User talk:HudecEmil

Hello, HudecEmil, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as One person, one vote, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Happy Editing--IAmChaos 19:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcome HudecEmil (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on One person, one vote requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 19:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, speedy deletion is desired. My redirect was unintended. HudecEmil (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Wasted vote into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. HudecEmil (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Thanks for your work on Efficiency gap. Fascinating stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HudecEmil (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:One man, one vote requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Already exists in main space

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is deleted. HudecEmil (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:One person, one vote requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Already exists in main space

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is deleted. HudecEmil (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please do not changes this redirect into an article without consensus at Talk:One man, one vote. The speedy deletion tags on your user page and lack of concrete approval at the above talk page suggest that you need consensus to implement the split. You might need to call a WP:RFC to draw attention to the issue if you cannot gain consensus on the talk page already. Please do not change the redirect without first gaining consensus. Thank you, CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waited for consensus and proceeded accordingly. HudecEmil (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HudecEmil

Thank you for creating Spare vote.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Great article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 17:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Thanks. HudecEmil (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HudecEmil. Thank you for creating Political fragmentation. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

thanks for the article

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. HudecEmil (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. HudecEmil (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HudecEmil. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:One person, one vote, 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) 16:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's deleted. HudecEmil (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow's theorem applies to rank-order systems, not single-winner systems. (I believe there are similar theorems for single-winner systems but I'm not sure exactly what conditions are needed.) What it forbids is a system that takes candidates A, B, and C and returns an ordering like A > B > C; systems that return A or systems that return {A,B} are outside its scope. I believe single-winner still fails but set of winners can succeed (look at the top set, for example).

CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem is limited to single winner, but Arrow's theorem is not, thanks for correcting. HudecEmil (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want multi-winner systems, you should look at the Duggan–Schwartz theorem which extends Gibbard–Satterthwaite to that case. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duggan–Schwartz theorem is only for ranked preferences, not cardinal HudecEmil (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HudecEmil. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "One person".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's deleted. HudecEmil (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HudecEmil. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:One man, one vote, 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) 23:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's deleted. HudecEmil (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HudecEmil. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "One man".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's deleted. HudecEmil (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If indices found in lead.....would be great time to move to body. WP:COUNTRYLEAD "Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the body of the article. See Canada or Japan for examples." Moxy- 13:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, moved. HudecEmil (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 25stargeneral. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Min Aung Hlaing, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! 25stargeneral (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and improved in that sense. HudecEmil (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HudecEmil, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Edward-Woodrow, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Presidentialism metrics, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidentialism metrics.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

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

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

Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notification, I did respond in that discussion. HudecEmil (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Veto Players, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Power index. 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) 06:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me, I intended to link to that disambiguation page. HudecEmil (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. HudecEmil (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Democratic backsliding by country into Democracy in Venezuela. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me, added attribution and improving my general attribution. HudecEmil (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, removing a redirect through blanking it, as you did with Democracy in russia is not a right way: it simply creates more work for other editors. If you disagree with the existence of a redirect, the proper way is to go through WP:RFD. Викидим (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the function of blanking, not doing that anymore. HudecEmil (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you've been making a number of edits relating to the biology of race and sex/gender today. A large proportion of them have been reverted, both by me and a number of other experienced editors. There have been a variety of reasons for this, but some of the edits did not turn out to be supported by the sources you provided (e.g. this one and this one). I strongly suggest that you slow down. It's clear that you are operating in a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, but if others need to comb through your edits, check the sources, and revert most of them, it ends up being a drain on the project. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slowing down and be less bold and more accurate is a good point, especially for contentious topics. HudecEmil (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We rarely use blogs. Exceptionally we might use one by an expert in their field. That doesn't apply to this one, and I note that the author of the post is anonymous. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing. This blog reference is currently used in Species concept (not added by me, please remove it there as well). But agreeing that for a contentious topic a blog is not sufficient. HudecEmil (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.

You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS.

