User talk:Talpedia

Welcome!

Hello, Talpedia! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! FalconK (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Talpedia, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Talpedia! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Previewing changes

Regarding "saving" your changes and comparing them to the current version of an article, what works for me is to open the original article in a separate window. Then, in the window you're using to edit, you can click the "Show preview" button after each change and scroll down to compare the same passages in your edited version and the original. (All this assumes you're editing on a PC/laptop rather than a mobile phone, of course.)

Hope it's okay that I responded here rather than at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, as I thought it was a bit off-topic for that page. Cheers. Meticulo (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Traffic Penalty Tribunal has been accepted

Traffic Penalty Tribunal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Psychosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dopamine supersensitivity psychosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Whitaker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this edit. You're right. That wording was strange. WP:MEDMOS says to avoid talking about "patients", and it can be particularly sensitive in psychiatric contexts, so I've had a go at converting the article to talk about "people" instead. If you're at all interested in the subject, I hope you'll keep working on that article. There's some good information, but there is a lot of room for improvement, too. Thanks again – Wikipedia needs more editors who will notice problems like calling people "voluntary citizens", and dive into fix them like you did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2020 (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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

GirthSummit _(blether) 07:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User talk:Girth Summit. I haven't shown any interesting a gender-related dispute or controversy. I showed an interest in the use of dictionaries as citations material for factual claims on Sexism. Are you interpreting Sexism as a gender-related dispute? --Talpedia (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talpedia, yes, that page is covered by the sanctions, and its talk page has an edit notice informing you of them. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit Ah yep the 8th of 10 notices on the page. I guess it would have been pulled into other discussions on these topics so had the same sanctions applied. --Talpedia (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They tend to define these areas as broadly as possible, because otherwise the problems move to the adjacent articles. Then we'd re-define the area a little more broadly, and the problems would creep a little further out, and the process repeats itself.

These "Important Notices" can scare people off, although I and other editors have tried to make their purpose clearer. This is sort of a "Here there be dragons" note: We want promising editors to know that other editors have screwed up in the past, so behavioral rules are enforced more zealously in these articles. That way, you'll know to watch out for problems and not get caught up in them. If you see problems, Girth's a good person to ask for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your evaluation of Supreme (brand)

Hi. A couple of months ago, you were nice enough to begin the evaluation of the mistakes in the Supreme (brand) trademark section. I paused for a long time to respond, waiting for the definitive trademark ruling from the European Union. It’s been issued -- and so I’ve finally been able to get back to you with additional information you requested, plus more. The info and amended requests are at the bottom of Talk:Supreme (brand)#Multiple false statements about counterfeit goods. Appreciate your consideration for possibly resuming the evaluation. Thanks. Oa4251 (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

	Thank you
	I noticed your comment on my talk page and benefitted from your point in the right direction. Thank you! MCJones20 (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Involuntary treatment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Committed.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to co-author a brief article for Wikimedia Research Newsletter?

It's that article I cited on the WP:MED talk page. I'm also asking WhatamIdoing. The pieces in the Wikimedia Research Newsletter are supposed to be "a couple of paragraphs" although they often seem to be longer. Usually one of the articles is featured in the Signpost. I started a sandbox page to write a draft: User:Markworthen/sandbox/Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 22:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'll lend a hand. Talpedia (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea when advising a new editor with some civility problems to make a personal attack on someone else

Seems obvious. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: The reason it isn't obvious is that what could have been a minor content issue, dealt with by a single revert and "sources please" has been turned into a warning on someone's talk page, and then what seems to me like a questtioable threat for blocking. I'm annoyed at this sort of behaviour. Talpedia (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The sequence was that an editor added a Twinkle level 1 warning, then Cluebot came along twice with warnings. Generalrelative gave the editor standard DS alerts which is reasonable, and the editor exploded. I came along hoping I could calm things down while at the same time pointing out that actions have consequences. Maybe it was Cluebot that set him off like that, but I don't want editors to think that that sort of talk is acceptable. In my experience most good editors, ie those who haven't come here just for an agenda, respond. Maybe I should have told him that my father suffered from domestic abuse. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Doug Weller: I guess you are probably more experienced with this stuff, I only became involved because Generalrelative posted of WP:Psychology Project and then I looked at the user page - I was suspicious that a pile on was being summoned. I guess I just felt that the first edit was only *marginally* POV and felt that the warning by GeneralRelative was therefore turning combined with your warning was turning something minor into something big. I've had the experience of editors rattling WP:ANI at me while I engaged in what I thought was good faith editing - in fact it seems to be the most common form of incivility - people accusing you of WP:ANI and then accusing you are being biased and engaging in tendentious editing. My experience is that you need to be able to face down WP:ANI and accusations of POV threats by sticking to the sources and the policies if you are going to edit on these pages. Anyway, I guess I'll leave this to you. I do think banners can have a bit of an inflammatory effect, but know they are considered reasonable. Talpedia (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let's both hope the editor improves their attitude - although I think your comments about me didn't help. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with trademark issue

