User talk:Fitwrite
Welcome
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Fitwrite, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Anonymous Personal Sex Blog, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.
Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.
New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.
- Article development
- Standard layout
- Lead section
- How to write a great article
- The perfect article
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
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 have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Anonymous Personal Sex Blog
[edit]
Please do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Anonymous Personal Sex Blog a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, 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. David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- By the way - this is not a coherent Wikipedia article. Did you mean to write one? This is absolutely not it - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Article creation
[edit]Hi @Fitwrite: Take a look at WP:REFB that will show you how to create references. I will do one for as an example. Use the cite button->template to select one. There is other ones, but these are the most common. Then do some linking, looking names on Wikipedia and then link to them. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 13:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, ok thanks and sorry for any argumentative chat here. I'm going to a "mainframe" computer today to make a wiki entry as I tried to do previous work for this on my android phone; no I joke, I mean not "mainframe " but an internet cafe computer, where I can set out article nicely and include the 9 photos and Illustrations I have for the article. Can you please allow me to publish an article straight away, as a reasonably formatted respectable, almost complete, work-in-progress, as I am auto confirmed? I see other short articles on wiki with few cites that are published with notes on them such as needs proofreading for grammar and spelling or needs more source research. Regards, fw Fitwrite (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Anonymous Personal Sex Blog moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Anonymous Personal Sex Blog, 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. GPL93 (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Per scope_creep and David Gerard above, please do not try to publish this article in the mainspace until it is coherent and reliably sourced. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
|
Hello! Fitwrite,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!
|
Hi, I have about 70 citations, and over 100 counting where analysed articles more than once using different perspectives.i spent weeks writing this and it is near perfect format in a word doc on my android.i do not then understand your remarks. Can you please delete the old drafts of the article in the sandbox and user space. I only had them there because I could not work out how to post the article directly on yhe main page. I spent another 2 hours editing the document after pasting yhe perfect version from my word on android . I use my phone then I think I can only acces a limited meni on my phone to do limited visual basic. I edited the article for 2 hours then left the site to move yo another window on my phone for a minute and when i returned to wiki the edited copy was deleted I wrote the 70 or so cites in a good APA style reference list. I have many academic journals and books. I have an academic research from 2021 on the topic. I made an intense Masters thesis level study . I do not understand your remarks. Did you read my article thoroughly. The transfer from word copied onto wiki was not bad. Yhe table at the beginning was lost so I punctuate the phrase. The paragraphs and heading a were all fine. My references were all formatted okay. Wiki says formatting and detailed style of references is not important. The content, the research behind the references is thorough. I just need to clean up the changes in formatting from pasting the 25 page doc from word. I am upset at your fast reactions to all my hard work... Fitwrite (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is an online encyclopedia, not a place to publish a thesis or your research. Such articles actually meet our criteria for speedy deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not a grad student and I just researched for the content. The featured article on wiki " Theory of Literature ", listed in the Wiki guide to writing featured articles is actually written in an academic tone rather than the tone of an encyclopedia. It also has about 105 cites , then why is that article redeemed by wiki and mine is crucified. I think it is a fair point that encyclopedia tone is simpler than academic, look at Britannica, but even in Encyclopedia Britannica the article on Deindividualisation Effect (from online use) is quite academic in tone. It is cited in my article at: Douglas, K. M. (2019, January 4). Deindividuation. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/deindividuation Fitwrite (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Theory of Literature is actually an article about a book, not a proposed theory on its own, so that's not really comparable. GPL93 (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Fitwrite: It could potentially be a good article, if you follow the process. It needs to be converted into a proper Wikipedia, not just a brain dump and submitted to WP:AFC for review. You do that by clicking Review on the left menu panel, click submit. Don't do it now, it will be rejected. But first it needs to be wikified. Look at WP:REFB to determine how to articles and WP:SFN. Here is an example from the Mildred Harnack article using {{sfn|Brysac|2000|pp=38-39}} Look at the article you will see how it structured. Once you have the references in and the article is linked, it flows from that. The rest just arrive. Avoid self-published sources