User talk:Pauloroboto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi Pauloroboto! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Economics

I couldn't make any sense of your very terse edit, which is why I reverted. Please use talk: Economics to explain why you believe the article needs to change and propose some text that explains its importance and relevance, citing WP: reliable sources. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you John.

I appreciate that you took yourself the time to see me out like this. I have currently updated the article. I hope the edit are to your satisfaction.

Pauloroboto (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Your revised version is better in that at least it attempts to provide a context. Unfortunately it is still too difficult to understand what you want to say. There is no issue with including criticism of economic theory but that criticism is deflected or blunted when it is not expressed clearly. Please use the article talk page. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I have just had a look at Critique of political economy [which you copied without attributing it in your edit note, which is bad practice: see WP: copying within Wikipedia] and I think I appreciate the problem. The lead of that article is an incoherent and incomprehensible mess. So I suggest you start by copyediting that article first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again John. I think that might be wise. After all, people are generally to lazy to even read footnotes, so to expect them to enter another page might be too much. I didn't know that was considered bad, and for that I'm sorry. However I knew that wikipedia was covered by the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. And hence I thought it would be fine. English isn't exactly my fist language, so if you would be kind enough to correct any small errors that you might find. That would be very helpful. I will try to improve my article and leave what can be improved on the economics page to those who consider themselves "economists".

I wish you a fine day John.

Pauloroboto (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I failed to express myself better and am particularly upset that in effect I discouraged a new editor from continuing. Please accept my apologies and reconsider. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It's fine. But we're here to learn from each other. You might learn to understand something of what you referred to as an "incoherent mess". And I might improve my sloppy anglosaxan writing. You'll hopefully learn some critique of political economy. And I'll learn a tad more english than before... But I'll leave the "economy" to the economists, and will therefore try not to get dragged into some pseudo-debate.

Thanks again for your prompt response. Pauloroboto (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually your own command of English is excellent. The problem is that article: whoever wrote it definitely is not competent in English (but in all probability is a native speaker). I am not an economist nor have I studied economics: my interest is in how the economy works as it affects peoples' lives and quite frankly I have not found much enlightenment in professional economics. On the contrary, I have seen the ideas of Milton Friedman and his colleagues destroy the lives of millions. So if I gave any impression of being patronising, please be assured that the fault is in my expression rather than my intent. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to go above and beyond... I would be delighted if you helped out in pointing out the issues in any article. So feel free to leave me with a list of things that need to be corrected, or are hard to understand and I'll try to simplify it to the extent I can without sacrificing much nuance. I'm sorry that you feel that way regarding Mr. Friedman. I view him rather as a ... pragmatic ... person who did what he could with the resources he had, and have earlier had debates with people who assure me that "if we only would have held to the Bretton woods and the gold standard all would have been fine". I hardly think Friedman was any saint, but as the engineers say. "if it works it works". (even if it doesn't hold up for very long...)

I can also give of the impression of being a bit patronising, due to my rather direct way of phrasing things. But I also want to assure you that this isn't my intent either. It's also nice to see that there is some reasonable human beings out there that values some sort of exchange in good faith.

Thanks for your message.Pauloroboto (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you too for accepting my best intentions, however badly expressed.

We can agree to disagree on Friedman but to me he is the exemplar of why economics is not a true science: his work is founded on an ideology not on disprovable evidence.

Anyway, I don't have time before about 1900 UTC but will start looking in more detail and comment at talk:Critique of political economy. But my knee-jerk reaction is to sloppy wording like 'as such', scare quotes and italics sprayed at random. The very first sentence is a disaster area. Later. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyedit

You have done some great work on Critique of political economy today. I'm beginning to see some structure now. It still needs work to be suitable for a more general audience – it is still rather Marxism Today but no longer reads like a badly translated North Korean. Do you agree that tomorrow we should leave a message tomorrow at wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism, to invite more eyes?

Can you do anything about getting sources in English? Even the ones in Swedish must be a bit doubtful given that the domain is .nu, which suggests wp:self-published to me. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Haha! I really appreciate your humour! Badly translated North Korean cracked me up.

While that link is .nu because I assume you're talking about the magazine Fonesis, is actually not self published, but a relatively well known magazine that has been around for a long time where scholars publish work. They also publish in physical form, which is their primary thing, so I guess that's why the website is rather informal. Pauloroboto (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. Thank you very much for your helpful added material.

No, I had never heard of Fonensis. It doesn't have an article on en.wiki (or se.wiki). It would seem to be in the same category as arXiv, see wp:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#arXiv as being self-published and thus open to challenge. It could stay of course but keeping it undermines the credibility of the article.

I found it a challenge to see Marx's analysis of the real economy as 'a critique, not an alternative economic theory'. I think I've got it but ask me again tomorrow and I bet I will be back in the rut! I wonder if we (i.e., you!) can expand and clarify this aspect a bit more?