You previously worked on the article for Supreme (brands) concerning the trademark section. There has been a significant development with the granting of the trademark in Europe. I have created a proposed correction on the Talk page to the article: Talk:Supreme (brand)#Corrections January 11, 2021 Thanks for your consideration.Oa4251 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

—Paleo Neonate – 08:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaleoNeonate Thanks for the heads but I already knew that :P. Talpedia (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm a fan of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PaleoNeonate&type=revision&diff=1001780023&oldid=1001765622&diffmode=source :grin:

Yes it's for everyone who edits in the area of course, and usually reissued every year. The {{ds/aware}} template can also be used to avoid receiving them repeatedly. Sorry for the delayed response, —Paleo Neonate – 06:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology

Hi Talpedia! If you have time, please see: User talk:Markworthen/sandbox/Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology/2nd draft. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message - stressful week, but I think I'm done with it for a while. I'll probably get to it at some point this week :) Talpedia (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Mental Health Advocate

Hello, Talpedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mental Health Advocate, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Learning from Data:The Art Of Statistics

Hello, Talpedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Learning from Data:The Art Of Statistics, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking cafe wifi

The Cloud is a company that provides cafes and restaurants with with WiFi hotspots with WiFi networks which their customers may use. It has a registration process. I frequently use computers in coffee shops, and this prevents me from editing Wikipedia when in coffee shops that use the cloud to provide their internet connections.

The IP block used by this provider is blocked with the reason given being that it is a hosting provider. This is not the case. Given that the reason for the block is wrong, and that this block is inconvenient for me (since you also block my VPN provider), I am appealing this block.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Talpedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ip range 94.117.0.0 is not that of a web hosting provider as documented in block reason

Accept reason:

The block reason is correct. However, I will grant you a short term IP block exemption to allow you to resume editing. If you frequently edit from public wifi, which is often blocked to either prevent abuse or due to being a webhost, you may request a longer term exemption by following the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talpedia (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 331dot. I think the block message I got was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Colocationwebhost are you sure that is correct? I think this might be better describe as an open proxy rather than colocation. Talpedia (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I get them mixed up. Technically you would need to follow the instructions at WP:IPEC, but either way a checkuser looks at it. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Talpedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey, I'm staring to have real issues editing wikipedia due to IP blocks and it's getting kind of annoying. I've been experiencing mediawiki wide blocks that even make it impossible to make requests like this - and did not receive replies to me emails. Though in fairness it has been less than a week since my request.

The IP address in my accommodation (which is student accommodation at the moment is blocked across all mediawiki sites). The IP address of the coffee shop near my house is blocked. The IP address of the pub near my house is blocked. The IP address of my VPN is blocked. I'm kind of tempted to get a VPS and set up a private proxy on it to work around the blocks - which is perhaps a little ironic. Do we actually intend that only people who live in a house in the countryside be able to edit wikipedia - because it feels like it's going this way...

Unfortunately I don't have all these IPs to hand. I have the one for my current location which is 94.118.114.84.

Accept reason:

Unblocked 94.118.0.0/16. This does not appear to be a webhost. Looking at the ripe database, the contact email for this range indicates that this is sky broadband, and likely a wifi service. See also: The Cloud (company)

ST47 - would you mind double-checking here, and possibly reversing the blocks related to this? ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 22:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exemption

Considering that you've been editing since 2016, have never been directly the target of a block, are not currently suspected of using multiple accounts and that the last IP address you listed was only procedurally blocked as a proxy, if this still happens on a regular basis a longer exemption period could probably be applied... Moreover, a checkuser could run a check just to make sure that the record of the recent addresses you used are not particularly linked to recent problematic activity and your own editing habits. WP:IPEC, WP:IPECPROXY explain who can request it and how (it can also be done via email). —Paleo Neonate – 00:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleoneonate: Thanks for the reply. This helps me understand the purpose of the IP exemption a little more. Wikipedia seem to be using this to detect and prevent sock puppet.