that assert WP:SPS like social media links, blogs and so on and avoid promotion. scope_creepTalk 16:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@scopecreep, @GPL93, @spiderone, @ComanderWaterford, @DavidGerrard, Hi, This is summary of messages about the article Anonymous Personal Sex Blog and its speedy deletion with proposed resolution for the problem. Last morning, feb 2, at about 4 am PST, Canada, I posted almost completed article with above title to wiki main page as an autoconfirmed. @scopecreep and 2DavidGerard cited it as incoherent and unresearched. Further discussions lead to me explaining I had posted it from android phone with minimal menu options on visual basic and it was a copy and paste from an almost perfect word doc with over 70 cites, (over 100 if you count multiple cites from, same article) researched thoroughly [on google, google scholar, CORE, BASE, newspapers online, cross-references and in journal article refences research for about 1 week of research for content]. @ Commander Waterford had pointed out it was fast put into speedy deletion. @GPL93 entered scene and summarized the other administrators points. @scopecreep and @GPL93 continued discussion, saying it is not a place to publish masters thesis like research; I explained I am not a grad student and research is just for article content. I was careful not to include sentences that would imply original hypothesis, or original research conclusions, or original theory development, from my research; in other words the research and article is pretty much soley just a summary of secondary and tertiary sources, research, from ca.1999-2021, about anonymous personal sex blogs or about blogs in general, referred to as an analogy for anonymous personal sex blogs-the use of analogy is highlighted in your wiki guides to writing articles as well as use of etymology and provenance; if it is new and current subject on Internet technology there is not going to be a hundred years of research and one has to walk the line between sentences that summarize and sentences that add too much inference drawing conclusions. The advice @scopecreep and @GPL93 gave on including references is welcome; however, since in my word doc all over70 cites are correctly documented with superscripts in-line and a Notes section and a Reference section, all done quite carefully to follow APA guidelines, then I do not think I need to work further on presentation of cites. I had mentioned that wiki does say on guidelines to article writing that presentation of cites in Reference list etc. is not as important and that wiki uses a cite system similar too both APA and MLA; I choose to follow APA. Scope creep had mentioned I should review the contents of Mildred Harnack for more info about presentation of articles on wiki. I have reviewed many articles including “The Theory of Literature”, listed on Wiki as as good example of a featured article so reviewing yet another article on Wiki is not really needed by me, although I did take a look at Mildred Harnack article. GPL93 had mentioned “Theory of Literature is an article as a book review and so not relevant here; I have explained that my article is written from secondary and tertiary research without original research and is similar to Theory of Literature in its scope and depth having comparable number of citations, a semi-academic tone and being as comprehensive; then I propose that the comparison to “Theory of Literature” here is okay. I thank scope creep for mentioning that the article could be good if it was presented in wiki properly. I explained that had been working on an android phone that gives only basic menu options for Visual Basic and I will go to a “main-frame” {conversational joke) computer, i.e. I will go to an internet café to enter my well formatted article from a word doc into wiki. I will add in the 9 photos and illustrations I have for the article( all PDM or CC BY) and try to make a nice job of presenting the article on wiki so it looks like other articles on wiki such as Mildred Harnack. I furthered that scope creep had mentioned that even though I am an autoconfirm , I will now need to wait for article review before my article appears on wiki. I proposed that because the only real objections to my article were that it was not presented properly because I was trying to put it on wiki, using an android phone, instead of from a desktop, then I should be able to publish the article immediately like any other autoconfirm. Other points made were that article may have research sources from blog or tabloid. The wiki auto system also detected a backlisted website listed on my article (which I promptly found and removed). I will ensure that there are no research cities from informal blogs or junk tabloid media. I have research for the daily mail Australia, online, it is a small contribution, and I could easily delete it from article. The daily mail is kind of in between New Times respected news papers and junk tabloid newspapers like News of the world or supermarket checkout sensational headline tabloid media. I have research from an academic blog written by a professor in the Washington DC diplomatic service (or working in the area) . I propose it I ok to use this as a research cite, since this seems like a high level, USA government worker or a university professor who has written an article on his blog cited in my references as Hilton, G. (2009). Suicide of Top Model Reveals Korean Tragedy by Gregory Hilton. The DC World Affairs Blog. https://diplomatic.wordpres.com/2009/11/21/suicide-of-top-model-reveals-korean-tragedy-by-gregory-hilton/ . I further that this is a research source on a “blog” that is as good as an academic journal, written by the professor as an expert. I am now going to try to enter the wiki article at the Internet café and hope it can be published. I had to travel to downtown Vancouver and pay for computer so I hope I can get the article done now. Thank you, fw
Fitwrite (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
February 2021
[edit]
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Help me!
