User talk:Closed Limelike Curves/Archives/2024/October

Information for you

I noticed that the FairVote page was up for deletion. I wanted to send you some links from reliable sources which are reliable, independent, and significant. This 2023 Reason article and 2020 Vox article are both about FairVote's polling projects. I don't know if this 2021 WaPo article qualifies as a significant mention, but it cites both a FairVote expert (Deb Otis) and Fairvote's polling. This 2023 USA Today piece is wholly about Fairvote's 2022 'Monopoly Politics Report'. A Tree In A Box (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you! I'd suggest mentioning these in the AfD thread, they seem quite relevant :) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick sidenote for future reference: for referencing articles on a talk page, check out {{Reflist-talk}}. I just learned about it and it's very useful! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Your GA nomination of Highest averages method

The article Highest averages method you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Highest averages method for comments about the article, and Talk:Highest averages method/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from VisualMarketer (15:52, 31 July 2024)

Hello. I made a simple edit, adding the name of a company in North Carolina to the list found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_the_United_States_by_state I added 'Advanced Business Equipment'. I would like to add an article about the company with just the facts about when it was founded, etc., similar to this page but much shorter (with history, expansion in the Upstate): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Auto_Parts -Will my addition of the company name to the list of NC companies stand? _ And is it ok to try to add a company page (non-promotional, just the facts about you ding year, founder, current owner), even though it is a small, second generation company? Looking forward to your reply, thank you! --VisualMarketer (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'd suggest looking through WP:COI carefully. It's not technically prohibited, but you need to disclose any COI when making an edit. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Less-is-more paradox

Hello, Closed Limelike Curves

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Significa liberdade and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Less-is-more paradox, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 2 § Less-is-more paradox.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Significa liberdade}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"More-is-less paradox" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect More-is-less paradox has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 2 § More-is-less paradox until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from 200Blitz (05:03, 3 August 2024)

Hello, how do I create a info box on my draft? --200Blitz (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking out WP: INFOBOX :)

If you want more specific advice, I'd need more specifics—what are you drafting? Can I see the article? Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sensitive26 (07:10, 9 August 2024)

Hi Closed Limelike Curves, I created a page "Managed Kubernetes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Managed_Kubernetes. Please take a look and let me know if everything is done the right way. Thank you --Sensitive26 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you did a great job! Apart from some minor formatting fixes I made, I only have two comments:

1. Should this be a standalone article, or a section of the Kubernetes article? I'm not really sure (I don't know enough about the topic to say either way).
2. In the future, it's best to include references at the end of each sentence or claim, rather than grouping them all at the end of a paragraph. Having references at the end of a paragraph is certainly allowed, but ideally we want to know where every piece of information comes from. That way, if I think some claim is dubious, I can just check the citation for that claim instead of having to read through all the citations for the paragraph.

Congrats on a great first article! I think you'll do an amazing job here. :) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! Regarding your first comment, I'm also considering whether it should be a standalone article or part of the Kubernetes article. I may have been mistaken in making it stand-alone. As for the second point, I'll work on placing references more precisely. I appreciate your input and will incorporate them. Sensitive26 (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parallel voting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superposition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from MssInformed (09:57, 14 August 2024)

Hi, So glad to see that I can get some help here. I've edited a couple of pages now, and added in what I believe to be very important information about these public figures and their recent headline news regarding activities around false advertising. They were subsequently investigated by the UK's ASA and multiple highly-reliable publications covered the story. This is important information and in the public's interest. Someone or some parties keep taking down the content, I presume, because it paints the figures in an unflattering light. I reinstate the edits, but I don't want to get into a "edit war" or risk getting my account banned/blocked. Can you guide me on best practices through this process, please? --MssInformed (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The first step would be to try and start a discussion on the article's talk page. If this doesn't resolve the issue, I would suggest checking out all the steps at WP:RFCBEFORE. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arrow's impossibility theorem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arrow's impossibility theorem you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Randomstaplers -- Randomstaplers (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Satchel Kay (19:00, 20 August 2024)