For the sake of clarity, I do have a second account that I use exclusively for editing pages directly related to my work ("Have a look at this page, oh look, the first edit is precisely what you were just talking about") and pages related to where I live. I barely use this account though.

Perhaps I should get a dedicated IP address from a VPN provider? This might be useful to me in general and they are not very expensive. This would allow you to unblock me for a single IP address. Talpedia (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CIDR blocks target ranges and I'm not sure if the software allows to whitelist certain addresses within a blocked range, so I'm not sure. The IP block exemption however works anyway, I think. Although 10+ years back I was more familiar with it (to port and maintain a version for a non-MySQL database), I'm not really up to date with the current code and an admin familiar with the tools would know better. 331dot may help but is also not a checkuser, the email provided in the policy page would apparently be responded by one... As for the other account, they may notice it and will determine if it violates policy. I know that various editors do this to edit in completely unrelated areas (I personally don't, so I also lack that experience). —Paleo Neonate – 03:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hmm... perhps I'll just try a dedicated IP and hopefully it won't be blocked. Otherwise I guess I'll chase up with this email. Talpedia (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, let's hope that it works, —Paleo Neonate – 00:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above. Feel free to ping me if you run into more similar blocks while we work on resolving this. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 22:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and unblocked the remaining The Cloud ranges, with the exception of 94.119.64.0/18, which is blocked anon-only for sockpuppetry. This is based on the article on The Cloud that I linked above, as well as their website https://www.sky.com/wifi. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 10:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Acute Behavioral Disturbance

Hello, Talpedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Acute Behavioral Disturbance".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 12:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs

In the future, I encourage you to discuss things individually more instead of submitting to an RfC. It can even take months before the other side is willing to compromise. If you want to know why, follow the links at User:Epiphyllumlover/ACE_2021. In retrospect, asking this question seems to have been a good idea because it seems like now I get less trouble.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Epiphyllumlover: I think I might need a bit of context to fully understand your advive. I don't think I've ever created an RFC (though I have had one opened on my part) and contributed to a few. Do you mean I should talk to people on their talk page rather than replying to RFCs? Talpedia (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, rather to discuss it on the article talk page in an ordinary discussion. I mixed up your username with another user, who started an RfC, which is why I left the unsolicited advice you see above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request: The cloud internet

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Talpedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 94.117.0.16. This IP address belongs to The Cloud (company). A provider of wifi internet connections to pubs and cafes in the UK with approximately 22k endpoints[1]. Could we add an exception for logged editors at least? Talpedia (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the above accepts. I will give you IPBE for a month this time. But please go to WP:IPECPROXY and request it permanently there. I'm sure you will get it. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the IPBE two years, which is nearly permanent. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How sad

I just wanted to emphasize how sad it is that you didn't agree with the consensus that was achieved that you didn't participate in, and have continued not participating in, by instead attempting to achieve a new consensus in the edit notes where there is reduced visibility. I want to make sure that you're feeling okay in a time that I know might be difficult for you. My heart goes out to you and especially to your family, whose safety is paramount to all of us. 176.46.113.248 (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just know that we care about you and you can always talk to someone to work through the personal things that affect all of us from time to time. Sometimes that can really be the best thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.46.113.248 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgiven my friend but it's actually beyond your last warning as you have made three edits in a row in direct and clear conflict with Wikipedia's guidelines, isn't it? You haven't forgotten what status quo stonewalling is, my rich friend? One more time: is everything okay with you right now, my pal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.46.113.248 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Hmm, I'm pretty sure that it's you who is edit warring. But I might have gone acrosst the line (after you did) it's true, of course I'm not the only one reverting you Talpedia (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not, you're just someone who rather than using the Talk page to make your case when your repeated edit attempts failed, tried making some sort of beacon to a large cohort of medical editors instead, only still without offering any substantive arguments to support the edit you wanted (given that there is a feature of Wikipedia specifically for addressing the only actual justification you've so far raised for your edits, namely a "citation needed" tag). Like I've seen mentioned, I'm confident you didn't do this to switch accounts so you could continue on not responding to the actual relevant Talk pagdiscus while making the changes you yourself wanted. I don't want you to listen to those meanies.

