User talk:F.contesi
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, F.contesi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Luciano Canfora, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Bihco (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The article Luciano Canfora has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bihco (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Arkell.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Arkell, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Your article submission John Arkell
[edit]Hello F.contesi. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled John Arkell.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Arkell}}
, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Ways to improve Susan L. Feagin
[edit]Hi, I'm Whoisjohngalt. F.contesi, thanks for creating Susan L. Feagin!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank for adding this article to Wikipedia, please consider adding for footnotes from notable source. Thank you.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Whoisjohngalt (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, F.contesi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit]Disambiguation link notification for May 1
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Journal of Aesthetics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hyman (check to confirm | 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) 12:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit]ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit]ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of LOGOS Research Group in Analytic Philosophy for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOGOS Research Group in Analytic Philosophy 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.-- Brunnaiz (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why “non-relevant”? Similar organisations have a wikipedia entry, e.g.:
- Institut Jean Nicod
- Do you plan on deleting those too? F.contesi (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @F.contesi: As I stated in the proposal, because the article is backed only by self-sources, no literature has been written about this particular research group. Regarding your argument, you should read Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments#Deletion of articles. Relevance is a case-by-case matter, the fact that an article about a similar topic exists doesn't equate the relevance of this one (those are independent questions). -- Brunnaiz (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- There certainly is literature about the LOGOS Research Group. F.contesi (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @F.contesi: That's the one that should have been provided for the article reference section or the deletion proposal, and if you're willing to redo the article I strongly encourage you to provide it. -- Brunnaiz (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is being destroyed by these procedures. I have no interest in redoing the article. It should be Wikipedia to be interested in having a complete and coherent encyclopedia. F.contesi (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @F.contesi: That's precisely the reason why these procedures exist in the first place. Thank you for expressing your point of view regarding this matter. -- Brunnaiz (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you mean to destroy Wikipedia, those procedures are the correct ones in place. Not if you want to have a complete and coherent encyclopedia. The result of those procedures, at least as they were implemented in this case, is now that you do not have a record of one internationally recognized philosophy research group whilst keeping records for other similarly recognized groups. F.contesi (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @F.contesi: Having a complete and coherent encyclopedia implies making sure every article is notable enough (not every subject in the world is notable). For said reason it is primarily required to provide non-self literature, which is why I proposed the deletion of this specific article in the first place, not to "destroy Wikipedia". Anyways, I hope that, as you say, you can mend the article with such sources and make it meet the standards for notability in Wikipedia. -- Brunnaiz (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you mean to destroy Wikipedia, those procedures are the correct ones in place. Not if you want to have a complete and coherent encyclopedia. The result of those procedures, at least as they were implemented in this case, is now that you do not have a record of one internationally recognized philosophy research group whilst keeping records for other similarly recognized groups. F.contesi (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @F.contesi: That's precisely the reason why these procedures exist in the first place. Thank you for expressing your point of view regarding this matter. -- Brunnaiz (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is being destroyed by these procedures. I have no interest in redoing the article. It should be Wikipedia to be interested in having a complete and coherent encyclopedia. F.contesi (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @F.contesi: That's the one that should have been provided for the article reference section or the deletion proposal, and if you're willing to redo the article I strongly encourage you to provide it. -- Brunnaiz (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- There certainly is literature about the LOGOS Research Group. F.contesi (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @F.contesi: As I stated in the proposal, because the article is backed only by self-sources, no literature has been written about this particular research group. Regarding your argument, you should read Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments#Deletion of articles. Relevance is a case-by-case matter, the fact that an article about a similar topic exists doesn't equate the relevance of this one (those are independent questions). -- Brunnaiz (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)