User talk:Snazzywiki

Deletion discussion about Rhonda Patrick

Hello, Snazzywiki,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Rhonda Patrick should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda Patrick .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Ireneshih (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few words to let you know how much I appreciate your first article. I'm sorry it has been the subject of so much negative discussion. Several of us are arguing it should not be deleted but even if it is, I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. If ever you need any help, just let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! The previous close was overturned. It is always difficult when an article is the subject of an AfD, but perseverance, following up with sourcing and hanging in there does sometimes pay off. Hopefully this will not discourage you but rather inspire you. SusunW (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Thank you! I think the whole process was very illuminating, and I feel like I have achieved a deeper appreciation for just what makes Wikipedia tick. It's a great place, and I'm glad that there are so many working hard and putting thought into how to make it the best place it can be for encyclopedic knowledge on the web. Looking forward to more contributions in the future. Snazzywiki (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snazzywiki, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Snazzywiki! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Challenging a decision you don't agree with in a rational and well argued way that doesn't resort to playground taunts is something to be admired. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your hard work, level head and your persistence in working to make Wikipedia an awesome place. :) Keep on writing!

Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Thank you! Snazzywiki (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating

Thank you for your participation in the Women in Science Virtual Edit-a-thon, 8 to 29 November 2015, hosted by Women in Red together with Women scientists. It was held in parallel with a meet up at the New York Academy of Sciences on 22 November. In addition to improvements, we created well over 300 new articles. Your contributions are appreciated!

Hope you will also join us for the WiR Women in Religion Virtual Edit-a-thon from 5 to 15 December.--Ipigott (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add the escalation of commitment or sunk cost fallacy to the list of cognitive bias?

Hi,

Is it appropriate to add the escalation of commitment or sunk cost fallacy to the list of cognitive bias (2 articles : "list of cognitive bias" and "cognitive bias")? If yes, in what category should it be put? Would you like to make the corrections if you consider them necessary?

Thanks

Bert397 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rhonda Patrick for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rhonda Patrick 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/Rhonda Patrick (2nd nomination) 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. Delta13C (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]