It's just that we all care about you and we really want the best for you. I know sometimes it can feel like the whole world's out to get you, trust me. But that's just not the case. Have you got someone you trust that you can talk to right now? 176.46.113.248 (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I guess my argument is that there is no evidence that blood rituals are relevant to psychitry without a source saying so. Talpedia (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that "you started it" line and now I'm very concerned and maybe is there an adult you can talk to?

Thanks for sharing your argument here with me, I'll make sure your point of view is appropriately represented if there's an attempt to establish a new consensus. 176.46.113.248 (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Types of road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mobility.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Louise Perry

Hi! I saw you created an article for The Case Against the Sexual Revolution. I just made a draft for Louise Perry. I think there may be enough sourcing out there for her to pass notability guidelines. Any help finding sources would be wonderful. Best, Thriley (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley, please see long further comment from this same contributor, below. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:F5:7D69:EF0C:704:B8AD (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Fall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mental health advocacy in the United Kingdom moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mental health advocacy in the United Kingdom, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Yeah, I meant to make it a draft, realised and moved it back, but then think I moved the talk page over the draft namemespace and then couldn't delete the page, as I explained on the talk. Little point quoting rules I already know at me. Knowing what went wrong with my own attempt to move the page to drafts and whether I can delete pages I create would be more useful (even if by referring to some documetation). Also when I put the page live I'll probably put it directly live and it'll be well sourced as meet the guideliness just like the dozen or so other pages I have created. Talpedia (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

❤

Just wanted to say I appreciate your presence on here and keep it up! Particularly your editing work wrt psychiatry and sociology and your lucid input on talk pages. Psychiatric hegemony and criminalization of cognitive liberty, ew 2601:181:300:9840:B086:109E:B273:36C7 (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC) EFullerTorreyIncinerator[reply]

Two questions regarding your Louise Perry work

1, Is it standard to have an article on the work of an author, before at least having a stub of an article on the author? That is, stated another way, it it ever the case that a work of an author is notable while the author is not?

2, Is it valid and in accord with WP policies to have a synopsis for a nonfiction works, especially one that is addressing a social sciences subject of the sort that LP's work addresses? That is, how is any description other than perhaps a simple paragraph quoting what the publisher and author say the book is about (and perhaps, at most, outlining the chapter titles) not going to be an interpretive adventure that forces one into WP:OR?

In the former case, it was disappointing sending a student to the encyclopedia to provide a paragraph on LP (with the admonishment to focus on the sources that WP provides), only to find that there is no article—and essentially a single statement on the author (and no real indication of the breadth of their education and credentials).

In the latter case, I think that if we are out ahead of secondary sources describing a piece of work, relying essentially on the one primary source-of-interest for our descriptions, we are writing in violation of our principles here (even if it is becoming more and more standard to do so), because our veracity and validity as an encyclopedia arises from our commitment to convey the perspectives of published expert others, and not at all our own.

Whatever the conclusion, there is no escaping that one cannot summarise a scholarly or serious popular cultural work, without interpretation. Creating a summary that reduces hundreds of pages to a series of Perry draws-argues-expresses statements, and deciding among the long-form chapters to decide which of all of the author's examples and points to mention—this is the work of book reviewers that we wait on, and then read and summarize and cite. Otherwise, we are placing ourselves in their roles.

So, to close, first, I would recommend we introduce the author in a stub, at least, because part of scholarly education is learning what sources to trust, and part of that process is evaluating the backgrounds and credentials of authors. And second, I would recommend almost fully redacting the synopsis, except for what can be provided based on publisher statements and published reviews. With regard, a former professor. 2601:246:C700:F5:7D69:EF0C:704:B8AD (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 1. I'm not sure. I can imagine examples where an author written has something quite influential but is otherwise not very notable themselves which seems to the the case with Perry (from trying to write a page about her). Going through a few entries Category:2022_non-fiction_books I would say 5-10% of books do not link to an article about their author. I had a go at starting a stub - but was annoyed at the lack of things actually written about Perry (Draft:Louise Perry).

