User talk:Wakeford

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Citizens' jury. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Bearly541 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Bearly541 is no longer at Wikipedia

Hi, I noticed your comment on User:Bearly541's user page. I moved it to the talk page. Is there any help you need? User Bearly decided to leave Wikipedia. Thanks Brian 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

By the way, I reverted your most recent changes to the RAHAWORTH version as that one looks more complete and appears to subsume everything yours contained. However, unlike Bearly541, I don't consider your changes vandalism - just part of the normal Wikipedia editing process. If you disagree with this revert please explain why on the talk page of the article. Thanks Brian 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Thanks, Brian. I will do more work on the page when I have time (it is the subject of some ten years of academic research and the few lines do not do it justice).

ok, let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Be careful of WP:NOR. I agree that the article right now is little more than a stub and your help improving it will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Brian 21:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

The reason that I thought your entry was vandalism is because you deleted the External Links. Vandals often delete information and try to cover it up with their own "riff-raff." Sorry for misunderstanding. Bearly541 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Scientific fundamentalism

Scientific fundamentalism, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Scientific fundamentalism satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific fundamentalism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Scientific fundamentalism during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Participatory research

The article Participatory research has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pure WP:OR essay

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 22:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Participatory Health Research

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Participatory Health Research. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Participatory research. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Participatory research – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic already covered?

Is participatory research the same as Community-based participatory research? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Participatory Health Research. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Participatory research for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Participatory research 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/Participatory research 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. Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now take a deep breath

It's obvious to everyone that you want to contribute to Wikipedia, and are likely to do so well. You have just started out unluckily. Please read this essay and learn from it. In case you are an academic or an expert in your field, please also read WP:ACADEME which shows how WIkipedia and the world of Academe are different.

Invest the time in reading, please, and then come back refreshed. Everyone here who has gone on to do well has started out oddly. There are no exceptions. Fiddle Faddle 23:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research

The article International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I havem at present, found no sources to verify that this organisation is notable. It has a web site, but Google News (for example) has trouble identifying reliable sources that discuss the organisation. There are primary sources, but, if this organisation has notability it would, surely, feature in news items. I'm happy to be proven top be incorrect, and that sources exist that I haven;t been able to find, so I am choosing the PROD mechanism as a slow burn deletion route that allows article improvement to meet our need for verification of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

I've restored International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research, as pages deleted by proposed deletion can be undeleted upon request. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 11:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research 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/International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research 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. Fiddle Faddle 11:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At User_talk:TheCatalyst31#Proposed_deletion_of_International_Collaboration_for_Participatory_Health_Research you mention a list of learned papers. Please understand that these are not, of themselves, sufficient to assert nor verify notability. In general a paper such as those is a Primary Source, and we need sources that pass WP:RS. They are useful and interesting papers, but do nothing to advance the position of the entity here. Find WP:RS and you will bolt the article into place. Primary sources only verify that a thing exists, not that it is notable. Fiddle Faddle 11:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Community x-change

The article Community x-change has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreferenced stub of unclear notability, tagged as unreferenced since 2011, and a search turned up no significant, independent RS coverage

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dialectric (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]