I have added a few tags like 'technical jargon' and 'clarify', not as challenges but more as prompts where I think the material needs to be improved or developed. I hope you can resolve? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! I don't have much time right now since I have a need for sleep and have to participate in the labour simulation etc... Translating has been a bit time consuming. I hope to return to clarify more. Please also study yourself if you are genuinely interested. If you can correct me where I am wrong, than I'm very grateful. Kind regards

Pauloroboto (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-english quotes in citations

FYI, this is an example of how to do it, just use trans-code=.

Liedman, Sven-Eric. "Engelsismen" (PDF). Fonesis (in Swedish). 28: 134. Engelska var också först med att kritiskt bearbeta den nya nationalekonomin; hans »Utkast till en kritik av nationalekonomin« kom ut 1844 och blev en utgångspunkt för Marx egen kritik av den politiska ekonomin [Engels was the first to critically engage the new political economy; his Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy came out in 1844 and became a starting point for Marx's own critique of the political economy]

NB that you really should give the original quote verbatim, I'm surprised that the template doesn't object if it is not provided.

Hope you find it useful but if pushed for time, feel free to do a rough citation and I will smarten it up. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

ref name=":0", ref name="Auto"

FYI, those totally forgettable and confusing wp:named references were added by an automatic process (or by editing using the mobile app). Feel free to change them to something mnemonic - you might notice that I already changed name="Auto1" to name="Poverty". (In case you haven't already worked it out, named references exist so that the same citation can be used multiple times without having to give the full citation all over again.) I might get round to doing it myself later on if I have time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Critique of political economy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Marxian critics of political economy

The article List of Marxian critics of political economy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:LISTCRUFT

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. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Source formatting at Mainstream economics

Hello, if the source exists, can you please format it appropriately? Because your way of referencing makes it very hard to find out anything about the source and verify the claim. 15 (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for writing to me. I can for sure add more detail. I'll be back.

Have a great day. Pauloroboto (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Paulo, I suggest you take a look at template:cite journal and template:cite book. So in 15's example, it would be immediately obvious what is missing:

• Ankarloo, who? (2010). name of book?. Nordic Academic Press. p. 123. ISBN 9876543210.

Does that help? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Critique of political economy

Portal:Critique of political economy, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Critique of political economy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Critique of political economy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Paulo, is it really ever going to be broad enough for a wp:portal? I think most portals come into existence after an unwieldy number of articles have been created and its purpose is to bash them into some kind of order. It must be rare to start from the other end, I suspect you may be setting yourself up for failure, sorry.

But I wondered if you have the right idea but the wrong solution? that what you really want is something like template:Brexit sidebar? Best wishes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much for telling me this.

I've made more suitable improvements. Thank you again for your time. ////Pauloroboto (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karl Marx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Kurz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Fas 3 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Fas 3, 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for offering to help, I will be happy to do business with you

Best wishes. --omar (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Getting another editor's attention

Just an FYI. I suspect that you can safely assume that Specifico will see your message at talk:Critique of political economy but as a general principle it is best to precede such messages with a {{ping}}. Or if it amuses you, {{yo}}, which does exactly the same thing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Friedman. Your contributions is appreciated as always. Pauloroboto (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried the Yo function, and boy was I amused. I have not had this much fun since 2001. Pauloroboto (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Refusal of work into Critique of work. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll make sure to try to check back to this if I copy something else. I was under the impression that it was fine due to CC but the more you know.

Thanks again!

Pauloroboto (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's okay to copy from one Wikipedia article to another, as long as you provide attribution in your edit summary by mentioning the name of the article where you got the content.— Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice

I've mentioned you here. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice SPECIFICO

:)

Pauloroboto (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Critique of political economy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ecclesia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Marx & political economy

I didn’t see your message until today because I lost my password. I would be happy to help. Political economy is not my specialty but I do study Marx enough that I can contribute something. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm delighted to hear that! Please read the page to get a breif feel for the topic and contribute as much as you feel you can. Right now the page needs more writing on contemporary critique of political economy, and if you would be able to provide some of that it would be much apprecierad. There is a version with a segment that has been started on it in the history, you might be able to dig that up and see what you can make of it.

NatriumGedrogt

Thanks -- Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

On it, likewise.

Futurefirst (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to use article talk pages

You have repeatedly reinserted content that's been reverted for good reason. Often, others will disagree with various edits and revert them, That is not an invitation to edit-war like a greedy capitalist at a bond auction. That is an invitation to discuss collaboratively and seek consensus on the article talk page. Please undo any outstanding reinsertions and engage on the talk page. There is no rush, but there is a mandate to engage collabortively with editors of all good faith viewpoints. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

What is a good reason is as far as I can tell in this case: either a) defined by wiki and the form wiki pages should take. I.e objective. or b) subjective.

So like I understand your take, you claim that if you consider yourself to have a good reason for which you can argue, you can revert. (That includes reverting what has been reverted as far as I know. Please correct me if it is against the rules to revert something someone has reverted.) I've viewed the 3RR and don't see me reverting what you've reverted as a problem. Especially if I've made changes, or explained why I think my edit should stay. (You're for sure entitled to revert my edit with my explanation, and then we can engage in discussion on the talk page.)