Is it valid and in accord with WP policies to have a synopsis for a nonfiction works

Yes (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article point 2). I don't think this book is particularly unique in having a synopsis written mostly using the text as a primary source as you can verify for yourself by clicking though [[Category::Non-fiction_books_by_year]].

not going to be an interpretive adventure that forces one into WP:OR

Honest answer, I think WP:OR is a bit of a spectrum that is applied more of less aggressively depending on how useful the content that you add is and to what degree alternative are possible - for example diagrams often get very close to OR. I agree that synopses will contain some measure of compression and so there is a measure of interpretation. That said there are more less original ways of compressing text: do you bring in ideas from outside, how much are you compressing, can you find other sources that summarise the work to help you summarize the ideas, have you added reviews or summaries elsewhere in the article that are consistent with the material you add.

Whatever the conclusion, there is no escaping that one cannot summarise a scholarly or serious popular cultural work, without interpretation.

Nor can you cite a paper a single paper, use the word "some" when referring to a collection of examples from different sources, or use adverbs like "however" while combining sources. Being right is quite easy when an entire rule is based on a conceit: that anything on wikipedia can be done without interpretation. The question is how you limit interpretation so as to avoid the risks of too much interpretation while providing. Wikipedia has chosen to allow direct citation of works in the synopsis and you will find many examples if you review Category:Non-fiction_books_by_year. I've thought of some guidelines for how to avoid excessive interpretation, there may be better ones.

we are writing in violation of our principles here

I disagree, perhaps unsurprisingly - since I think hard about WP:OR and the value of synposes, and this practice is applied elsewhere and documented. I think the summary introduces few ideas, is mostly descriptive and is close to the text, and is in line with practice elsewhere, and I think it is very valuable to talk about and link to the ideas that an author references. I am perhaps more open to the idea that it excludes material that it shouldn't exclude than that it misrepresents.

this is the work of book reviewers that we wait on, and then read and summarize and cite. Otherwise, we are placing ourselves in their roles.

I don't exactly disagree... but at the same time I doubt many books will ever be reviewed sufficiently well to provide a good synopsis, outside perhaps religious texts or acclaimed works of fiction, and having the summary of a book is highly valuable. What's more this practice would appear to be an accepted one. For what it's worth I don't feel the section contains either evaluative or synthetic statements bringing ideas from others, and I have tried to include as many reviews as I can. Looking through some old talk page the justification for this material seems to be that you are quoting the authors position by citing a primary source and are not making statements about whether these statements or true/verifitable or not.

And second, I would recommend almost fully redacting the synopsis

If you go and redact lengthy synopses mostly citing a book directly from say, 4 notable non-fiction and find editors amenable to your changes then I'll take your suggestion very seriously. I think the summary is neutral, avoids too much interpretation and the reference to other authors is valuable, and the practices are particularly different from those elsewhere. For what it's worth, I think the main value of this synopsis is to place the work in the context of the ideas that Perry cites and agree that it may miss material that it would be better including.

So, to close, first, I would recommend we introduce the author in a stub

I've got no objections to this, so if you think this is valuable you could write it. There is the beginnings of the article and my thinking about it here: Draft_talk:Louise_Perry, and the lead of this article discusses the author a bit. I feel that the requirements of WP:DUE stop at the end of an article: it is not my job to write about, say, about female authors in Indian at the beginning of the century, because I have written about a female author in the victorian period to ensure balance, so I don't feel it's my job to write an article about the author of a page because I have written about one of their books. As to whether I (or anyone else) creates a stub, largely depends on whether they feel the addition is valuable or interesting. My personal opinion is that... yes it's interesting and Perry has been doing more things recently, but I still worry that there will be an lack of reliable sources talking about perry directly, which is why I gave up before, but I also think I've interacted enough with the ideas so-called "reactionary feminism" having not found very much of interest their.

