User talk:71.230.16.111

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to Talk:Coca-Cola. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a minimum number of days and made a minimum number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (71.230.16.111) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have feedback

Hello, 71.230.16.111. You have new messages at Talk:Article 49 of the French Constitution.
Message added by Mathglot (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

CS1 error on Psicose

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Psicose, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

found fixed71.230.16.111 (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of boiling and freezing information of solvents

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of boiling and freezing information of solvents, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fixed 71.230.16.111 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Leoneix _(talk) 13:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary as a source

Hello, I undid your edit on Mise en abyme. Firstly there was already a translation in the same paragraph, but also, Wiktionary is not a valid source for Wikipedia. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, so Wiktionary, being user-generated content, is not suitable. For related information, see Wikipedia:Verifiability § Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it. Thanks. — W.andrea (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Wiktionary can't actually be "user generated content", (a made-up defination wouldn't be of much use) but I didn't realize that it was unsourced. More explanation of the translation would be useful. 71.230.16.111 (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is user-generated content. Nothing is stopping someone from adding a made-up definition — or translation in this case — though we hope it would get reverted quickly. It's the same reason we can't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia (as I linked before).

By the way, I just remembered some caveats: faithful translations don't really require citation, so there was no real need for the ref in the first place. You can see the other translation on the page is also uncited. However, there's also a rule on copying within Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, but I don't believe a short translation is "sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law", so again attribution is not needed, though it'd be good to include it anyway; that would just be a link to the source in the edit summary instead of in the article.

— W.andrea (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:No original research § Translations and transcriptions, it is true, a simple translation doesn't require explanation. But "Un idiotisme, ou une expression idiomatique, est une construction ou une locution particulière à une langue, qui porte un sens par son tout et non par chacun des mots qui la composent. Il peut s'agir de constructions grammaticales ou, le plus souvent, d'expressions imagées ou métaphoriques." does. 71.230.16.111 (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a simple translation doesn't require explanation

Sorry, explanation? I'm talking about citation, that is, giving a source for the information, not explaining it. Either way, the translation in the article is literal, so there's nothing to explain, and the article explains the use of the term in English, which from what I understand is synonymous with the French.

BTW, not to be rude, but why did you quote an entire paragraph instead of just saying "an idiom"? I had a hard time reading what you wrote at first because it breaks up your sentence.

— W.andrea (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't know that simply "an idiom" was actually a correct translation to that meaning in French. Which is why I would prefer more explanation in the article about the translation mentioned.71.230.16.111 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "explanation"? I've already talked about why I feel it's not necessary. — W.andrea (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.