User talk:DocZach/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, DocZach, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Prairie Astronomer Contributions 00:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Treneé McGee, 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. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I just added a citation. DocZach (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (November 22)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Suitskvarts were:

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:Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Progressive_Anti-Abortion_Uprising Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Suitskvarts&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Progressive_Anti-Abortion_Uprising reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Suitskvarts (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (November 23)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MaxnaCarta 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:Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Progressive_Anti-Abortion_Uprising Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaxnaCarta&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Progressive_Anti-Abortion_Uprising reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Megan McCarthy King has been accepted
 Megan McCarthy King, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Megan_McCarthy_King help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Bkissin (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
Hello, I'm Peaceray. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Margaret Sanger seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please read & heed our MOS:LEAD guideline.
 * MOS:LEADSENTENCE states The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is.
 * MOS:LEADCLUTTER states Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
 * The lead of MOS:LEAD itself states:

Peaceray (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Information about Sanger's eugenist views has already been covered in the second paragraph of the article's lead. Sanger is not primarily known for her eugenist views. By attempting to shoehorn it into the lead sentence, you have given it undue attention, which is a violation of English Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Please also see the Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view pillar.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, please be careful when reverting at the Sanger article. It's under a 1RR remedy, meaning that no one is permitted to revert more than once per 24 hour period (with some limited exceptions). See WP:1RR and the notice at the talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Chicken at GAN
Hi, many thanks for taking on this review. It's very kind of you to say everything's great, but the GA folks like to see that at least some of the sources have been spot-checked to see that they support the claims made in the article, and that the images are properly licensed, or they may undo the review. To that end, I'd appreciate it if you could add some remarks about these matters to the GAN! Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I have a similar concern about another recent review, Talk:NAFO (group)/GA1. We need more GA reviewers, so it's exciting to see someone get engaged with the process. You may want to observe some of the more experienced reviewers, read or re-read the criteria and review guide, and ask questions at the GA talk page if there are parts you're uncertain about. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers I understand, I apologize, I am new. Later today, I'll read over the article again and try to provide more detail in my review. DocZach (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chiswick Chap Hello, I have added more detail to the review. Can you let me know if it's good? DocZach (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's certainly in the right direction. I guess the "meme" for GA reviews is a list of items, questions, or comments by the reviewer, with a matching set of answers by the nominator:


 * In "History", you say that Lincoln always dyed his beard red, but it seems to be black in all the photos. Is the source "Fuzzpuddle.com" suitable for this sort of claim?
 * Ah, you're right, it's probably unsuitable. Claim removed.


 * Then, everyone can see that the review has involved some thought, careful checks, and dialogue, giving some kind of assurance that the facts have been checked, and that the sources have been considered individually. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
== Welcome! ==

Hi DocZach! 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:

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Um all I did was add my opinion on a deletion proposal in a talk page... DocZach (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed another improper edit just now. Please read WP:ARBECR, you are only permitted to make edit requests, nothing more. Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then why are there numerous people who are saying SUPPORT or OPPOSE? It is a talk-page discussion about whether to rename the article or not. DocZach (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are not permitted to do anything in this topic area other than make edit requests until you have 500 edits, I have explained this more than once above. Selfstudier (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you link the policy for that? DocZach (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ARBECR as linked above already, please read it. Selfstudier (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just read it, thank you. DocZach (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yw, best thing is to get your 500 edits and then there is no problem after that. Selfstudier (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. DocZach (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation
I noticed you have been working on some health-related subjects, so I wanted to invite you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. You're welcome to join us if it's a subject area that interests you. It's a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style. Feel free to put the group's page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * How do I join it? DocZach (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To officially sign up, go to WikiProject Medicine and look on the right side for a box that says "Meet the participants". It lists a few names, and then has a blue "Participate" button.  Click that to fill out the short form.  (I think all the questions are optional, so it doesn't have to take very long.)
 * Lots of people participate in the discussion on the talk page without officially signing up. That's 100% okay.  We don't make a distinction between who is signed up and who isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Anne E. Lazarus for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anne E. Lazarus 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/Anne E. Lazarus 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 until the discussion has finished. Spinixster  (chat!)  12:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anne E. Lazarus
The article Anne E. Lazarus you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Anne E. Lazarus for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mokadoshi -- Mokadoshi (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
Hello, I'm KyleJoan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to The View (talk show) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. How do you go from writing this summary to doing the exact opposite of what you asked another user to do with your very next edit? KyleJoan talk 16:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
You have recently made edits related to Falun Gong. This is a standard message to inform you that Falun Gong is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isi96 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

