User talk:Fagould

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hi Fagould! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about 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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: My Fair Lidy (July 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DreamRimmer was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia articleβ€”that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
π™³πš›πšŽπšŠπš–πšπš’πš–πš–πšŽπš› πšπš’πšœπšŒπšžπšœπšœ 02:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Fagould! 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! π™³πš›πšŽπšŠπš–πšπš’πš–πš–πšŽπš› πšπš’πšœπšŒπšžπšœπšœ 02:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: My Fair Lidy (July 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia articleβ€”that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
KylieTastic (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:My Fair Lidy

Per the request in your edit summary, I have deleted Draft:My Fair Lidy under speedy deletion criterion G7 (request by author). If you change your mind at any point in the future, feel free to ask at my talk page or Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Happy editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

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. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing out that the GAG entry is misinforming people right now and that those terms being debated should be removed from the description and handled elsewhere. You have all these WP procedures in place but they only delay the final edits because of political opinions and in the interim are half wrong. Remove the contentious adjectives from the entry so that it can be debated until the terms are approved by some majority. If not, leave it vague. fagould (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

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. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing out that the GAG entry is misinforming people right now and that those terms being debated should be removed from the description and handled elsewhere. You have all these WP procedures in place but they only delay the final edits because of political opinions and in the interim are half wrong. Remove the contentious adjectives from the entry so that it can be debated until the terms are approved by some majority. If not, leave it vague. fagould (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Fagould"