Hello, Prototyperspective, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. 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. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Sm8900 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.
We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 12:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of your edits are unnecessarily long. A maximum of two lines is preferable, but in some places you've written entire paragraphs. It's meant to consist of brief entries (in keeping with previous years, both for Science and other categories), so please try to be more succinct in future. Also, you've absolutely littered that page with red links, making the page appear rather messy. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Visualization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pandemic prevention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifestyle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see in a recent addition to 2020 in science you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please start doing this immediately. Here is an example of how to do it: Diff of 2020 in science— Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gene editing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition to 2020 in science has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please be aware of WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Your changes to the 2020 in science article (transcluding content from another article) have been reverted multiple times now. You don't get to restore your changes just because you feel that there hasn't been enough discussion. At this point, your proposed edit requires some consensus from discussion, and that discussion isn't owed to you. If you tag me in a discussion, I can engage there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gene editing.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.
I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that you need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Current events portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —andrybak (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 in science, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coordination and Bone loss.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 2020 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) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{NoACEMM}}
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nuclear power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy efficiency.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Technology and society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Production.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of senescence research, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifespan.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPA, at article Talk pages please comment about article content, and not upon content contributors. Phrases like fringe/outdated WP:DUE-violating agenda-pushing editors are WP:ASPERSIONS if not outright personal attacks, and such accusations could lead to you being blocked. In basketball parlance, play the ball not the man. If you truly believe an editor, or even a small number of editors, is acting against WP policies at Pentagon UFO videos please raise the issue(s) at the proper venue, such as WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:AE. Perhaps at those venues you will find uninvolved editors and administrators who agree with you? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fringe/outdated WP:DUE-violating agenda-pushing editors
a small number
Please note - there is an ongoing RFC discussion about this, which you were previously involved in Here
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immunity.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of senescence research, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifestyle.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wild pig.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Solar power has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
—PaleoNeonate – 05:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Standardization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compatibility.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Standardization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy efficiency.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where I live it's about 20° F warmer than what was formerly normal this time of year. – Sca (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merck.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of computing 2020–present, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Firewall.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was wondering if it was possible for you to join the meeting with the Community Wishlist Survey team today? We could talk about your proposal. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You just thanked me for an edit. So you might be interested in this PDF I uploaded to zenodo a few minutes ago. It deals with energy sector information.
Best. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful about adding reports based on new papers. Hundreds of thousands of scientific publications appear annually, so it is impractical to add brand new papers otherwise we just puff up articles with newish stuff that has not been time-tested or gives a narrow perspective, i.e. WP:UNDUE. WP:NOTNEWS. Instead, Wikipedia aspires to WP:SECONDARY for most articles and for mature themes, WP:TERTIARY.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Climate justice into Climate change mitigation. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
You need to read wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being blunt, but Wikipedia went through similar issues with paranormal enthusiasts a dozen years ago, and they had tons of mainstream/media/sensational sources. They too felt it was Wikipedia’s duty to report imminent scientific breakthroughs in establishing the reality of psychic/paranormal phenomena/ghosts/etc. They too had scientists and people with advanced degrees and their own scientific papers/journals with supposedly observable evidence as well as well-funded academic, private, and military research programs, and favorable public polling, all of which they felt attested to the legitimacy of their science and the urgent need to pursue it. They too felt that their field had been sullied by hucksters and opportunists in the past, but the current stuff was the real deal, and made an effort to rehabilitate the field and update historically depreciated terms with new, more scientific ones. A strong belief that the world was on the frontier of fantastic new scientific discoveries led by bold pioneers brought many to Wikipedia to challenge what they felt were Wikipedia’s outdated and biased policies. But Wikipedia, by design, stays well behind the cutting edge, and lags even further behind when a topic is characterized by WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, WP:SENSATIONALism, and primary papers that as user:Smokefoot puts it, reflect "newish stuff that has not been time-tested or gives a narrow perspective". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Academic_research_about_UFOs_and_related_phenomena. [1] Without secondary or tertiary sources which identify these ufology claims as "academic research" that is worthy of note, Wikipedia cannot be in the business of producing such original content. jps (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I intended to say is that you should adhere to WP:DEM and that you appear to me as routinely violating WP:NPOV which you shouldn't
Along with a circle of other guardkeepers
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Fringe science. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. The term "fringe science" is nowhere mentioned in the sources you cited. jps (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No longer confined to the fringe, UFO theories move into the mainstream
Ufology: From Fringe Field to Serious Science For decades, academic researchers have dismissed the study of UFOs as pseudoscience. But as the evidence becomes harder and harder to ignore, some organizations are finally taking steps to make the field legitimate.