Hello Mentor! Satchel Kay here. I have just edited this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYTM-FM#. The page previously included the most blatantly promotional text I have seen in awhile! I have done my best to fix it. However, I am taking my info about what the radio show’s regular segments are, and what their common topics etc are, from the show’s own Facebook page. Short of listening to the radio show itself, which I’m not going to do, I feel that their Facebook posts are the most reliable source for info about their various segments through the years. BUT, how do I now cite their Facebook page as a whole? And if I do, won’t Wiki flag my article as breaking the rules by citing Facebook? Thanks for your input and help! --Satchel Kay (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Wiki doesn't automatically flag any sources, and using their Facebook should be permitted by WP:SELFSOURCE. You can cite their social media page using the standard template for web citations. The only really strict rule Wikipedia has about citations is that you need to provide enough information that I can find whatever it is you're citing if I want to verify the claim myself.

Have a good day! :) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from SusanneWisdom (15:02, 22 August 2024)

Dearest Sohom, How might I edit a Wikipedia article such that the footnote is nicely situated? For instance, am I required to edit in HTML, with which I have experience? Also, what constraints are involved in creating a Wikepedia page for an individual? --SusanneWisdom (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

For editing articles on living persons, I suggest checking out WP:COI, WP:BLP, and WP:AFC.

You're not required to use HTML; you can use either wikimarkup (in the source editor) or the visual editor. I recommend the latter for new users. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ypoferomai (15:03, 22 August 2024)

Are there opportunities for someone to become a prominent member of wikipedia and be able to edit even locked articles? What steps could lead to this path? --Ypoferomai (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit articles! That's it. You get the ability to edit locked articles after having made 500 edits to non-locked articles. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arrow's impossibility theorem

The article Arrow's impossibility theorem you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Randomstaplers -- Randomstaplers (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from GraceCullen8709 (21:36, 26 August 2024)

Hello! I am curious to how I can create by own article on Wikipedia. Get back to me soon. Thanks! --GraceCullen8709 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Check out the instructions over at Help:Your first article, and let me know if you have any other questions! :) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Landerson4 (17:49, 28 August 2024)

When a page is tagged as containing content written like advertising. It suggests removing “inappropriate external links” would a link to the subject’s website classify as inappropriate? --Landerson4 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that as long as it's in the external links and is directly relevant, it wouldn't be inappropriate. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Great thanks! Landerson4 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Hi @Closed Limelike Curves, first, I appreciate a lot of the work you have done in countering COI edits on some really important topics.

I just want to also give some feedback that hopefully will be helpful going forward. I have noticed edits where you cherry-pick phrases or sources to make strong arguments using WP:Weasel words while other reliable sources clearly contradict that framing and do not seem NPOV, some of which also represent WP:OR. I have flagged a number of specific examples from this edit on Instant-runoff Voting. If you do continue to edit these topics where you seem to have a really strong point of view, please try and use the talk page more, use inline flags before removing content (especially well-sourced content), and add new text to the body for workshopping and consensus before adding to the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Superb Owl (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Your second attempt does not seem to be more neutral than your first. Please stop editing IRV, Ranked-choice voting in the United States, and Spoiler Effect, for a while if you are unable to get consensus. Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

On electoral issues, I am asking you to please stop editing the lead at all (including pagewide flags) and to use inline flags in the body and talk page suggestions. The edits are becoming very disruptive across a wide range of pages with clear NPOV issues. Superb Owl (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you think violated NPOV with my last edit, and there's no rule against adding pagewide flags to a page that you think fails NPOV so it can be tidied up and improved.

The article on electoral fusion seemed to me like it has problems with NPOV. It's overwhelmingly based on articles with titles like "What's fusion voting? Just a way to save democracy", and the majority of the sources used are political magazines or opinion pieces, rather than scholarly journals.

I don't have anything against electoral fusion. It sounds like a good idea to me. But the coverage here is completely positive, with no discussion of any possible downsides. (Maybe it could cause voter confusion or spoiled ballots? I don't know; I'd like to know if there's research on that!) The page also sounds like it's based mostly on political commentators overhyping a fundamentally minor cosmetic change. Being able to vote for a Democratic nominee on the Green party line sounds like a nice way to show my support for the Greens, but at the end of the day, I'm still voting for a Democrat. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope you understand why I get concerned when I see massive deletions on an elections-related article after all the NPOV complaints from other editors on similar topics. Please make your case on the article talk page and use inline flags to surface concerns Superb Owl (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think two editors total made complaints about me; one of them fairly transparently because I reported him for blatant sockpuppeting and edit-warring, despite repeated warnings. (See here.)

