User talk:Coffeeking123

Welcome!
Hi Coffeeking123! 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:

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:

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

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

Happy editing! Megaman en m (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The mountain is you


The article The mountain is you has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK criteria. Little to no coverage from WP:RS, no major article hits from Google News, Search. Only reference is the subject itself."

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. ‒ overthrows 21:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I started the page for the book "The Mountain is You" by Brianna Wiest because I was encouraged to read it after the popularity within the growing positive psychology space. I was unaware of the notability guidelines specifically for books on the page and I'm thankful I got to learn. I like to reread some of my favorite books and share key insights on this space so I'm glad I was notified. I spent some time trying to see if the book falls under the criteria for the notability for books but due to the lack of sources in references I don't think it is eligible to be a standalone page. I suggest we merge the page for the book onto the author's page. She has several works out which are gaining traction and I feel that this work could be developed later on in my time. If her books begin to receive coverage in other articles, it would be able to fall under Wikipedia notability guidelines and the page could be standing alone. Please let me know your thoughts! Coffeeking123 (talk)

Nomination of The Mountain Is You for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Mountain Is You 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 Articles for deletion/The Mountain Is You until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ‒ overthrows 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The Midnight Library (novel), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Cassiopeia  talk  02:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Cortisol, you may be blocked from editing. ''Wikipedia is not a blog for providing advice, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTADVICE. You are spamming articles with nonsense, including Apple cider vinegar. Use WP:RS sources.'' Zefr (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Cortisol shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zefr (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hi Coffeeking123, I'm Anypodetos. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently made additions to several articles such as Selexipag and Riociguat without citing a reliable source. Please note that all content and edits on Wikipedia are expected to be verifiable in reliable sources. In articles related to medical topics, the standard for content and sourcing is defined at WP:MEDRS, and in your edit you did not include any references that meet that ideal. Please have a look at MEDRS to learn about the quality standards for medical sourcing. You might also want to take a look at WikiProject Medicine. If you have any questions related to sourcing of medical issues, you can ask at the WikiProject Medicine Talk page. For general questions about sourcing, see Reliable sources. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for letting me know. I went back after and placed citations. Some information I was just expanding upon and moving so I was a bit confused about whether I needed to cite since there was a citation, but I went back and added citations. Thanks for letting me know!

October 2021
Hello, I'm Ozzie10aaaa. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pulmonary hypertension, 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. please see MEDRS before adding text without source (I see from above prior post from other editor(s) this may not be the first time) Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! My apologies for the delay and thank you for letting me know about the Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension page! I reviewed the WikiProjectMedicine and MEDRS page to learn about identifying reliable sources and wanted to receive your input: Would Lexicomp and Micromedex be reputable sources to cite in regard to the pharmacology and adverse effects of medications? Are there any sources that you recommend checking out for information in regard to medication mechanism of actions and structure-activity relationships? Coffeeking123 (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you should check, 1) Pubmed- reviews no older than 5 years, 2) medical textbooks (usually no older than 10 years) and 3) reputable organizations CDC, NHS, NIH, WHO...please see MEDRS again thank you Identifying reliable sources (medicine) ....(in terms of pharmacology and adverse effects of medications that would go on the article of the medication, not the condition)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you so much! Yes, I agree that it would go under the pharmacology of the medication. Coffeeking123 (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)coffeeeking123

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Resume Tag
@MrEarlGray I saw that you tagged the Jay Shetty page with two tags: fan's point of view and that it is written like a resume. I was wondering which specific aspects of the article have a resume "tone" as I have seen a few pages of podcasters (such as Ryan Holiday, Ashley Graham) and they seem to use the same writing style in the career section. @Kvng I'm open to your thoughts also! Coffeeking123 (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Coffeeking123, have you reviewed the discussion at Talk:Jay_Shetty? ~Kvng (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Kvng, I will direct my comments to that page! Coffeeking123 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Think like a monk


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Think like a monk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)