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours per page for pages within this topic. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have read Wikipedia:Contentious topics and from now not doing bold edits in contentious topics. HudecEmil (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for no responses on talk page for over a year.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 09:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to respond and you can be unblocked. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HudecEmil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do agree that the sources I used were either not reliable enough in case of that blog or I didn't describe the source accurately enough, especially relevant for contentious topics. As for the older Talk page posts I did reflect on them at that time and adjusted my further edits accordingly. Since I didn't really disagree I didn't respond in the past. Is there a Wikipedia rule that one must/should respond on User Talk? Either way, I agree (after being alerted to this) that it is helpful to actually answer on User Talk with text responses and if there is no such explicit Wikipedia rule there should be. HudecEmil (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't actually a commitment to respond, just a statement that it would be helpful. Yamla (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To clarify, I commit to responding to every single message on my User Talk.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

HudecEmil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I responded to every post on my talk page and took a couple days to reflect. I agree and commit that I will respond to any post on my talk page from now on. HudecEmil (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I will assume good-faith that you are cognizant of what caused the block in the first place and accept the unblocking on the strict conditions that you are receptive and responsive to communications from other users to prevent similar occurances in the future Q ^{T C} 18:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HudecEmil (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also agree to be more aware of other parts of building consensus besides just being bold? Q ^{T C}

Yes, I agree to be more aware of the other parts of the consensus-building process, read and respect existing consensus, and before potentially controversial edits seek consensus. In particular, I will err on the side of caution, especially for contentious topics. For edits that could be considered controversial, I will first make a proposal on the talk page so I don't do disruptive editing. HudecEmil (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the 2nd chance, and I will be receptive and responsive to communications from other users. HudecEmil (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HudecEmil. Thank you for your work on Democracy in Asia. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HudecEmil (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HudecEmil. Thank you for your work on Democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HudecEmil (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your close, as I think the consensus is leaning towards merge. Anyway, best practices are that if one voted, they should not close discussion. And I recommend a bit more experience before trying to close non-clear discussions or such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, yeah shouldn't have closed when I voted. HudecEmil (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Social justice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairness.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

replaced HudecEmil (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @HudecEmil

Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles. Came across your edit at Social exclusion .

Requesting your visit to Tashabbuh (still a draft in my userspace) and help expand the topic areas if you find topic interesting. Wish you very happy Wikipedia editing.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the invite, but not sure I can help HudecEmil (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HudecEmil, I have undone your page move of Estimates of sexual violence to Sexual violence statistics because your proposal did not follow the formal process for requesting a single page move. As such, I see it as a bold move that can be reverted because there has been no meaningful discussion. The lack of discussion on the talk page does not always imply strong consensus. It simply means that merely adding the proposal to the talk page has not generated any meaningful discussion with the people who you need to achieve consensus with. That is what the potentially controversial page move process is intended to achieve. But because the due process was not followed in this case a proper consensus has not been achieved. I, for one, am not convinced by the merits of your proposed move. Estimates are not statistics and changing the title changes what the article is about. If you had read and fully understood the section about sexual violence statistics in the article about Sexual violence, you would have realized that "Sexual violence is ... widely underreported ...[and the] available statistics are unlikely to inform about the true scale of the problem." This is why "Estimates" is a better term to be in the title of the article. However, given the article also includes a table of statistics, you might not be the only editor who misunderstands the difference between estimates and statistics in the context of sexual violence. I would welcome having a more detailed discussion about this on the article talk page - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, should have followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial, sorry, will further discuss on Talk:Estimates of sexual violence HudecEmil (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had a total brainfart over at Institutional racism. I took a problematic source out and replaced it with some better ones. Then, when searching for new sources, added the same one back in again. I don't know how I did that. Probably a copy/paste fail. Anyway, I see you took it back out again. Thanks for that! Lewisguile (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, no worries HudecEmil (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understand HudecEmil (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks very much for your update at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Approval_voting&diff=prev&oldid=1096365481 which I encountered only recently!

I am interested in more information on modified approval voting (and Latvia's experience with it) so I posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latvia#Latvian_voting_systems_-_modified_approval_voting.

If you can suggest other sources on Wikipedia or have things that might not be appropriate to add to the Approval_voting article right now, feel free to post on User_talk:OneSkyWalker.

And just out of curiosity, why is one userbox the only thing on User:HudecEmil?

Thanks again for your work on Wikipedia! I am happy to see that your unblock request was eventually accepted! OneSkyWalker (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that you found that edit useful.

I rather edit articles than my own User page. Someone helpfully added that userbox there. HudecEmil (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]