Hello, I'm MrFlyingPies23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Time in Saskatchewan, 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. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Time in Saskatchewan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to 1978 New South Wales state election did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! PiGuy3 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Create an account

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

Learn more about editing

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

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! PiGuy3 (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm The Herald. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 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. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Cell (film), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ItsCheck (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 68.150.205.46! Your additions to Montana First Nation have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source. You must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. Read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Our policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kerry Raymond. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 1893 Queensland colonial election, 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. Kerry (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Dáil Éireann, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dell Latitude E6400 (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at North-West Rebellion. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ®asteem Talk 03:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Thomas Orde Lawder Wilkinson, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -Lemonaka 06:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page North-West Mounted Police during the North-West Rebellion, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 68.150.205.46! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Droop quota several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Droop quota, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Per the consensus on the talk page (3 separate users explaining this to you), please stop edit-warring, or we may have to go to WP:ANEW.. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:68.150.205.46 reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: ). Thank you. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

68.150.205.46, thanks for self-reverting. Can you agree not to re-add the same material until a real consensus is found? An RfC could help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like very much to have this article resolved in line with consensus - of course with Henry Droop's original definition of his quota listed as the main variant of Droop.

I am not so sure why Closed Limelike Curves version should stand in the meantime and not my version as of the end of December.

The warring, if any is happening, is two-sided.

Actually I am being the reasonable party - I am not deleting mention of CLC's Droop variant -- my versions of the article include both his variant and Henry Droop's original Droop quota.

while CLC is actually deleting any mention of Henry Droop's own original Droop quota and having the Droop quota article actually discuss only his variant, and claiming that it is is used in Malta and Ireland when in fact those countries do not use the CLC's "exact Droop" but use Henry Droop's original Droop quota.

Right now, as the article currently stands, it says the N-B variant of Droop is actually the true one and CLC is deleting any mention of Henry Droop's own Droop quota, a position that is ahistorical, inaccurate and not reflective of any formal reference work on PR.

I looked at the talk section last night and found no reference to "consensus", other than what I then put there last night.

so why CLC is claiming that "three separate users" have explained the consensus to me eludes me. 68.150.205.46 (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

It's that simple. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content is actually already included—the dispute comes from an off-by-one error in the first manuscript to define the quota (basically equivalent to the common mistake of misdefining a majority as 50%+1). This mistake has been copied into some legal codes and organizational bylaws, as the article explains (luckily not important, since the difference is just 1 vote). However, this IP feels very strongly that the corrected version is either entirely wrong or needs its own page (despite differing by one vote and a split likely violating WP:POVFORK). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ToBeFree, for information. I am not sure how to go about achieving consensus when CLC is not looking at source documents with open eyes, (Droop published a book where he stated clearly what his quota is) and, as we see in recent statement just above, CLC is not even logical.

Droop did not make any mistake, his quota is carefully thought out as votes/seats+1, +1 or rounded up. it is in fact the smallest whole number of votes that ensures that no more can achieve quota than the number of seats. (Sure Droop was wrong to worry of a disaster arising if in the unlikely event, too many achieve quota, but it is a common rule in practical STV applications that you don't want more to achieve quota than the number of seats. I did say in the article as it stood at the end of December, that votes/seats+1 would actually work but also stated accurately that it's not Henry Droop's Droop quota.)

The point is Malta and Ireland do not use votes/seats+1, although the CLC version of the page says they do. They use Henry Droop's Droop quota (votes/seats+1, +1))

Henry Droop's Droop quota in fact does mimic a majority in a binary situation - 50 percent plus 1 is a majority; anything less (in whole numbers) is not a majority.

Votes/seats+1, plus 1 is 50 percent plus 1, in a single-winner situation.

votes/seats+1 is not a majority. Two people can get that, and no one is clear majority winner.

Sure it is difference of one vote but that one vote has important ramifications.

it is not historically accurate - despite what CLC's version says, Malta and Ireland do not use votes/seats+1 -- they literally use Henry Droop's Droop quota (votes/seats+1, +1).

Apparently the term "IP" refers to me. Hope it is not a slur.

I only am asking for new page because the existing page uses a different formula to Henry Droop's Droop quota, refers to a different quota (exact Droop or Newland-Britton) and not to Droop quota, and scrubs off any reference to Henry Droop's Droop quota.

If the page was put back to how it was at the end of December, there is no need for a Newland-Britton quota page, to my mind.

But if CLC must have page that discusses N-B, then using Droop Quota page for that is inaccurate.

Having a N-B page and a Droop Quota would give CLC what he/she wants, a discussion of N-B, while also having Wikipeda give a proper definition of Henry Droop's Droop quota in the "Droop quota" page. 68.150.205.46 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]