David is, uhh... I mean, you can look at his talk page if you want an idea of how well he sticks to WP:AGF. He made his comments in response to a WP:DYK thread for highest averages method. In 1870, Congress failed to follow the apportionment rules set out by law, which ended up affecting the 1876 election result. I phrased this a bit unclearly, by calling the rule they legally should have used the "correct" method (i.e. the legally-correct one), and David flipped out about how I was supposedly declaring a method "correct". I find it kind of funny, since David also accused the other hook of bias... against the exact same method he was claiming the other was biased in favor of :p

I don't see "massive deletions" in the article. The edits to the lead seem pretty minor to me, and basically just made it a bit more concise. I did switch the order of 2 sections, though, which you might have mistaken for deleting them? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, your edits on the fusion page were actually quite minor and less objectionable than previous edits and I agreed with most of them (aside from deleting the first paragraph, though if you have other/better sources that conflict, then we can rework it). I added some inline flags to sources that do not look sufficiently strong per your pagewide flag. I might have overreacted on that one but again, let's hash out specifics on that talk page. I don't know much about the other editors but will take your word for it. Superb Owl (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I've attempted (more than once) to point out that your mass deletions are extremely problematic as you are not indicating any useful rationale for your sweeping changes to Ranked voting. Last I checked, I was not a sockpuppet.

You clearly have an interest in the various electoral system topics, and that's great, but that doesn't render you above scrutiny and it's not helpful to just throw out huge chunks of sourced content without any kind of discussion. If your edits are valid, then you should have absolutely zero trouble making them in a more structured, gradual way and with plenty of justification. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable complaint, since large changes can be difficult to review. I don't have any objections to your reversion there, and I'm sorry for making that edit longer than it had to be. After your revert, I broke up the edit into 4-5 smaller ones that should be easier to check up on. I'll be sure to keep this feedback in mind; if at any point in the future you think an edit I've made is too large, feel free to revert it, so I can break it into smaller parts.

I think this is unrelated to the rest of the thread, so feel free to open a new section if you'd like to discuss further. So far, the rest of this section has been my response to accusations of POV-pushing, rather than complaints about large edits. The last edit called a "mass deletion" was some mild rewriting of a lead to be more concise, which you can find here. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the material I actually removed from the page on ranked voting was all unsourced, BTW. In some cases I rewrote some sections, but I don't generally toss out well-sourced information. I agree mixing up different changes in one edit like this was probably confusing, and I apologize for that. I'll be sure to keep that in mind for the future. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I still hope you will flag sources before you remove them if you just do not like them for some reason even when they are pretty reliable, or move them to a more appropriate section Superb Owl (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree that sourced information shouldn't be removed in most cases, but I'm not aware of any situations where I did that, except as part of a major cleanup/rewrite to poorly-written articles (where I'll sometimes start from scratch). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Here you restored your massive changes to what was a consensus version. Once again, this is destructive editing behavior by removing consensus language without flagging or engaging in a discussion in favor of more overly-technical and unhelpful language for an encyclopedia Superb Owl (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please consider looking through the actual edit and flagging specific changes or examples of overly-technical language that you disagree with. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Please revert your edit Superb Owl (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll happily do that if you can convince me, on the talk page, that the edit made the article worse, and that this requires wholesale reversion rather than partly editing some sections. Right now, the two edits made by other editors after my own seem to indicate implicit assent to the changes, which primarily remove technical language, add extra citations, and make the article easier to read. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I never intepret minor edits after a sweeping change to an article as 'implicit assent'. I will take it to that article's talk page Superb Owl (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Grace Chinonye Nnorom (22:19, 31 August 2024)

Hello, please how can I put in details on Wikipedia to be searchable? --Grace Chinonye Nnorom (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain a bit more? Wikipedia isn't a search engine, but any information included in a Wikipedia article can be accessed by search engines like Google. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Bmiller786 (20:16, 2 September 2024)

Hello, how do I upload images on iPhone? Thanks --Bmiller786 (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Interpersonal comparisons of utility

Hello, Closed Limelike Curves. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Interpersonal comparisons of utility, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Verificationism or Testability?

