User talk:Wotheina

Kami (disambiguation)
Please note that disambiguation pages like Kami (disambiguation) are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:


 * Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
 * Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
 * Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
 * Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
 * Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
 * Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory
 * WP:DABRELATED, include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please tell that to the people who added those items. Wotheina (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarke
Hi, just wanted to say: Seriously impressive work on the Clarke number article. An exceptionally clean way of presenting the sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Length (phonetics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concomitant ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Length_%28phonetics%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Length_%28phonetics%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 20:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Nucleoplasm
Hello Wotheina, Thank you for adding links to the terms that seem confusing. I agree that readers should be able to look into what those terms mean if they do not fully understand them. Thank you for also editing my citations to make them all look the same which is more visually appealing. The only thing I disagree with right now is the use of old citations from the 1800s-1900s. Using information from these sources may not be accurate anymore so I would suggest looking into more up to date papers that includes the information you want to use from the older sources. JmwBIO401 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)JmwBIO401
 * (I added a section header titled "Nucleoplasm" to this new topic created by JmwBIO401). I suppose you are talking about my edit  Revision as of 03:33, 27 November 2021 for article Nucleoplasm (Please note that in Wikipedia, it is difficult to find when and where editors met). Let me explain why I kept the ancient 1879 article. First, for scientific descriptions, you are right that up-to-date information are preferrable. For that, I've included Battaglia 2010 to inform the latest relationship between the terms "karyoplasm" and "nucleoplasm". However, my concern was to help people who face a term "karyoplasm", perhaps in classic papers, and come to Wikipedia to find what it is. Battaglia 2010 interpreted that it is synonymous to "nucleoplasm", and cites Fleming 1878. The best source to verify this is the Fleming 1878 itself. One thing still lacking though is the latest status of the term "karyoplasm". If "karyoplasm" is obsolete today, I want to add that information with a source that explicitly says so. Battaglia 2010 Table 10 implies so, but Battaglia seems to have an own agenda, so I avoided that part. Wotheina (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Korean diaspora
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Korean diaspora, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please stop edit warring. If your trying to disrupt with making no use in your edits its not recommended for you to be editing some identified edits.'' MrStephenLeon (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * In Special:Diff/1068070507 Revision as of 13:57, 26 January 2022 I explained 3 reasons of my revert, but then you just counter-reverted in Special:Diff/1068123351 with no explanation. I will recap them here with additional comments:
 * (1) "Criteria of all numbers and sum amount of this table is maintained by sourcing solely from http://www.mofa.go.kr/www/wpge/m_21509/contents.do (2019)": Look at the table Special:Permalink/1053108384. The criteria (source) and date of all these numbers are consistent, so they can be compared with each other, and can be summed, and the sum can be verified on the MOFA page. Inserting a number with different criteria will make them uncomparable, and worse, conflict with the sum. (One way to solve this issue may be to build a separate table).
 * (2) "https://www.kpbs.org/news/2007/01/03/descendants-of-korean-immigrants-to-mexico has no number": I guess you want to sum two numbers "30,000" + "50,000", but this source contains neither number, so should not be cited here.
 * (3) "no source says 30,000": https://www.mofa.go.kr/www/wpge/m_21509/contents.do gave "11,897" for 2019 (https://web.archive.org/web/20211120060817/https://www.mofa.go.kr/www/wpge/m_21509/contents.do) (they recently updated it to "11,107" (2021)). "30,000" is not sourced by any of the 3 citations. You need a source that clearly says "80,000" or "30,000". Additionally, suppose you will find such source, summing "30,000" + "50,000" has another danger of WP:SYNTHESIS. At least you should clearly display both of these numbers and cite them independently, to allow your readers to verify where your sum came from. Also be very careful not to double-count the same population that are already included in https://overseas.mofa.go.kr/mx-ko/brd/m_5957/view.do?seq=1185996&srchFr=&srchTo=&srchWord=&srchTp=&multi_itm_seq=0&itm_seq_1=0&itm_seq_2=0&company_cd=&company_nm=&page=1 . There are websites quoting "30,000", but the quoters distance themselves away from such claims, so that number seems not well supported.
 * Your subsequent edit note in Special:Diff/1068535202 revision as of 00:01, 29 January 2022, "its a total of all the numbers of nationals, descendants, and Koreans.", still does not address these 3 problems. Wotheina (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Hi Wotheina! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Arabs in Europe 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&#32;at, 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. I noticed you are reverting edits, in contention with other users, Wikipedia is a cooperative platform and process.. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning. I guess you are talking about my edit Special:Diff/1122380980. I did explain to the editor what the problem is, in Special:Diff/1122375579, but failed to include the link to that in my edit note. Sorry about that. By the way, what do you see when you click this URL, which is the subject of dispute: https://web.archive.org/web/20190228151603/http://www.media-citizenship.eu/images/stories/pdf/Amsterdam_national_focus_group_report.pdf ? --Wotheina (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it's quite clear - thankfully the current version now has the changes you implemented because the fact you illustrated was eventually found.    Just as an observation (in my own learning process as this was my first warn, perhaps not thought out as much as it needed to be)  something I am personally gleaning as a new editor is that there is a tremendous amount of "administrative" overhead occuring in the background.  For example, Why would anyone want to have (and stoically insist) on having an obviously wrong result or work product?  Perhaps the objective was to have the "wrong result with more overhead created."  I guess the point is not to feed into "misplaced stoicism"  ￼ Anyway, that is just me musing..I don't mind being wrong and adjusting as facts or perception change.  BTW I am glad to meet you and look forward to working with you in the future.  Flibbertigibbets (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Muntjac
Whoops... I didn't see that you had done almost the same thing I did. I thought I was only reverting the previous editor, then implementing the IPA. No slight intended. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No worries, happens all the time :) -- Wotheina (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Japanese curry
Hi. and on the Japanese curry page appear to be typical sock puppets, how do you think you should handle this? He has a strong interest in Japan-India relations, and as soon as his edits were challenged, a new account was created and he resumed editing. When I asked him a question on |his talk page, he blanked out the section.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. I agree they are suspicious of sockpuppeting. However, I have no time to delve into this case. I just pray they listen and stop shoving off-topic stuff. Maybe Special:Diff/1214311583 is an attempt to listen. To me, it is still needless and bad (a legend with no credibility hence worthless; a blatant coatracking by connecting totally unrelated claims with "Whether the legend is true or not,"; the awkward stressing "in South Asia"; off-topic claims not even in the cited source: "the British East India Company popularized", "leading to its popularity", etc.), but I don't want to do consecutive reverts so will leave its fate to you and other editors. --Wotheina (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I also think his edit is the problem and I will undo it.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)