the US government was finally taking seriously what for so long was considered a fringe issue.
a landmark sign that this previously fringe topic has gained mainstream acceptance
Scientific investigations must be open to all possibilities. ... However, this new willingness to assess possibilities that had been dismissed as fringe ideas may have a cost.
Rubio’s comments add support to other calls to treat possible UFO sightings with legitimacy rather than as fringe beliefs, a recent shift that
How does bringing a previously fringe belief into the mainstream affect public opinion? This paper investigates the possibility that official legitimization of a hypothesis long relegated to the margins softens public attitudes toward those who
It is in this particular historical context that the UFO phenomenon was able to advance from marginalized knowledge to mainstream discourses regardless of criticism and ridicule.
And so, in the span of a few months, a topic long confined to the tabloids and fringe media had become a “serious news story” as the Post asserted in its coverage last year, shortly after it published Mellon’s op-ed.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly advise you to stop your pointless entirely undiscussed fucking around with the article title in the middle of the AfD. Such behaviour can only reasonably be interpreted as either intentionally disruptive, or as (further) evidence of a lack of competence to edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They don't count as academic studied and there are no reliable sources that identify them as such
means to change the rule or criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress
"...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation...despite their existence as reliable sources. (underline is mine)
"...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation...despite their existence as reliable sources.
perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
more in-depth discussion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Fram (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Prototyperspective/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prototyperspective/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Prototyperspective/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sundostund (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not kidding about this warning. This is the second time you have done this and we have plenty of evidence to indicate that you are acting in defiance of WP:OWN, WP:SPA, and WP:ADVOCACY. It is okay to collaborate, but if you return to the behavior that happened the last time, I will have no choice but to escalate. jps (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view
Thank you for adding some up-to-date stats to Cancer#Prevention. I moved the AMPK bit to a subarticle (the main article is about 9600 words today, which means that it would take longer than half an hour to read it from top to bottom, which in turn means that basically nobody will actually read it).
Would you be willing to tackle the self-contradictions around cancer prevention stats in that article? I was looking at this diff a while ago and thinking that the numbers at the top of that edit don't match the numbers elsewhere in the article. Replacing all of them with the same set of up-to-date, global stats would be a valuable contribution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2022 (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.
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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from COVID-19 pandemic into COVID-19 pandemic deaths. 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) 03:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such deaths also include, for example, deaths due to healthcare capacity constraints and priorities, as well as reluctance to seek care (to avoid possible infection).
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Research in lithium-ion batteries, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Content attributable only to a university press release and a primary scholarly article would be original research, and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. I see from here on your talk page this is not the first time you've been warned about primary vs secondary sources. Please be more careful. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Discovery.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neuroenhancement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valerian.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairness.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moratorium.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Summary.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop filling entries with such enormous detail? Some of them are ludicrously excessive. You were told about this before. They should be 1 or 2 lines maximum. Not five or six, accompanied by half a dozen references, as you seem to do in many cases. Please keep entries concise. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Prototyperspective I hope you are well. The above review has been waiting for a while - would you be able to complete it? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Hello, Prototyperspective. Thank you for your work on Air travel demand reduction. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:
Hello! I want to inform you that I have checked your article and mark it as reviewed. However, no article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Fixing it would be great for this article. Have a good day and thanks for creating the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
{{Re|SunDawn}}
~~~~
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a public place. Accidentally clicked a link while trying to click a diff. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conclusion-making until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Prototyperspective. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Transportation policy, 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) 12:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Prototyperspective. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Advertising restrictions, 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2023 (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.
