User talk:Closed Limelike Curves

Archives (Index)

2024/June

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

How do I create citition? --Asemahle Noniwe (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Citation templates. –Sincerely, A Lime 16:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lime. It's great to have a mentor like you guide me!

I've been trying to publish my draft but I keep getting a stash error. How do I resolve this? --Xlencie (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the kind words :)

I get that bug too sometimes; you can report it on WP:Phab. For a short-term fix, you can just copy-paste the text into a file or document, refresh the page (possibly clearing your cache), and then copy-paste it back in. –Sincerely, A Lime 01:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my mentor I`m glad to meet you, I am wondering if I can add external links about someone but in that link they mention a short paragraph about him. Besides, talking about history about country. Is that works with Wikipedia Policies?

Thanks for your help --Shobadach (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can add external links to relevant articles. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Semi-proportional representation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winner-take-all.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Approval block voting, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

…for your work on the Droop Quota page; it's been a mess for a long time. —JLundell talk  18:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, it's always great to hear back from people! :) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, if you'd like to thank me, there's a bunch of articles I'd need help on, like Draft: List of pathological elections!) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Majority favorite criterion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Majority criterion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Approval block voting. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Highest averages method 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a human here. I've finished reviewing the article, barring signing off the (rather few) items I've listed in the GAN. It'd be appreciated if you'd give an indication of how long you'll need for the review, and indeed if you still wish to go ahead with it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^[1] and 2020 Vox article ^[2] are both about FairVote's polling projects. I don't know if this 2021 WaPo article ^[3] qualifies as a significant mention, but it cites both a FairVote expert (Deb Otis) and Fairvote's polling. This 2023 USA Today piece ^[4] is wholly about Fairvote's 2022 'Monopoly Politics Report'. A Tree In A Box (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Open list, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonpartisan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Electoral quota (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Closed Limelike Curves. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem, 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) 19:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I accidentally had a typo in my email when creating my acct and I can’t figure out how to fix it --GenerallyKate (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be under "Preferences" on the top-right. — Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arrow's impossibility theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Runoff voting.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]