I also don't get why you would like to liken my behavior to the the accumulators of dead labour, and for the record want to say that I don't want to engage in this kind of religious and dismissive view of greed.

You seem to take issue with a huge part of my edits which no one else seems to care about and or be completely fine with. If you would like to spend less energy reading through what seems to be most of what I write, you might want to consider reading up on the topics which I currently most frequently edit and contributing rather than almost only reverting. That way we could engage collaboratively in a way that makes the articles better rather than slows down the development of the pages.

I'm very keen to improve the articles I work on, so if something should be fixed, I'm very happy to hear about it. But I'm not that keen on "cures" to issues which are worse than the symptom. (I spend more time on talk pages than improving the articles.)

I hope we will be able to move forward towards some conclusions, and if you have any tips on how to edit in a way that gives you some kind of peace of mind, please let me know it.

Pauloroboto (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way I guess we could try to resolve the question of the English right away. I have nothing to add to my claim. I think it stands on it's own. But I'd like to hear what you think about it.

Have a great day. Pauloroboto (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I would hope its clear I know of no valid reason to change it. Otherwise I would not have reverted your change. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. But I did specify a reason right?

Most of the thinking around this topic is from authors in Europe. These people tend to spell with the extra u in colour that you guys left and or forgot on the other side of the pond. That's why it would make sense.

I can't think of a reason of why this shouldn't be done. If you can think of one, please write it. Pauloroboto (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I rejected your reason. Evidently. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well thanks for that clarification. Clarity is rather good. However, that's just an argument stopper.

I have my standpoint here, and if you can't figure out a reason for why this shouldn't be done or why my standpoint is flawed, that is more advanced than your gut feeling, then you don't have any reason to revert. Please try to come up with one. Pauloroboto (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Critique of work

A tag has been placed on Category:Critique of work indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Robert Kurz (philosopher)

Hi @Pauloroboto: Are you still want this moved? scope_creep^Talk 20:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sure. If you're able to fix it, then thanks to you! @Scope creep: : ) Pauloroboto (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You need to cite secondary RS to associate content with WP page topics

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

Please see the note I have left on the talk page of Critique of work. You need to review our policies on article content and start complying with them. See WP:PAG for detail. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: (just saw the AfD notice above. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me what this amounts to @SPECIFICO because I don't get this comment. Thank you. Pauloroboto (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution and thoughts regarding my editing. I'll review the articles you've sent when I get the time. I'll reply to your response on the page itself. Pauloroboto (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Some suggested reading

I advise that you read Wikipedia:Consensus. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Time, Labor and Social Domination moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Time, Labor and Social Domination, 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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Could you have a look at what appears to be a similarly unsuitable recent page creation by this user, August Strindberg's Little Catechism for the Underclass. I pared it down hoping it would be rebuilt, but the user has reverted my edit, so it now appears to have many problems. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I restored your edit as they don't appear to understand WP:V and the requirement for sourcing nor that we do not allow WP:ESSAYs. @Pauloroboto stop doing this - it's disruptive. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae Hi Praxidicae! Thanks for the draft information. I have since then added sources to the article to help establish it. But it should also hardly be needed since the article is the magnum opus of Postone.

As for the article on August Strindberg's Little Catechism for the Underclass:

I have not tried to write about my own opinions in the article, but have merely stated the types of argumentation which Strindberg puts forward. If you find a sentence which you can point me towards which is vague it would be great. Then I can take a look at it.

It is also not unsourced. It is in fact extensively sourced since practically everything on the page can be verified if you pick up the text yourself. However, I can not help if one makes the decision to ignore the added sources. A free online link is even included for verification, so you do not even have to buy the book. However the introduction by Bohman (From the Strindberg museum) is not included, but it is easy and cheap to purchase the same edition of which it is a part online. Thanks for your concerns about the article. Pauloroboto (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not about it being vague, it's about it being wholly unsupported by independent reliable sources and nothing more than an essay I'd expect to read in a basic college class. We summarize what sources say. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I'll publish a new version which tries to deal with these issues. Thanks for your input. Pauloroboto (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Another one

@Praxidicae: There's another similar situation at The Soul at Work: From Alienation to Autonomy where I trimmed the article and have now been reverted. I don't mean to impose on you but you seem familiar with the issues at this point. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Joe Biden on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Fas 3

Hello, Pauloroboto. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fas 3".

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Localisation (humanitarian practice) on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Margaret Nygard on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Iván Arias on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Time, Labor and Social Domination (September 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Time, Labor and Social Domination 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pauloroboto! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Georgia Guidestones on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Louis X of France on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Battle of Antonov Airport on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:NJGov on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Samuel Plata on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Miguel Ojopi on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kryvyi Rih on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Modern paganism on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Métis on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)