Talk:World Suicide Prevention Day

Article or promotion?
This article appears more like a promotion of an event than a genuine neutral article on the subject. Mal7798 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Last edits reverted
@Username:NCWP I added maps of suicide rates before (few hours ago) and they were reverted. Mind a talk? 2A00:23C4:710E:2700:186F:DEC8:822D:B2ED (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging NCWP for reply. Waddie96 (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed the page history and appears that I made a mistake in reverting your edits. I saw how you added "and suicide" to a section heading which appeared to be vandalism. In review of my actions I have determined them to be in error. I sincerely apologize to you for this.  N C W P &#124; Talk 18:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Female suicide rates 2015 (crude).svg (discussion)
 * Male suicide rates 2015 (crude).svg (discussion)
 * Male-Female suicide ratios and rates 2015 (age-standardized).svg (discussion)

RfC on administrative reverts of good edits (based on behavior)
I hate to request comments on this because I'm mentioning Wikipedia's administration. I un-reverted good edits made by a banned user a week ago but the same Admin re-reverted without elaborating any further. Those edits seem to be actual improvements (they correct the collapsed table for once), thus is the Admin (using TW) aware of it? And if he/she is, is the blocked status of the sockpuppeting user enough to unrevert those readily good edits like that? The table reports wrong values that those edits did correct perfectly, and the original user User:SuperSucker is rather disruptive than unprepared contributor. 149.254.248.29 (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why these are improvements?Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Table reports wrong values. Ehmm.. look at the diffs. Note: I'm 30+ years old with no time to play. Goodbye.149.254.248.29 (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They are only wrong if you can show they are, do you have an RS for those figures (also you did more then just later that table). As to the rest, I shall reply on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The table in case is sourced inside its note. 149.254.248.29 (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I've removed the RfC tag because requests for comments are intended to solicit answers to specific questions unrelated to user conduct. (See for details.) Your question would be better suited for the Teahouse or the administrator's talk page. Please consider posting your question at one of these locations, instead. Thanks! —  Newslinger   talk   12:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought it's obvious this is not a discussion about the user's conduct who violated behavior policies many months ago (see user's block report) and is now socking, which is what that is about instead I'm bringing up the contrary: that is the reliability and verifiability of the content added by the banned user as it corrects errors at the collapsed table (and probably others) in the article. 149.254.248.29 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is no date in the map for 25-25, so why is this there?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about now? It seems your intentions are far from genuine thus ok let's play the "fellow wikipedian" game although as said, I'm 30+ years old with no time. Ok, here we go.


 * This conversation with you appears Low-Class to me. As of now. 149.254.248.29 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was asking everyone, not just you.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What is "the 'fellow wikipedian' game"? What is a Low-Class conversation? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Table data
But he did raise a valid point, why does the map seem to include a data range that is not on the map (25-35), or is it too similar in colour to 35+ to tell the difference?Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it was valid. Those edits were corrections. Move on. 213.205.195.112 (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

WHO not the only source of statistics [edit request]
As WHO is not the only reliable source of suicide data please revert to 29 April's version. Or keep both tables (collapsed anyway) one below the other. 82.132.184.111 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Suicide incitement by erotic services
I wonder if anything should be added about a notorious off-line issue with erotic services that end up actively inciting suicide. In my early 20s it happened to me as well while I was living in Italy during my youth. Now living in the UK I don't think they have this issue as they did in Italy but truth is I can't tell because I don't use those services anymore. Think about it. 109.249.184.253 (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

history
Why was September 10th chosen? Not to make light of the issue but coincidentaly the date is also the anniversary of the last use of the guillotine by France in 1977. Colonial Computer 17:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22yearswothanks (talk • contribs)