User talk:PapayaSF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi PapayaSF, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

Discretionary sanctions notification - American politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: EmPATH units (January 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AssumeGoodWraith were:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:EmPATH units and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:EmPATH units, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, PapayaSF! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi PapayaSF! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Need help editing a new article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: EmPATH units (July 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onmyway22 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:EmPATH units and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:EmPATH units, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onmyway22 talk 06:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your comment has been removed

Your comment has been removed as it violates WP:NOTFORUM. It was unconstructive griping about us using RS. That attitude does not belong at Wikipedia and can get you blocked if you are not careful. See WP:CIR (competence is required). The "problem" is not with RS, but with your failure to bring your thinking into line with them. Any source that does not agree with RS should usually be discarded and not trusted. If you can't do that, then stick to uncontroversial topics or leave. My essay on that topic may be instructive, because there is actual research about how Wikipedia should deal with fringe editors (those who depend on unreliable sources): How to increase Wikipedia's credibility.

With this topic, there are myriad RS that contradict the Trump administration's attempts to rewrite a history they do not like. Trump still favors Putin over America and trusts Russian intelligence over America's and its ally's intelligence agencies. That's very unamerican and treasonous, especially for a president. Putin is not America's friend. He is not to be trusted, and Trump just parrots him.

We expect editors to have the ability to vet sources for reliability. That is an ability that takes some time to develop, so just ask experienced editors. The article at The Federalist is filled with falsehoods and debunked conspiracy theories. That is why it is rated an unreliable source at WP:RSP. Sources can be biased, and as long as the bias does not lead them to outright falsehoods and fabrications, we can use them, but The Federalist is a far-right source that often goes way too far into the ditch in that regard.

I will also remind you that eight years ago you received a "Discretionary sanctions notification - American politics". That still applies, and you have just violated it, so beware. Any admin has a right to come here and block you without any warning, based on your violation of that sanction. You have no excuse as you are not a newbie. You should, by now, have stopped reading unreliable sources and only be using reliable ones. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Callanecc: You can see in the above thread that Valjean used your DS/Alert to support statements about PapayaSF, who has "violated it". Do you in fact support Valjean's statement and tone? Valjean also said in the relevant thread that removing was "... our normal NOTFORUM / DNFTT practice. We do not want to encourage direct attacks against our RS policy." (WP:DNFTT is the essay "Don't feed the trolls"). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles