User talk:Ab3l100

Welcome!
Hello, Ab3l100, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox
I have moved your sandbox to User:Ab3l100/sandbox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cosmology, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''This is a scientific article; please don't add myths and nonsense. The article requires peer-reviewed WP:SCIRS reviews as sources. '' Zefr (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Western cosmology origins


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Western cosmology origins. 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 – Biblical cosmology. 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 Biblical cosmology. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it 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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, 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. MrOllie (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Cosmos, you may be blocked from editing. ''Stop the nonsense. '' Zefr (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The origin of physical and philosophical cosmology


The article The origin of physical and philosophical cosmology has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Duplicate myths as in Biblical cosmology."

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 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 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. Zefr (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC) I am really sorry for the editing but I am also really new to this. I'm doing this as a class assignment and the first article I proposed was considered too similar to another one on Wikipedia. my intention was not to repeat the same information but by explaining how myths and religion played a role when it comes to the cosmos. again I am really sorry

Your contributed article, 21st century food history


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 21st century food history. 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 – Food history. 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 Food history. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it 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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, 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. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 21st century food history


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 21st century food history requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Greatstumboot (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Food history 21st century draft
Hi, I saw that you moved your work live, however the work had some issues and needed to be moved back. I've moved the work to User:Ab3l100/Food in the 21st century. Here are my notes on the work:


 * The work is written more like an essay than a Wikipedia article. Keep in mind that we can only summarize what the sources say as opposed to reflecting upon them or creating our own research based on the sourcing.
 * The writing is also fairly casual, as it contains reflections and things like "we" - Wikipedia articles should be written in third person perspective. You also want to be careful of words like 'revolutionize' since that can be a bit of a loaded term, since it is so often used in promotions and marketing. You want to make sure that you're not unintentionally coming across as non-neutral.


 * The sourcing needs to be stronger. The strongest sources will be academic and scholarly sources, especially as they're more likely to give a good general overview that takes a global perspective. The global perspective is important, as the article shouldn't be limited to just the US.
 * Something else to be careful of is that not all results brought up by a search will be automatically reliable. For example, Forbes allows contributors to post. They are separate from the magazine's staff and as such, the contributor posts don't really receive any true editing or verification oversight. As such the contributor posts are seen as self-published blog type sources. In order to show that a self-published source is usable as a reliable source we would need to be able to show where the person is seen as a reliable source by other reliable sources. In this case the source is usable since it was written by Phil Lempert, who is typically seen as a reliable source.
 * Now ResearchGate is where you need to be extremely careful, as anyone can upload their work to the site. This means that the site holds not only papers published in respected peer-reviewed journals, but also student papers as well as work that is very unreliable. It's important to research the piece to determine if it would be seen as a reliable source or not. Offhand it looks like the ResearchGate paper should be usable, however it's common for papers on the site to be unusable as a source.


 * The section closes with a very large quote and there is a fairly big reliance on quotes. In general it's best to try to avoid using quotes except when very necessary. When they are used, it should be accompanied by context that helps establish why the quote is important to include and can't be summarized in your own words.

What I recommend is boiling this down to the basic essentials of what the section is meant to include. Here's what I boiled it down to:


 * 1) Humanity's relationship with food has continued to change in the 21st century.
 * 2) The population is expected to continue to swell, which is problematic since scholars state that there are several issues facing the world's food supply such as climate change.
 * 3) These challenges can be overcome, but it will require technological advances that will only come about if society invests in education and research as well as recruit people educated in STEM.
 * 4) The way food is consumed has changed, as now food purchases are no longer dictated almost solely by price, income, and traditional cultural preferences - now influences such as attitudes, information, perceptions and other psychological factors also play a major role.
 * 5) Technology and social media has a huge impact on restaurants and dining culture on a global scale, as well as how food is procured.

These are the basics - the main gist here would be to make these into a neutrally written section. If you want to copy anything I have written here, feel free - it's based off of your writing, after all.

Let me know if you need/want any help with re-writing, as this is definitely something I can help you with. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The pillars of western cosmology


Hello, Ab3l100. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The pillars of western cosmology".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)