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... Hi, I am trying to quickly find out how to create sub pages and navigations tabs in writing my article in visual basic and cannot find it anywhere on google. There are no menu o-options to create sub pages and navigations tabs. I am at the computer now ready to post my article but I can not because i can not enter the sub pages Fitwrite (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Subpages are created by naming them, but not in article space. I'm assuming 'visual basic' was some sort of typo.
- Navigation on Wikipedia pages, as on other wikis, can occur in a number of ways, but the most common and basic way is a link.
[[Template:Help me]]renders as Template:Help me
[[Psychology]]renders as Psychology
- For more information about links, see WP:LINKS. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 10:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, in my previous message I was confused and did mean "visual editing" as opposed to "source editing", I had confused "visual editing" with "visual basic". I thank you for your answer but it does not really answer my question, perhaps I was not specific enough in my question. Your direction to WP:LINKS has much good general information about links but no information about creating the drop down menu and section sub pages for my article. Well I assume there is no easy menu option on visual editing to create nice clean section sub pages in a drop down menu. Then I assume that what you mean in your message is a basic way to create my section sub pages is go into source editing and write the section sub page titles inside 2 double square brackets. Do you mean that the contents inside the brackets will then automatically link to an internal wiki page with that title? Then does that mean I have to create many new wiki pages with that section sub title? Then how does wiki avoid confusing main pages with leads and section sub-pages with single sections?
For example, my article is Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging ….my main title Then I wrote the lead or introduction which appears immediately below the main title Then I have 6 sections, the first section has the sub-title “History and Definition”…I need to create the drop down navigation menu after my lead with the sub-titles all listed vertically, with big arrows to the left of each sub-heading. This then displays , for the reader who opens my page, a vertical drop down list of my section titles with the option to open or collapse each section. Using the source editing code you gave me creates a link. Then how do I create the big arrow to the left of the link? How do I create the drop down navigation menu option? Creating only a link will direct the reader out of my main page to a completely different page. This is not what happens with the drop down navigation menu; here the section opens or collapses under the section title. This clean section navigation with the drop down menu appears to be a basic requirement for articles. My article is listed as “needs clean-up”. The main cleaning I need to do is create the drop down menu. My article is otherwise close to perfect. All that is holding up the publishing of my article is that it needs a section drop down menu. I will try to find a guide to source editing on Wikipedia that explains how to do this. Thanks for any help, f.w.
Fitwrite (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Fitwrite: Have a look at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Every article must follow this. There is no option to collapse a section. The index is automatically created, depending on the number and type of sections you use. There is not a development, say for example if you were using visual studio code to create a web page, and you can do pretty anything that html5/CSS 4.1/JavaScript can support. Wikipedia is the converse. The pages are restricted in what they can do. They must use the media-wiki markup. If you use straight html on the page, the system complains about it and raises error and somebody will come along and remove it. For example, If you need to hide something, e.g. unstructured lists of people, then you can use a [[template:hst]] There is now a bundle of templates that you use, that provides specific functionality on the page: Wikipedia:Template index which may be of use. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 13:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- The index is clickable, so any section can be moved to. It can be manipulated to some extant but it must follow the style guide. scope_creepTalk 13:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Article
[edit]Hi @Fitwrite:, I think once that is wikified it will go into main space no problem. As far as I'm concerned it is well researched and completely valid. There is some bits that are odd and will need to edited out but the copyedit process will do it. Crack on and get it ready for review. Its a process. scope_creepTalk 13:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just a comment @Fitwrite: & scope_creep - first of all the article need to be referenced in a correct way, you need to take a deeper look at WP:REFB and you need to focus especially in the lead of what is all about, right now it is confusing - next the article would need a huge amount of copy editing but this should be no issue in the very end -- but in the current stadium it is definitely not ready for mainspace. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging moved to draftspace
[edit]Now the second time moved into draft space - please take note of all the hints and tips other Editors gave you on your talk page. In general your idea for an article has potential but you definitely need to learn how to cite and insert references. ---
