User talk:Nanmwls

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.  ''Click here to reply to this message.''  ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:AcadRedKatz.pdf


A tag has been placed on Template:AcadRedKatz.pdf, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

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. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages
Unlike many other websites, Wikipedia is en encyclopedia, not a forum or a blog. There is nowhere on Wikipedia where you can discuss or debate politics. Wikipedia talk pages are solely for discussing improvements to Wikipedia articles. This usually takes the form of "change X to Y", including grammatical chances such as "replace 'he saw the doctor' with 'he went to the doctor' because it's clearer". Another use of talk pages is to point out missing sources or content that doesn't align with what the sources say. Wikipedia is not written according to the opinions of its users. Thus, it doesn't really matter what any of us think of the topic; this is considered original research and is forbidden on Wikipedia. So, we can't really debate the meanings of words or whether they apply when WP:reliable sources have already decided that they do. Wikipedia only summarizes the opinions of reliable sources, such as academic journals, then presents them in the article. Using the talk pages to post your own opinions on the topic ("I personally don't think X is a Y" or "I personally think X is definitely a Y") is a misuse of Wikipedia to engage in debate. We have even stricter rules when American politics are involved, as you can see in the message above. This means that unless you are posting the opinions or conclusions of a reliable source, your post simply doesn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page. I realize this is very different than the rest of the internet, where you can debate issues and post your own opinions freely. However, this also means that you can use pretty much any other website to air your opinions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ninja. I have limited my current posts to directly speaking about the citations and comparing this political page to other similar relevant political pages that differ greatly in their format to the detriment of the company of the page in question.  I won't offer my opinion about the content of the work, I only question the way the "reliable source" information was interpreted, whether some of the information is relevant to the page in question, whether a citation is outdated especially when the conclusion was premature and wrong and in light of new information from reliable sources, and whether some wording could be misleading.  Peace to you. Nanmwls (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)