User talk:Lluq

Welcome

Hello, Lluq, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Concern regarding Draft:Co-governance

Hello, Lluq. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Co-governance, 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) 01:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Nanaia Mahuta Nepotism Scandal

Hello, Lluq. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nanaia Mahuta Nepotism Scandal, 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) 16:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Nanaia Mahuta Nepotism Scandal

Hello, Lluq. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Nanaia Mahuta Nepotism Scandal".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to The Disinformation Project—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Respectfully, I made my edit because I felt that particular part of the article did not relate to the topic. It focused heavily on the director (Kate Hannah)’s personal opinions on the topic of disinformation which is problematic for a few reasons:

1. The content has no reliable sources, other than Kate Hannah’s own primary research.

2. It’s about Hannah’s personal opinions, and therefore is more relevant to a Kate Hannah specific wiki article, not for the organisation. In any event it should be abridged.

3. It’s clearly written about Hannah, not about the Project or her feelings in relation to the Project.

4. It’s unnecessarily verbose and requires significant cleanup. Lluq (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Co-governance

Hello, Lluq. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Co-governance".

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!} 19:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Island

Hi there. New Munster also included the southern part of Wellington Province, and ceased to exist in 1853. Referring to the island itself as "New Munster" is not only incorrect but also thoroughly anachronistic when dealing with any time after then - at about the level of measuring velocity in furlongs per fortnight. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source to your assertion that "New Munster" is incorrect? Further, why do you think LINZ would change the name of the South Island in 2013 to "South Island" if that was already its name? As stated by LINZ themselves:

"Assigning South Island as an alternative name made official under the NZGB Act 2008, is an action that effectively overrides the Royal Charter by bringing the name within the statutory place naming framework empowered by Parliament in the NZGB Act 2008."[1]https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/54451

New Munster referred to a geographic region encompassing solely the South Island. It got its name from the 1840 Royal Proclamation which was gazetted as its official name. Only later in the 1850s did it lose its meaning for the South Island, and that name was then used to form the Province of New Munster.

Nobody is disputing that the name is not archaic. It's just that an archaic name doesn't stop it being "official".

Solely at issue is whether the wikipedia article is correct in claiming that prior to 2009, there was no official name for the South Island. That proposition is certainly false. Even the citation in the article does not agree. Lluq (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you need to provide references that actually say the Munster name was official - I have been through your references and they do not do this. The 1840 charter may have attempted to name the islands thus but whether that can be claimed to be official at any time but particularly into the 2qst century is highly questionable. The submission references are really WP:OR on your part. Maungapohatu (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have yet again reverted to your version, you should probably be being blocked for edit warring soon for your constant insisting on the changes you are making. And certainly will if you continue doing what you are doing. You should already realise that there is no way for me or Daveosaurus to prove or provide a reference for a negative so you are being immensely disingenuous.WP:V is a thing and it is up to you to support directly the changes you want retained, as said above your attempts at doing this reliably is not particularly convincing.

Welcome!

Hi Lluq! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

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! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Additionally, you 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 on a page within this topic.

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.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have made an effort request you cannot discuss the request further. Editors who are extended-confirmed can discuss the request if they wish. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]