May 2024
You have recently made edits related to abortion. This is a standard message to inform you that abortion is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Tate
Your recent editing history at Andrew Tate 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; read about 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. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"pro-abortion" again
It seems like on you've been trying to insert this term into multiple abortion related articles, and edit warring to keep it in place. Previously at abortion-rights movements, then at Jane's Revenge (both were on my watchlist), and now ShoutYourAbortion (which I only stumbled upon yesterday and looked at the edit history when I was surprised to see that term in there). Like you've been told at those discussions, it doesn't matter if you can find sources that use the term. Multiple sources also use terms like "pro-choice" and "pro-life", too, not to mention more extreme terms, but Wikipedia doesn't use those because they're imprecise and/or misleading slogans. There is a push among the anti-abortion groups to label things "pro-abortion" as frequently as possible, and indeed some abortion rights groups do use the term (though very rarely these days), but that doesn't mean it's how Wikipedia should describe an abortion rights group (or a group trying to reduce the stigma around abortion). In an unusual situation where a group uses that term about itself, we wouldn't call them a "pro-abortion group/campaign", but there might be a context in which we could attribute the term to the group/campaign itself rather than use it as a straightforward descriptor. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We are supposed to use terms that the majority of reliable sources describe an organization as. "Pro-choice" is misleading because it is incredibly broad and doesn't specify what "choice." And "pro-life" is also misleading because it is also incredibly broad and doesn't specify what "life" or which practice is opposed. The term "pro-abortion" is defined simply as being "in favor of the availability of medically induced abortion as a means of ending a pregnancy." Examples of definitions from credible dictionaries:
 * Pro-abortion is defined as supporting the belief that women should have the right to have an abortion (= the intentional ending of a pregnancy) if they need or want one. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pro-abortion
 * Pro-abortion is defined as favoring the legalization of abortion. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proabortion
 * Even Planned Parenthood themselves encourages using the term "pro-abortion." https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-advocacy-fund-massachusetts-inc/blog/whats-wrong-with-choice-why-we-need-to-go-beyond-choice-language-when-were-talking-about-abortion
 * Shout Your Abortion is not an "abortion rights" campaign. It is a pro-abortion campaign, as they explicitly serve the purpose of promoting and celebrating abortion, as explicitly defined on their website. Their primary purpose is sharing positive stories about abortion and eradicating all "stigma" from abortion, and using the classifier pro-abortion is appropriate as it distinguishes them from mainstream abortion-rights organizations. DocZach (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Andrew Tate, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Criminal investigations are active; we will not report this as fact at this point in the case. The fact that you restored this after BLP was already cited is most concerning.'' VQuakr (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * He admitted himself that he was a pimp. That is not defamatory language, and it is not a criminal accusation. Calling him a sex-trafficker would indeed be defamatory and not appropriate as he has not been convicted of it, but calling him a pimp is accurate terminology because he has admitted to and has been documented by reliable sources to have earned money and setup women to make money on NSFW webcams. DocZach (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Take it to the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between being documented by RS and being WP:DUE for the lead, especially the MOS:FIRST. Note how other contentious descriptions in the MOS:OPEN have at least half a dozen RS, making them due there. There's also the point that this description is not a summary of the body, per WP:LEAD. I'll add it to the Views and influence section, as is well referenced, but I don't believe it's due in the lead what so ever based on two sources. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the descriptions to online ventures section with attribution, as this is where it belongs based on context. Based on the sources, neither should be used without attribution (see WP:GUARDIAN and WP:LATIMES, ie WP:NEWSBLOG for their columns), and therefore quite clearly doesn't belong in the lead on this basis alone. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)