User talk:Renamed user 57321f74ab40b47b4028424756aa6f1f/Archive 1

Speedy deletion nomination of Impact of the COVID-19 on neurological, psychological and other mental health outcomes

A tag has been placed on Impact of the COVID-19 on neurological, psychological and other mental health outcomes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:COVID anxiety mental health.webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:COVID anxiety mental health.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving talk page entries

Hi -- would it be possible to wait more than one (1) day before archiving talk page entries? This diff is clearly unconstructive and should have been reverted, but certain people are adamantly opposed to even breathing on an archive, so now it's there forever. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff Mostly out of WP:AGF or WP:Bite that some might prefer archiving over reverting, so long as it's not too nasty or rev-del worthy. ——Randomstapler's alt 05:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, this kind of edit is someone mistaking a talk page with a box for search, Siri, or ChatGPT queries; which is why they don't appear as coherent sentences, why they often look like copy-pasted prompts, often homework questions, and why they often come with instructions to "read aloud", or in a "[soft/clear/female/male/etc] voice", or the language in which to translate the response to.

They're "good-faith" edits in the sense that they're not vandalism, but they're still disruptive, they clog talk pages, and WP:TPO is very clear that they can and should be reverted. I have reverted tens of thousands of these, and I have literally never seen any of the users engage or have more than one edit, unless it's to post multiple queries in one sitting.

At any rate, 1 day is way, way, way, way too early to archive anything. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on behavioral issues

@Pppery. The floor is yours.

This happens to be a subject that I'm interested in, and no one seems to provide a meaningful explanation from the sources (per WP:Verifiability), despite my edits getting smaller and smaller.
What is going on... in your opinion? ——Randomstapler's alt 23:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add something... back during DRN, I proposed archiving the talk page mess. However, that got reverted. Is that the issue? The talk page full of meandering, irrelevant questions that went nowhere? ——Randomstapler's alt 23:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on is that you are applying one standard for how to evaluate sources. At least two other editors think it's impermissible original research, and multiple discussions have failed to come to a consensus on the matter. Despite that you've been slow-edit warring to push your point of view over the objections of others since September, which is inappropriate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery I'm going to explain it from my point of view. Please tell me where I've got it wrong.
It's just a tag. I'm not finished reading, and I understand that my future edits have to be smaller. And a tag is about as small as an edit can get.

WP:FOC. Despite the constant assertion of of WP:OR, no one has actually quoted a source per WP:Verifiability. So I'm literally left guessing.

Oh another thing: earlier edits were accepted.

Some of my assertions are based on edits I made on other articles.
Do you see why I might not understand what's going on? ——Randomstapler's alt 21:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference: Special:Permalink/1276145895. ——Randomstapler's alt 04:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Hello, Randomsalt,

It's confusing to have your alternate account, with a different username, responding in an AE inquiry, could you log into your main account to conduct business regarding your editing? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]