User talk:WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- -

Welcome!

Hello, WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- -, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of BioDan Group

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.

A tag has been placed on BioDan Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just saw a red article and the first thing I thought was to create the article. I have never seen any rules about creating wiki from the fact that I thought it was just gonna be obvious. I was brand new. WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm Dl2000. An edit that you recently made to Mike Worsley seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dl2000 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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]

October 2023

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Rabbit vesivirus (RaV). You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Vändra

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Vändra, 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) 11:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

minor edits and edit summaries

Hi WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- -! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.

Also: Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DoctorMatt (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhyIsNameSoHardOmg. I noticed that the issues that Doctormatt mentioned are still occurring. You seem to still be flagging issues as minor edits that do not qualify for that flag, and your edits are missing summaries. I hope you will consider reviewing Help:Minor edit for guidance and start adding edit summaries; it would really help out your fellow editors. Jlahorn (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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]

Edit summaries (March 2024)

Hello, WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- -! I noticed that you regularly remove content from articles without providing an edit summary, as you've done with Clean Air India Movement. As DoctorMatt informed you in November, you must provide an edit summary, especially when removing a large amount of content from an article. As DoctorMatt stated, "This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the 'prompt me when entering a blank edit summary' box in your preferences. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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. Note: This notification was triggered due to your recent edits to Sweet Baby Inc.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- -. Thank you for your work on Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

It seems reasonable to have a page on this now, the key issue being whether there is evidence of sustained coverage. This seems likely given the number of backers of the proposed legislation, but isn't guaranteed. When you're writing new pages, think about adding categories, which is another way in which readers can find relevant content.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of material from user-generated websites

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm sorry. Though for warnings, I still believe that I'm right (humbly for sure!). Can we talk here? The first is that it is technically not wrong. As in the claims can or have been accidentally turned from "It was changed on this date" to "It was archived on this date". Yeah, I'm wrong on the first. Also, I thought editing warring is more severe than that ngl. I also might have gotten too far on the Ignore all rules WP. No one good-faithed user love blocks and I will defend myself (hopefully not in a war).

Please detail what the problematic claims are (per bold). WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's really simple. The source for the material you added is a user-generated content website. We don't treat such websites as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Reliable sources determine not only the facts, but which facts are useful and relevant to an encyclopaedia article. The names of various forum posts do not appear in a reliable source = they are not appropriate to an encyclopaedia article on the topic. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can it might be Original research? Also, Wikipedia is never simple. (I'm assuming it's the variance post's titles [1], but contrast per Wayback Machine's reliability in not fabricating contents). I think this level of super determinism isn't necessary and it hurts (kind of relevant but semi-useless information. WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't understand Can it might be Original research?, nor but contrast per Wayback Machine's reliability in not fabricating contents. Regardless, please don't use user-generated content as a reliable source for a citation in future. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ookey WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kling AI (June 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jeraxmoira was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kling AI and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- -! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! asilvering (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please stop removing large amounts of content from the Acorn Archimedes article - often with virtually no informative edit summary, since "Revi." is not informative - at least until you constructively engage with the contributors to that article on its talk page. You have removed copious amounts of context, rendering some of the information incoherent or inaccurate, if not flat out incorrect. If these edits are intended to reduce the length of the article, I have proposed to break it up into separate articles, which is precisely what other articles on related topics do. PaulBoddie (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Lovely! ViolanteMD (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divergence-from-randomness model - I am in the middle of non-trivial changes to it

Isn't there a way to see if someone is already in the middle of editing an article? I am having a very hard time trying to determine what you changed vs. what I am doing. I will attempt my best but most of what I am changing is "additions" and not likely what you changed. not sure how to effectively merge. so please don't change anything else until I get my changes in. Jjamulla (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I report you for vandalism yet, but you are twice now deleting LARGE PORTIONs of the following article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence-from-randomness_model

Unless you are an expert in the subject you should not be doing this. I am going to revert your changes now.

I also added references and plenty of other information which now twice you threw down the toilet.

Why are you making "random" changes to this article? Jjamulla (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow for any usage of "we" (or at least any other direct addresses of the reader), so I recommend you to rewrite the page if necessary to be closer to Manual of Style (in Use of pronouns). The page is read as if it is a tutorial, not that I despise them! It is just how Wikipedia loves it.

The page seems to be overexplaining the 'basic' form of what is an independence assumption in an overtly detailed manner. And, "When a specific rare term cannot be found in a document, then in that document the term has approximately zero probability of being informative. On the other hand, if a rare term occurs frequently in a document, therefore it can have a very high, near 100% probability to be informative for the topic that mentioned by the document. Applying to Ponte and Croft's language model can also be a good idea." might be rewritten as:

"Given a term that is rare in the document, it might be considered to have approximately zero probability of being 'informative'; if the term occurs frequently, then it is assumed that it can have a near 100% probability to be 'informative'."

Notice how I don't include any suggestions for the reader? If you want to include them, you might 'have' to use real usage of it to say something like "Some studies have tried [that model]." Words such as "notice" is also considered to be a 'bad practice'. The text "The effectiveness of the models based on divergence from randomness is very high in comparison with both BM25 and language model. For short queries, the performance of the models of divergence from randomness is definitely better than the BM25 Model, which since 1994 has been used as a standard baseline for the comparison of the models." also seems to be a POV.

Also, you should not hyperlink a subsection or a header. It is better to just include them in a paragraph that explains what it is in a direct manner. The article runs into the problem of having way too much technical computerese for general readers to understand. You might want to make the wording simpler. Wikipedia is also not a directory list; do not list anything that has ever been associated with this subject unless they are considered to be 'notable'!

I'm very aware of the overtly dangerous presence of ignoring the information contained in the text, but I tried to not just disregard everything away. If you asked me whether or not the math equation was important, it feels a bit icky, since I feel like it requires at least two sources for it to be considered firm information about it. On that note, just notice how, at the cat page, you will see that the External links are at the very bottom of the page, not above the References. I can understand your frustration with having a large amount of text deleted seemingly without any good reason, but then again, what is life? I'm happy to help! WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR: Don't address the reader. Don't hyperlink a subsection or header text. External links should be at the very bottom of the page. Off-toned encyclopedic information (aka, not rigid information, as in not facts, but ways you can 'do it', a tutorial is considered 'bad' I guess). WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(creeped on over from the Teahouse) The most relevant guidance here might be WP:NOTGUIDE and MOS:ORDER. Folly Mox (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Columbia Police Department (Missouri), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City code. 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) 07:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello, I'm Leonidlednev. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tahkovuori have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 14:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]