User talk:Jean Redmass

Thanks. I did feel a bit bad to be honest, but did some more research, and have added critical responses to their work to the pages. Well, I hope that will enough information, and for people to follow things up themselves through the references. Jean Redmass 16:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no please don't block me! The Erica Burman and Ian Parker pages add important resources for those involved in critical work in psychology internationally and in the UK.

This is your last warning.
The next time you create an inappropriate page such as Erica Burnam, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tellyaddict^Talk 15:12,

2 January 2007 (UTC)

oopps sorry I meant to leave a: Test2article template no your talk page. Apologies. Tellyaddict^Talk 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Good attitude

Just wanted to let you know that it's really great to see someone reacting reasonably in the face of articles they put work into being deleted. A lot of people either throw up their hands or blindly lash out. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical psychology

Hi Redmass,

I just re-formatted the Critical Psychology page and tried to organize it into less of an amorphous mass of text. I tried to keep the info while breaking it into categories and headings, but you might want to give it a read-through as I don't have the specialization to make sure everything necessary is there.

Something you might want to keep in mind - the first paragraph of every article is supposed to be a quick and general introduction to everything below it. By having a huge body of text, then the table of contents, you turn off a lot of readers. The intro paragraph also allows people to get a sense of the topic in general before diving into a bunch of specifics.

WLU 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. thanks. it looks good. Jean

Lovely. Incidentally, its best to reply on people's talk pages rather than on your own, otherwise I have to watchlist your page to register your replies. WLU 19:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Annual Review of Critical Psychology

The article Annual Review of Critical Psychology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Annual Review of Critical Psychology

Hello, Jean Redmass. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 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) 10:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Annual Review of Critical Psychology

Hello, Jean Redmass. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Annual Review of Critical Psychology".

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 edit the submission 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! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Discourse Unit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Discourse Unit 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/Discourse Unit 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.

Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]