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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Prototyperspective: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Prototyperspective: I reviewed this article and I notice you didn't page numbers in. I put one in one references, but several others don't seem to have it. Also Ref 5 is damaged and not been fixed. I'm reluctant to pass the review unless these are fixed. Its a shame as such interesting softwar, its so weird and strange. I love this kind of stuff. scope_creepTalk 17:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Prototyperspective, I read your posts and comments on Reddit[12] [13] and I was curious about your thoughts on my proposal for a new Wikimedia project called Wikimedia Commons AI. It seems that you have a lot of understanding of artificial intelligence! I look forward to hearing your response! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) – 10:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindawi.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged with {{Clarify}} a couple of sentences that you wrote (and that I moved) in the paragraph about Kialo in Argument map § Development of computer-supported argument visualization. Could you try to improve the tagged sentences? I'm not familiar enough with Kialo to edit these sentences into a more comprehensible form, but perhaps you could take another shot at it. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of computing 2020–present, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mind reading.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You've been adding links to Kialo discussions to the external links on various articles, but I don't believe a Kialo discussion meets any of the criteria under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Could you let me know which of those criteria you consider the links to meet? Thanks. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to […] amount of detail
Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
Template:Kialo arguments tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bon courage (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Category:Kialo ID not in Wikidata indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Prototyperspective. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Online semi-censorship, 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Prototyperspective. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Advertising restrictions".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Prototyperspective. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Transportation policy".
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finally created a Wikibook about my idea for Wikiphilosophers (see https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiphilosophers). Would you perhaps like to think about and contribute to this as well? I look forward to hearing from you! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) – 02:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Prototyperspective. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Online semi-censorship".
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for registration your wish here. I looked for a short description about differences to some existing projects. Probably I did not read carefully enough. Probably a short description (Aims and goals and how it works) would be helpful. F.e. when I find an existing article in another language I can translate in browser (became also better). The problem ist to find it: Searching in German and find, that there is an article in any other language. Interface to Wikidata may probably solve it. And when you translate in advance and store permanently in WP the problem is, that all updates will not be included. Am I right when you have a solution: User with language A does a search for topic T in his language, finds a WP Article in language B (Wikidata based) and can translate in real time to his language A? --Wortulo (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
outline (tl;dr)
search term wiki
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.
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) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Prototyperspective, you have pretty impressive timelines here. Do you think Timeline of Ufology is worth keeping? It seems like that you uploaded the figure from Limina: Journal of UAP studies on wikimedia, so you are probably personally invested in the field. Just want to get some opinion from you on how useful/hopeless that the timeline of ufology is at the current stage. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conclusion.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Friend. Yug (talk) 🐲 16:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, tooltips (like those created by {{hover title}} or {{tooltip}} can't be read by people using mobile devices, which is about half of Wikipedia's traffic these days. I recommend avoiding them and putting inessential text (if needed at all) in explanatory footnotes or parentheses. -- Beland (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments here. Since you seem to be well-informed about such topics in general, I'd just like to mention that the Signpost could use more coverage in that area. (We used to have "Technology report" as a recurring section in every issue with independent coverage of various technical news; now it mostly being used for one-off pieces, often by guest authors presenting their own projects. I still sometimes try to contribute some independent reporting myself, such as the News & notes story you commented on, or this piece last year. But we don't really have regular beat reporting of that area currently.)
So, if you are happen to be aware of any interesting news or discussions about Wikimedia-related technical topics that you think Signpost readers would benefit from knowing about, I'd encourage you to consider contributing a story. If it is a smaller item (i.e. may not warrant a full standalone "Technology report"), you can just add it to the draft of the upcoming "News and notes" section, which will usually be linked from the Newsroom page. I and surely also other Signpost regulars would be happy to review and give further pointers. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your efforts to improve WikiProject Middle-earth, but please note that fan art is basically forbidden, especially in the lead section and infobox, and can only be used in other places with extremely obvious justification. The project is in fact very fully illustrated with photographs, professional artworks, maps, diagrams, and tables, so there is now little need for additional illustration. As elsewhere, images must not be added if they would cause sandwiching of the text, or disruption further down the article, such as running into other sections or the references list. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your argument, but there's no need to respond to each and every comment. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you tendentious little shit
Go away. Get a fucking clue.
A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Data Visualization participants indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 19:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]