User talk:Malkamaki00

Welcome!

Hello, Malkamaki00, 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:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 18:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States anti-abortion movement

Please note that the WP:NPOV policy is about selecting reliable sources (WP:RS) and summarizing them accurately, not about avoiding notable and valid criticism. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 20:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is taken, but the Rolling Stone article sourced in that section is obviously biased to the abortion-rights side and should not be cited. The other source also only has a very small scope of study, and even that does not report many (less than one-fourth in most cases) organizations spreading false information. Malkamaki00 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of common false claims, refuted by sources with high enough quality to be considered reliable medical sources (WP:MEDRS):

https://web.archive.org/web/20110102030744/http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-31-03-2.cfm - "ACOG Finds No Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk"
https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.f7553 - "Uncomplicated abortions are not associated with long term psychological or physical sequelae"

Yet anti-abortion advocacy channels (not considered medically reliable sources) keep using these arguments to discourage abortion. The belief in a soul, or in life sanctity is one thing; unsubstantiated medical claims to defend those are another. If you think that the sources used at the article are bad to mention this, I recommend to address the issue by suggesting more sources at its article talk page. Alternatively, you can boldly edit while making sure to cite the material. If it is reverted, the common collaborative editing procedure is WP:BRD (the bold edit, revert, discuss cycle). Wikipedia also has useful resources to determine if a source is usable, such as Identifying reliable sources, perennial sources and the source discussion noticeboard (with its searchable archives). For more basic help, I recommend visiting the welcoming WP:TEAHOUSE. Happy editing, —Paleo Neonate – 18:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Quiz Bowl Stock Image.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Quiz Bowl Stock Image.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

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. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 07:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Malkamaki Headshot 3-19.jpeg

The file File:Malkamaki Headshot 3-19.jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused personal photo. Out of scope.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]