User talk:GideonF

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Meta analysis
Is not just one study, this one was in fact a review of 27 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Psychiatric%20diagnoses%20in%203275%20suicides%3A%20a%20meta-analysis Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit war
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please don't make any more edits. -जैन (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sallekhana. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- GB fan 20:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If I see anymore reverts on Sallekhana from you-it will not be a short 24 hour block. -- GB fan 15:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Border town, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gretna ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Border_town check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Border_town?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Suicide methods
As closer of the RFC where I found a consensus for a hatnote, I ask for you to please undo your revert of my adding the hatnote to the article. I feel as an involved party who opposed the addition, it’s not appropriate for you to remove it citing no consensus. If you disagree with my closure, I feel a discussion at the Administrator’s noticeboard would be more appropriate. Steven  Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 18:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus, and for you to claim there was is ridiculous.GideonF (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the outcome of the RFC, I would ask you to follow the standard process to dispute a closure, rather than edit war with other editors over the hatnote. That way, uninvolved input can assess my closing rationale if you are unhappy with the outcome. I feel I've given a reasonable explanation, however I am happy to further detail my findings in 48 hours when I will be more free. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 11:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)