User talk:Didicool14

This is Didicool14's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Graham (Jarvis) Cromwell (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—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 people). 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Graham (Jarvis) Cromwell and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Didicool14! 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! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Graham (Jarvis) Cromwell

Hello, Didicool14. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Graham (Jarvis) Cromwell, 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) 17:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Graham (Jarvis) Cromwell

Hello, Didicool14. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Graham (Jarvis) Cromwell".

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, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello, Didicool14, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet editing

See WP:SOCK - you some warnings a block on your original account, User:DDCool14. Registering a second account to keep on with the same sort of editing is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Be sure to use only a single account going forward, and kindly stop with the citation spam. Wikipedia is not a place to try to promote the work of particular academics. - MrOllie (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hi @Didicool14:, a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate that you may find it complicated to edit here. You may find it helpful to check out the Help manual: Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia. It gives a good general overview.

One thing to consider - is DDCool14 also your account? If so, you should get the accounts merged, or one of them closed. Wikipedia discourages having multiple accounts, because it may raise an issue of "sock puppets": Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. As a relative newcomer, you could go to the Teahouse for help on that issue, to pick just one active account going forward. The Teahouse is the Wikipedia forum for helping new editors with questions, and who may need a bit of assistance: Wikipedia:Teahouse.

Also, as I mentioned on the Talk page for Abusive power and control, I originally deleted your addition to Divorce Act (Canada) about the Criminal Code amendments because you tagged them as "minor". Wikipedia has a very narrow definition of "minor amendments": typos, formatting, etc - things that another editor is not likely to notice on re-reading the page. See: Help:Minor edit. Adding a major block of text isn't "minor" and may get deleted for that reason, to require the editor to think about the post and get them to explain it in the editing windows if they re-post it.

Please, always give reasons for your edits, using the edit summary box. It is very helpful to other editors to get a quick glimpse of what an edit is about: Help:Edit summary.

Hope you find this helpful, and you enjoy your Wikipedia experience. If you ever have a question, don't hesitate to ask me on my Talk page: User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. I may be able to help, or to point you to someone who can. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!!!! Very appreciated. Didicool14 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're already participating in a talk page discussion about the matter at Talk:Abusive power and control, I really don't see what else I can do that isn't already being addressed through the appropriate process. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I'm mostly wondering if there is a Wikipedia way to signal an editor who obstructs editing process generally, instead of going about it on a page-by-page basis. The 'Abusive Power and control' page is the only one that caught the attention of others, and for that I am thankful, but this total deletion is happening to all of my edits, on about 10ish different pages. Didicool14 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The concern raised seems to be about you kind of robotically adding new material with citations to particular work by Côté/Lapierre (which gives the impression that you are one of those authors trying to promote your work, or otherwise have a close connection to one or both of them), at articles at which the additions don't appear to actually be pertinent, or (in the AP&C page) where citing them over and over again as if they are leading experts in the topic is undue reliance on a particular viewpoint. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to create a "Coercive Control" page but I was redirected to AP&C, and I believe the "Coercive Control" page was deleted by another user, so I assumed that this is where I should put this material. I am neither Côté or Lapierre, nor do I know them-- I use them a lot as they are the leading experts on the subject, along with Michaël Lessard, in my home-province, Québec. I also use a lot of Evan Stark, the first researcher who documented coercive control. Some sources are relied on more than others, simply because they are open access and I've tried to privilege this type of source. What is an appropriate amount of times for citing an author? Is there a guideline on that? Didicool14 (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]