User talk:Scribestress

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Scribestress, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dawn Swiderski for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dawn Swiderski is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Swiderski until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Gbawden (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Scribestress! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 18:32, Friday, January 4, 2019 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Nomination of List of celebrities who have had an abortion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of celebrities who have had an abortion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities who have had an abortion 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. Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

The templated warning doesn't cover this well enough so I'm just going to do this manually: stop canvassing people to vote or visit the abortion list AFD. This includes emailing people and notifying voters on similar AFDs. You were warned by the people that you actually canvassed originally to stop doing this, as well as from me, directly at the AFD but you chose to continue here. Consider this a final warning. Praxidicae (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I did email a handful of people asking for help with the article. Did not understand this was prohibited, and I have not done it since it was raised as an issue. I take all of your actions in good faith that you are acting not out of malice but in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Appreciate you extending me the same courtesy.Scribestress (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You made an excellent point here...

When you brought up the List of organ transplant donors and recipients and the [List of baseball players who underwent Tommy John surgery]]. I looked at those articles, and found them interesting, in and of themselves.

WRT Canvassing, everyone deserves one forgiveness. It is not an obvious rule, to anyone who hasn't encountered it before. I think I lapsed from it once, got a sharp reprimand, and never did it again.

I did trigger a high profile discussion some years later, where I advised several dozen people of a discussion, really pissing off the initiator of that discussion. But I had taken special care to not voice a side in my heads-up, I only contacted those who had participated in a very similar earlier discussion, and I left the same heads-up for those who had agreed with me in the earlier discussion, and those who disagreed with me. So, the discussion cleared me.

I said in the discussion, but I will repeat here... my hat is off to those who recently improved the article!

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan Thanks for the note! It's been a wild ride, and admittedly I'm learning as I go. I've made mistakes and will keep them in mind for next time. Canvassing was a big one, and publishing a draft before it was ready was another. Lessons learned.

It's awesome to see more experienced users jumping in to debate whether the article is right for WP. From what I've learned it seems that it is appropriate to keep under the policies. Curious to see what the higher ups think.

The major expansion w/contextual info came from @9H48F btw, major kudos to her/him. Scribestress (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your list article on Deletionpedia

Hi Scribestress, I was disappointed that the list was deleted - I had expected that it would at least be relisted for more discussion, given that (as far as I could see), there were quite a few invalid deletion rationales. However, it's probably not that surprising .... I hope that you can have the article and the talk page moved to your userspace. Meanwhile, I wondered if you were aware of Deletionpedia? The list was saved on that, [1], and you can see the html text under View Source. It does not save the Talk Page, unfortunately, nor the history of the article - so the entries that were deleted during the AfD are not retrievable. But if you can't get your article back, at least there is a way of retrieving most of it!

On the closing editor's talk page, User_talk:Jo-Jo_Eumerus#List_of_people_who_have_had_an_abortion, I commented that I have realised that the article Abortion debate has little historical perspective, and doesn't mention any of the public campaigns; neither, surprisingly, does Abortion-rights movements. So adding information about the history to those articles, with links to the campaign articles, would help to give more of an overview and make the articles about the campaigns more accessible through articles which are likely search hits. I will probably try to do that, sometime - when I've finished the articles I'm trying to write! RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by saying, I deeply appreciate all of your work in both drafting and defending the article during the AfD discussion. You gave us a fighting chance. It's no coincidence that the closing editor cited your comments multiple times. Your knowledge of the WP policies was invaluable and your arguments were clear and persuasive. Major kudos for all your hard work.

The decision disappointed me too. I was a bit surprised, but maybe I shouldn't have been. Thinking about appealing through deletion review. Will probably give it a little time so I can gather my thoughts and present the rationale for keeping in the best possible way. Thanks for pointing out that it's on Deletionpedia, that's great! I'd still like to get the talk page back, but having the article itself for now is really helpful.

Expanding the Abortion debate and Abortion-rights movements articles is a great idea. Guessing we will go through debates like we just experienced as we edit other abortion-related pages (or add abortion-related content to individual pages). Still worthwhile, IMO.

Best of luck with your articles, and thank you again! Scribestress (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closing admin of that discussion)Assuming that it's OK for me to comment here, but the reason why I did not relist is because there were already a lot of comments and people weren't talking at cross purposes. Also, and this is just a personal opinion, but given that about half of that Deletionpedia list appears to consist of women with no indication that they sought publicity for their action and that the page deleted at AFD was pretty much the same, I suspect that people will still worry about BLP/undue invasion of privacy if you go to deletion review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, it's no problem for you to post on my page, welcome. I'd like to clear up a misconception re: how many of the women have publicly talked about their abortion. All of the living persons on the list have spoken about it publicly, and many have discussed it at length. (Note this review was done on the Deletionpedia version.) The most common method is by declaration, and autobiography and interview are common too. Others have chosen to address it in a published essay, film, speech, or in their role as a legislator, from either a pro-life or pro-choice perspective (see, e.g., Molly White or Wendy Davis). This was not clear from the original article, which sometimes mentioned the person had talked about their experience and sometimes didn't. It was also not part of the AFD discussion. It could, however, be made clear in a revised article. Something to think about. Scribestress (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:National Institute for Reproductive Health concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:National Institute for Reproductive Health, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alice (Haowen) Wu concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Alice (Haowen) Wu, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:National Institute for Reproductive Health

Hello, Scribestress. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "National Institute for Reproductive Health".

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 edit the submission 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! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]