An article you recently created, Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging, 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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @CommanderWaterford:, What happened to all the changes that I had been added i . I put them in to give the editor a wee bit of a start to get them going. scope_creepTalk 21:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Scope creep, I have absolutely no idea, you will need to ask this the author of the article :) CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- It is a complete mess. All the changes I put in are gone. Not sure where they went, but I'm not putting them back in. And the editor has not replied once, so I'm out of it. scope_creepTalk 21:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @CommanderWaterford: Here is the version I did: Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. It seems to be redirected back, which would suggest there is two copied. What a mess. scope_creepTalk 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Scope creep, have a look at User_talk:Jenyire2 - looks like the author got confused I guess!? CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @CommanderWaterford: Of course, seems to be a bit confused. Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blog Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 21:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Scope creep, what a mess :) Well best would be you move your draft into mainspace and make a comment on the AfC Draft for the reviewer to deny it, so in the end the article would be published. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @CommanderWaterford: Yip. I think Afc practice is to normally you do a redirect from the 2nd draft, although I'm not sure. I've not done much reviewing for a year anyway, too busy on other stuff. The 2nd one has to go. scope_creepTalk 21:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Scope creep, will ask the more AfC experienced Theroadislong if he can deny the second draft Draft:Anonymous_Personal_Sex_Blogging so that you can move "your" draft into mainspace. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @CommanderWaterford: Yip. I think Afc practice is to normally you do a redirect from the 2nd draft, although I'm not sure. I've not done much reviewing for a year anyway, too busy on other stuff. The 2nd one has to go. scope_creepTalk 21:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Scope creep, what a mess :) Well best would be you move your draft into mainspace and make a comment on the AfC Draft for the reviewer to deny it, so in the end the article would be published. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Scope creep, I have absolutely no idea, you will need to ask this the author of the article :) CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @CommanderWaterford:, What happened to all the changes that I had been added i . I put them in to give the editor a wee bit of a start to get them going. scope_creepTalk 21:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I just presented a perfect version of article fully proofread that even Encyclopedia Britannica would be proud to publish. If you can not accept it then maybe I should give up and mail the manuscript of my article to Encyclopedia Britannica. Thank you. I will give up for a few days, take a break and leave it up to you. If you administrators want to review and publish my perfect article I would be very happy to accept the publishing. f.w. Fitwrite (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @CommanderWaterford: My version isn't ready. It probably needs about a weeks worth of work. It needs wikified, linked, referenced properly, a lot of WP:SPS ref's removed (that needs to be done right as its a blog article), some puff removed and shortened as it covers duplicate ground of other articles. I really not keen to do it. I put in some examples to just to get the editor going. scope_creepTalk 21:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I am back fresh from my break. Hope everyone is well.
Thank you for all your work with my article and the peer review. Can you please tell me how far in the review process my article is and an estimated publish time?
Good wishes to everyone, have a wonderful day, f.w. Fitwrite
Fitwrite (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Fitwrite: Everybody is generally responsible for their article and if you want it in Wikipedia, then I would suggest you need to work on it, to complete it. First of all, it needs to be Wikified, meaning it need to be put from the flat format to a wiki format. Start by reading WP:REFB and creating some references. I started work on this: Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blog and I created some of content needed like references and links, an example of how it is done. There is another copy at Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging and there has been some work done there as well. Choose one and get started. scope_creepTalk 12:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging has a new comment
[edit]
AfC notification: Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blog has a new comment
[edit]AfC notification: Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging has a new comment
[edit]AfC notification: Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging has a new comment
[edit]AfC notification: Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blog has a new comment
[edit]AfC notification: Draft:Anonymous personal sex blog has a new comment
[edit]Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blog
[edit]A tag has been placed on Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blog requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Duplicate of draft Draft:Anonymous personal sex blog
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Onel5969 TT me 00:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This is an old abandoned draft of the updated draft wich is being worked on so it is fine to delete it, but does not matter too much either way. Thanks for helping me get this filing cleanup task in order, fitwrite. Fitwrite (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, on second thoughts, is it really necessary to delete this draft? It is a bit worrying to see a speedy deletion suddenly start appearing on my work and I know you must mean you are just trying to clean up old unused abandoned draft copies, there is such a thing as over-efficiency in filing. What if by accident the current draft I am working on is deleted too? Then my link to get it reviewed would also be gone. Out of safety could you leave this copy on and maybe just put a note explaining what it is? Thanks, this task is stressful and worrying about losing drafts is added worry, thank you, fitwrite Fitwrite (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fitwrite, the text is preserved in the draft's history and has not been deleted, It has been altered to become a redirect to the version you are conducting a rewrite of Fiddle Faddle 19:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Anonymous personal sex blog has a new comment
[edit]Your draft article, Draft:Anonymous personal sex blog
[edit]
Hello, Fitwrite. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anonymous personal sex blog".
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 10:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)