User talk:ARainbowofHues
Welcome!
[edit]
|
April 2020
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jonathan Gallivan has been reverted.
Your edit here to Jonathan Gallivan was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.discogs.com/David-Usher-The-Mile-End-Sessions/release/2617739) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: David Cohen (military)
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
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!
1292simon (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Anmol Narang moved to draftspace.
[edit]An article you recently created, Anmol Narang, does not have enough sources and citations 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. GPL93 (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @GPL93: Thank you for taking the time to reply to me and for putting the article in draft space rather than just deleting it. I have a question that I've wondered before and would love your input. As I wrote this article on Anmol Narang I recognized that there wasn't extensive coverage of her for anything other than being the first observant Sikh to graduate from West Point. This was an impressive enough feat, however, to be covered in the New York Times and it was groundbreaking. When something is groundbreaking, even if it's only covered by a few sources (albeit very impressive ones) doesn't that make it enough to define it as Wiki worthy? It seems that we would want, in this encyclopedia to record groundbreaking moments in history, even if that person doesn't go on to be newsworthy at other times or to have a large, fleshed out article. I was debating this when I wrote it because I knew there weren't many articles and she's only known for one thing - but I'm not sure where we draw those lines. Love to hear your thoughts. ARainbowofHues (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Currently, it is likely a case of WP:BLP1E as similar "firsts" generally do not continue to maintain persistent coverage going forward. The event of Narang's graduation is most likely worth a mention in Sikhs in the United States military though. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- thanks so much for the advice and help @GPL93:
- Currently, it is likely a case of WP:BLP1E as similar "firsts" generally do not continue to maintain persistent coverage going forward. The event of Narang's graduation is most likely worth a mention in Sikhs in the United States military though. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @GPL93: Thank you for taking the time to reply to me and for putting the article in draft space rather than just deleting it. I have a question that I've wondered before and would love your input. As I wrote this article on Anmol Narang I recognized that there wasn't extensive coverage of her for anything other than being the first observant Sikh to graduate from West Point. This was an impressive enough feat, however, to be covered in the New York Times and it was groundbreaking. When something is groundbreaking, even if it's only covered by a few sources (albeit very impressive ones) doesn't that make it enough to define it as Wiki worthy? It seems that we would want, in this encyclopedia to record groundbreaking moments in history, even if that person doesn't go on to be newsworthy at other times or to have a large, fleshed out article. I was debating this when I wrote it because I knew there weren't many articles and she's only known for one thing - but I'm not sure where we draw those lines. Love to hear your thoughts. ARainbowofHues (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Phil McGraw
[edit]I removed a sentence that you wrote in a good faith edit about "inappropriate contact". I think the basis of your edit is a misunderstanding about "dual relationship". Dual relationship is a broad term that includes more than physical contact between psychologist and patient. It doesn't necessarily involve physical contact. It can be as simple as the psychologist selling an item to a patient or as complex as a sexual relationship. In the Texas Psychology Board's document the only dual relationship discussed is McGraw's hiring a former patient without "proper separation between termination of therapy and the initiation of employment". If the complaint included inappropriate physical contact that is not mentioned in the Board's documents that are cited. Additionally, if he had in fact had inappropriate physical contact, the sanctions imposed by the Board likely would have been much more severe. Sundayclose (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there @Sundayclose: I appreciate and want to thank you for removing that sentence. I was going to eventually remove it as well, you just beat me to it. I am not sure why you think I added it. That sentence that you took out seems like its been there a long time, before I began editing here, I am pretty sure. Thanks again. ARainbowofHues (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies for the misattribution. Indeed the sentence has been there for quite a while. I don't know why I didn't notice it earlier. Thanks for your improvements to the article. Sundayclose (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Margaret Boyle
[edit]Hello ARainbowofHues,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Margaret Boyle for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Darren-M talk 11:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit]Your draft article, Draft:Anmol Narang
[edit]Hello, ARainbowofHues. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anmol Narang".
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 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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)