User talk:Zero Contradictions

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Our five pillars Introduction to Wikipedia How to edit a page (editing policy) Help pages index (glossary) Article development Wikitext cheatsheet While editing Wikipedia: Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Be bold, but do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing. Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites. No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts. Provide reliable sources to the content you add. If you are adding biomedical information, please follow this guideline. Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources. Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum. If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.

If you have any questions, check out the Teahouse or ask me on my talk page. Please sign your messages on discussion pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, welcome! ----Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 10mmsocket. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Channel Tunnel, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out, and sorry for the late response. I do have a source for one of the sentences that I added to the lead section, but I didn't include it because: 1. the source is cited for a completely identical sentence later in the article, 2. I didn't know to cite the same source twice at the time, and 3. since lead sections don't always include sources for their sentences. In hindsight though, I suppose every sentence of the lead section for Channel Tunnel should be cited, to maintain consistency with the other sentences.

If I'm not mistaken, WP:REPEATCITE explains how a source can be cited twice, by adding a name parameter, right? If so, then I could re-include the sentence in the lead section by specifying a name parameter, right? Zero Contradictions (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For posteriority, I should note that I added the text into the lead section by making a citation that makes use of the name parameter. Nobody has challenged my edit for the past week, so I judge that it was a good contribution. I'm glad that I figured out to cite the same source multiple times. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have an issue with User:Farcaster?

OK, but right now you don’t seem to know what you are doing, so please worry about yourself and leave others alone. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any issues with him personally. I'm glad that he's contributed to Wikipedia. I also agree with some of the opinions written on his userpage, and I have no problems with him expressing his opinions. My only contention is that Wikipedia user pages aren't supposed to be blogs, as indicated in the guidelines, WP:NOTBLOG. As I've said before, I don't see any reason why he should use his user page as a blog when he could use a more appropriate site for that purpose.

And what do you mean when you say that "[I] don't know what I'm doing"? I know that I'm still learning how to edit Wikipedia, but regardless, my reason for nominating the user page for deletion is still clearly supported by the Wikipedia guidelines and by at least two other users who have commented on this issue before. Zero Contradictions (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, your MfD nomination was wrong in so many ways, I don’t think it is worth you trying again any time soon. Get more experience editing mainspace. Participate in some WP:XfDs before making your own. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the advice. Zero Contradictions (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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.

Doug Weller talk 14:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical linguistics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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!

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. ~~~~ S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Philbrick. I read the edit summary and saw the differences between the versions. I'd like to know more specifically what, where, and why copyright was allegedly violated with the edits that I made. Your revert of many of my previous edits to the Demurrage currency article also reverted many improvements that were unquestionably not violations of copyright at all.

I'd rather keep the contributions that I made in some form, even if that means paraphrasing it or making other edits that are necessary in order to avoid infringing on copyright. I never intended to violate copyright and I thought I sufficiently paraphrased the text before including it into the article. But if that wasn't sufficient, then I am prepared to paraphrase the text even further as needed right now. I would also keep this in mind for future contributions, since I am still somewhat new at adding new text to Wikipedia.

I'd like to know how to proceed. Since your edit reverted a lot of uncontroversial improvements as well, would it be best for me to undo your revert and immediately proceed to make the necessary changes for including the new text while avoiding copyright infringement? If the only issue is regarding citations of the https://www.noemamag.com/what-if-money-expired/ article, then this should be a quick fix. Please let me know what can be done to resolve all this. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to heavily edit the most recent version that I made to ensure firm compliance in WP:Copyrights. I am now certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the new version of Demurrage currency does not plagiarize nor violate any copyright laws, so hopefully this resolves the issue. I pledge that I will never let something like the prior offending edit(s) happen again. Zero Contradictions (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. ~~~~ S Philbrick(Talk) 13:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Philbrick. In hindsight, I agree that one of my previous edits to Hoarding (economics) was a potential copyright violation, and I apologize for that. I was not aware that WP:Close paraphrasing is usually not sufficient for contributing text to Wikipedia, and I will make sure that I don't repeat that mistake again. I edited the article again to cite the two sources from before, but my inclusion is heavily paraphrased this time to ensure compliance with WP:Copyrights. Thank you for your notice. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Demurrage currency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channel island.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Pro-mortalism. Thanks! Ldm1954 (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Demurrage currency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bond.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]