If you've got things that you particularly don't like in the summary, or can find sources that allow me to engage in less summarizing myself while still being able to link to the idea that Perry address in the book then I'm pretty open to using it. Also I'm happy bringing this topic up on the article itself if you felt like subjecting me to others similar opinions.

a former professor

As someone who run over on the pavement by a medical doctor who was the daughter and wife of medical doctors on the pavement, who gave her own evidence to a court about whether she fainted or fell asleep, and observed first-hand professional tribalism and profesional deference from my friends and lay justices at the time, I have a complicated relationship expertise and status. I seem to remember she made a point of bringing about how she was studying at Harvard when talking about the last time she fainted. It is perhaps worth noting that one of my main interest here is the sociology of knowledge the sociology of expertise, and I spend much of my day-to-day work outside seeking to undermine professional status to the degree that I think it is abused. But that said, and I do value genuine endeavour, experience, mutually-interested communities, critique] and "truth-converging" processes and some of this goes on within academia some of the time. TALpedia 03:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a quick review review one thing is that we could cite pages within the chatper rather than citing each cahpter so that we are summarizing less. TALpedia 12:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black on grey

If you were to change the 'pedia' part of your signature to from black to white, it would render great IMO :) I can't read black letters on an HTML gray background on most displays (without a huge strain) and I have normal vision. Best—Alalch E. 21:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I shall veru much lighten the grey. TALpedia 12:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: Is that better? TALpedia 12:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's great! —Alalch E. 14:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Totalization

Hello, Talpedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Totalization, 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) 14:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Psychotherapy in Men

Hello, Talpedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Psychotherapy in Men, 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) 00:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Cultural difference

Hello, Talpedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cultural difference, 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) 17:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Funding of the National Health Service

Hello, Talpedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Funding of the National Health Service, 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) 19:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Cultural difference

Hello, Talpedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cultural difference".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Enough (campaign)

Hello, Talpedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Enough (campaign), 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) 00:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Feminism against progress

Hello, Talpedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Feminism against progress, 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) 00:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Mental health advocacy in the United Kingdom

Hello, Talpedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mental health advocacy in the United Kingdom, 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) 00:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Funding of the National Health Service

Hello, Talpedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Funding of the National Health Service".

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) 19:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Enough (campaign)

Hello, Talpedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Enough".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Mental health advocacy in the United Kingdom

Hello, Talpedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mental health advocacy in the United Kingdom".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Perry

Hello! Is there anything out there about the early life and education of Louise Perry? I can't seem to find much. Best, Thriley (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley: Hey... I don't think I've read anything, but got it from interviews. But perhaps to help any googling for now :

She studied at SOAS in London (notorious being quite left wing)
She did a master (at Oxford mayber?) I think in gender studies on pregancy / medical care in pregnancy.
I think she grew up in London.
She worked at a charity providing life transition support for women involved in domestic abuse. - This definitely gets mentioned in some of the articles about The Case Against the Sexual Revolution - you might be able to find other stuff there Talpedia

Thank you. I was a little annoyed when the article was put into mainspace. I was hoping to nominate it for Did You Know with a hook that includes her book. It feels a little incomplete, especially if there is nothing about her early life or education history. Thriley (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I didn't realise this "did you know" function. I guess the editor was keen to clean up draft space / get information into mainspace. Is it really not possible to have a did you know article if it's been in mainspace for a few days? Talpedia 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have officially 7 days to nominate the article for DYK. Maybe 1-3 days are allowed after the cutoff. Other than meeting the time limit, articles need to be a minimum of 1500 characters. Currently the Perry article has about 1000. Thriley (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool cool. How do you think about the extra value of being linked to from did you know? Talpedia 16:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m unsure what you mean by value? Thriley (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I'm trying to find a polite way to say "That sounds interesting. Sell me on helping get the page of DYK". Talpedia 20:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I didn’t mean to put any pressure. Just thought you’d be interested in getting the article you made for the book on the front page. Over the next few days I’m going to add a paragraph or two on the book and a bit more biographic detail before nominating. Thriley (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OED, cultural Marxism

Hi Talpedia, you recently mentioned the issue of OED and the contemporary usage of 'cultural Marxism,' which is relevant to the topic I'm currently discussing.[1] I'm curious about how your research on the subject is progressing. One thing you mentioned is certainly true: the question of contemporary usage is not going away, and the current situation does create the impression that WP is not being true to its WP:NPOV founding principles. XMcan (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Violence perpetrated by women

Hello, Talpedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Violence perpetrated by women, 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) 06:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Violence perpetrated by women

Hello, Talpedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Violence perpetrated by women".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Medicine in Nazi Germany

Hello, Talpedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Medicine in Nazi Germany, 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) 05:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Totalization

Hello, Talpedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Totalization".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i need help

article: draft:Macro social work

please expand the article

please find good sources for the article

please fix any grammar spelling issues with the article

-thank you RJJ4y7 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]