia works. --bonadea contributions talk 07:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:1victoria/sandbox/1victoria

Hello, 1victoria. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/1victoria".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Mopswade (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Missionary Evangelism (April 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Greenman were:  The comment the reviewer left 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:World Missionary Evangelism 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.

Greenman (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 1victoria! 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! Greenman (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)