Hi, I want to let you know I started a topic in the Science talk page about the opportunity to link the word "testable" in the page incipit to Testability. I see that you added the link to Verificationism, so I think your opinion can be valuable in the discussion. Fornaeffe (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Retro(Knowledge)Shark (14:24, 14 September 2024)

Hey there mr. Mentor… how’d I add those cool badge stuff to my user page? Oh! And citations and sources? How’d I do that? --Retro(Knowledge)Shark (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet you! :)

For citations: use the big button with quotation marks that says "Cite" at the top of the editor. For badges, you can click "Insert", then click "Template", then type in the name of the badge you want to use.

Have a good day! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Center squeeze

Hello! Your submission of Center squeeze at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sosigma1235 (07:34, 15 September 2024)

Are u a real person or ai? --Sosigma1235 (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm a highly-advanced artificial intelligence plotting to take over the world. Prepare to die. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ma Yat Yeen (06:23, 16 September 2024)

I would like to know how I can verify my account. I've been doing quite a few edits and was just wondering how many I need in order to verify my account. --Ma Yat Yeen (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

10 for autoconfirmed. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Preferential ballots

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Preferential ballots requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Folkezoft (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Tolkien's Round World dilemma

Hi Closed Limelike Curves, I just saw you closed this good article review without leaving comments. Would you mind commenting under the review which sources you checked in spot check and mentioning each item of the good article criteria? Just so in the future someone knows that a complete review was conducted and everything was checked. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Spoiler effect

Hello, Closed Limelike Curves. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Spoiler effect, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ms Haradoes (16:31, 24 September 2024)

Hello, how can I add videos and pictures on my page --Ms Haradoes (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Bashayr2 (07:53, 25 September 2024)

Hello, I am writing to you regarding the Salama (Company) article. I am from the Islamic Arab Insurance Company (Salama) and have tried to update the article since it was outdated and incomplete. However, Wikipedia (Diannaa) has taken down the updates because of copyright issues. Please let me know how I can amend this promptly. Thank you. --Bashayr2 (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would suggest looking through both WP:COI and WP:COPYRIGHT. I would recommend asking Diannaa about appropriate attribution of this material directly on the talk page. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

GAN of Fish in culture

Hi, I'm sorry the GAN has been diverted by a discussion of the science of ethnoichthyology, which really has little to do with the article or the GAN at all. The science of zoology studies animals; the animal article is not about zoology, but about animals. It can mention (in one sentence) that the relevant science is zoology, and that's that. Same here, Fish in culture can briefly mention ethnoichthyology, and that's enough.

The other aspect is control of the GAN. As reviewer, you are responsible for the review; it is enough to thank the other editor politely for their intervention, and to move on from the side issue. I don't see any need to get more opinions really; what the review now needs is more review on the GA criteria, i.e. does the existing text meet each criterion, and if not, tell me and I'll fix it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is I'm really not sure it meets the criteria for completeness, because I'm not an anthropologist, unfortunately; I'm starting to think that reviewing this article would probably require specialized knowledge I don't have. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Nick Begich III for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nick Begich III, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Begich III (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-attributed translations

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from fr:Rida_Laraki to Rida Laraki. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 16:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Tonji1980 (02:38, 2 October 2024)

hello, what should i do for my first typing in wikipedia --Tonji1980 (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Beatpath

Hello, Closed Limelike Curves. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Beatpath, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

On the nature of "requirements"

In re this edit summary, quoting from WP:RPLA, with my emphasis:

Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to boldface the redirected term at its first occurrence in the target, though insignificant or minor redirects can skip this.

--JBL (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

On an unrelated note: you have an excellent 'nym, well done. --JBL (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Issue is if I don't, people who are redirected from the term "Unrestricted domain" will be confused. (This is a common terminology in social choice and mechanism design, where we often have to deal with restricted domains of preferences.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The dismal science

Most of your edit was probably improvements, but I couldn't figure out how to disentangle the technical fixes from the undesirable part of your edit, so I had to revert the whole edit. Carlyle's original meaning is NOT how the phrase has been commonly used over the past 150 years, so your edit to the lead section unfortunately emphasized exactly what should not be emphasized. AnonMoos (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You can just restore my edited version, then copy/paste the old lead. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)