User talk:Skellyret
This is Skellyret's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Institute for Family Studies (January 27)
[edit]data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ae553/ae5538f7dfb9152365d3dee1344385a1a1576c7f" alt=""
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Institute for Family Studies 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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Institute for Family Studies (January 27)
[edit]data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ae553/ae5538f7dfb9152365d3dee1344385a1a1576c7f" alt=""
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Institute for Family Studies 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.
![]() |
Hello, Skellyret!
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! BuySomeApples (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
|
Edit-warring warning
[edit] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Effects of human sexual promiscuity. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Simply restoring the problematic content, as you did twice now so far, is not the way to get your preferred content into a Wikipedia article. Content disputes should be worked out at the article Talk page, in this case, at Talk:Effects of human sexual promiscuity. Are you the same editor as this one? Because I previously left them a similar message about this, which maybe you have not seen, which might explain your doubling down. At this point, you should self-revert, and seek consensus for your views at the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes I am, sorry I'm auto logged into this account that I creaated yesterday. Skellyret (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Referencing problems at Effects of human sexual promiscuity
[edit]Hi, and thanks for your contributions so far. I wanted to let you know that I undid your edits at Effects of human sexual promiscuity because of several referencing problems, but I see that you have restored them without discussion. Choosing an article topic related to biomedical issues is very difficult for a new editor, as they have even stricter WP:Verifiability requirements than regular articles do, so it might be easier to learn the ropes here by staying away from such topics for now. The specific problems with the referencing your edits at the article were the use of Blogs, bareurls, political advocacy sites like Heritage Foundation, and primary sources. I would start by reading WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, and if you plan to continue writing about medical topics (which I strongly discourage for now) then please also read WP:MEDRS. If you have any questions, feel free to {{reply}} below, or at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: I could remove my mention about the heritage foundation if you want, I only cited them because people might have the wrong idea about the correlation if they saw other statistics. Also, what does this have to do with Biomedicine? I just looked at the article Wikipedia:Biomedical information and from what I can gather, my writing is more oriented towards the social science of promiscuity rather than biomedical information. For example, I'm not talking about health effects, drugs or biochemistry. Skellyret (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also the sources I used were secondary Skellyret (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you are not including biomedical information then you do not need to worry about WP:MEDRS. However, you should keep our core policy of WP:Neutral point of view in mind. The § Relationship effects uses solely conservative think tanks to source the assertions in that section. The only way that would be acceptable is if those two sources are a good match generally for the universe of opinion about the topic (roughly equivalent to saying, no progressive think tanks or academicians address the topic). Is that really the case? I don't know for sure, but I would be very surprised if it were. You appear to be cherry-picking sources, which can lead to a non-neutral view of the topic in Wikipedia's voice, and that is forbidden by WP:NPOV. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright fair enough, I'll google whether progressive sources exist right now. Skellyret (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Specifically progressive sources don't exist on this topic, but objective primary sources do exist. I cited them in the talk section on the article. Skellyret (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Informing you that this page was blanked just 3 days after you raised concerns. Theofunny (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Alright fair enough, I'll google whether progressive sources exist right now. Skellyret (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Blanking Talk
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Theofunny (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
"wiki soyboys"
[edit] Hello, I'm Theofunny. I noticed that you made a comment Javier Milei: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Theofunny (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- You gotta admit it was funny and kinda true tho Skellyret (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neither funny nor true (you don't seem to know much about The Guardian). You have been blocked for 31 hours for using that slur. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Bishonen | tålk 20:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC).- Well I found it funny... also, slur? really? Skellyret (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Try checking an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 21:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC).
- Soy Skellyret (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ohh please, behave in a constructive way. Theofunny (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Haha alright sorry. Skellyret (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ohh please, behave in a constructive way. Theofunny (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Soy Skellyret (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Try checking an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 21:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC).
- Well I found it funny... also, slur? really? Skellyret (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neither funny nor true (you don't seem to know much about The Guardian). You have been blocked for 31 hours for using that slur. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
Wikipedia and copyright
[edit] Hello Skellyret! Your additions to Shock therapy (economics) and Javier Milei have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
- Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
- Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
- Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
- Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page.
Neither of your two references for this edit or this edit appear to exist. I get a "sorry, the page doesn't exist" for both of them. The text you have added in both places does exist on the internet, though, for example here. Those copyright violations have been removed. Please be very careful to use your own words in the future. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 17:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes they do
- https://www.riotimesonline.com/argentinas-salaries-outpace-inflation-with-145-5-growth-in-2024/
- https://milei.ufm.edu/en/labor-monitor/
- https://laderechadiario.com/economia/pobreza-argentina-bajo-al-335-enero-2025-segun-utdt?mrfhud=true
- Please revert the pages, I can't as the revisions are permanently deleted for me. Skellyret (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- I will paraphrase the article so as to avoid copyright. Skellyret (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- "Please revert the pages"? Are you seriously asking me to restore your copyright violations? Of course I won't, after I've taken the trouble to revision delete them. They should not appear in any revision on Wikipedia; it's not enough that they're gone from the front of the article. You can surely easily find again the material you copypasted. I'm glad you have working reference links; I don't know what was wrong with the form you put them in in the articles, but I assure you they simply didn't work.
- Yes, paraphrasing the text is good, but be careful how you do it, and note the mention above of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: avoid
"the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy."
(italics in original). Bishonen | tålk 22:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC).
- Yes, paraphrasing the text is good, but be careful how you do it, and note the mention above of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: avoid
Skellyret, I just wanted to follow up to make sure you understand a key point about copyright violation (abbreviated copyvio, in Wikipedia slang). You are aware, I believe, that you can click the History tab at the top of any article and go back in time to look at old revisions of the article, right? So, here is the thing about copyright violations: not only are you not allowed to have a copyright violation in the current version of an article, you are also not allowed to have it anywhere in the history of the page, no matter when or how far back. So, let's say you mistakenly added some copyrighted text to an article a year ago, before you knew about the copyright rule, and then removed it two weeks later after you found out. That's not good enough, because people could still go to the History tab, find the old revision containing the copyrighted text, and read it. And that is forbidden. In a case like that, we call upon an admin to remove the copyrighted text not only from the current article, but also from all previous versions that contain it in the history of the article as well, making it impossible to see the copyrighted text even by looking at old versions in the History. (The process of removing old revisions out of the history is called "Revision deletion", or WP:REVDEL for short.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah I understand, no worries. Skellyret (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)