|
User talk:DocZach/Archive 1
Welcome! Hello, DocZach, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place November 2023
Your submission at Articles for creation: Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (November 22)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (November 23)
Introduction to contentious topics You have recently edited a page related to abortion, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Megan McCarthy King has been accepted 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 . Thanks again, and happy editing! Bkissin (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)February 2024
Peaceray (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Notes
Chicken at GANHi, many thanks for taking on this review. It's very kind of you to say everything's great, but the GA folks like to see that at least some of the sources have been spot-checked to see that they support the claims made in the article, and that the images are properly licensed, or they may undo the review. To that end, I'd appreciate it if you could add some remarks about these matters to the GAN! Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topicsYou have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic. Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. == Welcome! == Hi DocZach! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Palestine/Israel conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.
The rule that affects you most as new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to Palestine/Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits. This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict. The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well. Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to your being blocked from editing.
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics. If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
InvitationI noticed you have been working on some health-related subjects, so I wanted to invite you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. You're welcome to join us if it's a subject area that interests you. It's a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style. Feel free to put the group's page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Anne E. Lazarus for deletion The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne E. Lazarus 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.Spinixster (chat!) 12:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Anne E. LazarusThe article Anne E. Lazarus you nominated as a good article has failed A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
April 2024
March 2024
May 2024
Andrew Tate Your recent editing history at Andrew Tate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) "pro-abortion" againIt seems like on you've been trying to insert this term into multiple abortion related articles, and edit warring to keep it in place. Previously at abortion-rights movements, then at Jane's Revenge (both were on my watchlist), and now ShoutYourAbortion (which I only stumbled upon yesterday and looked at the edit history when I was surprised to see that term in there). Like you've been told at those discussions, it doesn't matter if you can find sources that use the term. Multiple sources also use terms like "pro-choice" and "pro-life", too, not to mention more extreme terms, but Wikipedia doesn't use those because they're imprecise and/or misleading slogans. There is a push among the anti-abortion groups to label things "pro-abortion" as frequently as possible, and indeed some abortion rights groups do use the term (though very rarely these days), but that doesn't mean it's how Wikipedia should describe an abortion rights group (or a group trying to reduce the stigma around abortion). In an unusual situation where a group uses that term about itself, we wouldn't call them a "pro-abortion group/campaign", but there might be a context in which we could attribute the term to the group/campaign itself rather than use it as a straightforward descriptor. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
Concern regarding Draft:New Elizabethan era
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) 14:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC) FuentesMany thanks for your work adding Fuentes as a neo nazi, I also requested this a while back but it was rejected by a zealous editor despite the articles I shared. You made a much better case. Firekong1 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Introduction to contentious topicsYou have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Raladic (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC) ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 November 2024
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Emily Prentiss for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emily Prentiss, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted. The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Prentiss (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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. To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC) WP:BLUDGEONing in AfDPlease do not bludgeon the process in AfD discussions, as that is considered disruptive editing. Your comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Prentiss (2nd nomination) are heavily out of line and it is frowned upon to attempt to force people to change their minds using a WP:WALLOFTEXT. If you worked hard on the article and improved it to the point it is notable, a simple statement will suffice and it ought to be self-evident to other editors. If it is not, then it probably has greater sourcing concerns that cannot be WP:OVERCOME by simple editing. Either way, no editor WP:OWNs any one Wikipedia article or can dictate what happens to it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
i for one, think you shouldnot apologize for notifyig me anout the AFD there. Crafterstar (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
