User talk:Y-S.Ko/Archive 2

Ways to improve D. D. Raphael
Hi, I'm Adotchar. Y-S.Ko, thanks for creating D. D. Raphael!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I'm not PRODing it because it's only been here for a few minutes. Please reference it.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

 Adotchar &#124; reply here 23:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

July 2019
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pseudoscience, 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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Please explain ...
Your mass removal of articles from Category:Pseudoscience. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 23:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To Roxy, the dog . wooF: Category:Pseudoscience is confusing, because diverse topics characterized as pseudoscience (i.e. Alternative medicine), concepts related to pseudoscience (i.e. Charlatan), explanation about pseudoscience (i.e. History of pseudoscience) are mixed. There is also an advice "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories." in the article Category:Pseudoscience. I just followed this advice. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop doing that, until I have had a chance to seek some guidance from WP:FTN. Thanks. Roxy, the dog . wooF 00:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Topics characterized as pseudoscience


A tag has been placed on Category:Topics characterized as pseudoscience requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Outline of physics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Displacement and Position ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Outline_of_physics check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Outline_of_physics?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) 08:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Skin test
Could you please provide some basic sourcing for this article? Technically I should be moving this out of mainspace because it is entirely unreferenced - I'm not doing that because it has a number of incoming links that would break. But please do find some references for the general concept, otherwise it should go back to a redirect. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ventilation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pericardial.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jürgen Habermas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Power.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Youtube links
When adding links to material on external sites, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  Graham 87  14:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed you adding lots of links to Étude Op. 25, No. 9 (Chopin) last night my time, and they were all OK save one that was geoblocked here in Australia. However, many of the links you added to Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel were problematic because it wasn't clear that the performer's copyright wasn't violated. If in doubt, stick to topic or artists' official channels. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a link directory, though I understand that there are many interpretation styles for classical pieces and one or two links might not be enough. Other editors might be stricter than I am about the links you're adding ... and I hope they don't lead to a slippery slope of people trying to add non-notable performances ... but your links are generally OK by me. Graham 87 14:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Piano Concerto No. 2 (Brahms), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Munch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Japanese encephalitis into List of infectious diseases. 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.,. 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 Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Healthcare payment moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Healthcare payment, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:44, 11 October 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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You aren't a new editor so you should know when you shouldn't use the minor edits checkbox
As you did on the 4th and the 6th. By marking them as minor you are telling editors "nothing to see here, move on", which wasn't correct. Please respond, I'd like to see some evidence you read your talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller: Both cases are only deleting one phrase and one sentence. And meaning is not that much changed. In Kleiber case, there is a phrase which has similar meaning. So, deleting one phrase is minor change. In Mao case, there is a quotation long enough. These seem minor changes. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, but they aren't. Read Help:Minor edit The meaning was changed, even if not a lot. And both edits could be disputed, esp. the quotation. And although you do use edit summaries at times, your last three edits did not, and your last one in particular (reverted) especially needed one. Edit summaries for the edits I'm saying weren't minor would have been your best choice. Doug Weller  talk 09:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem: The Constitution of Liberty
Hello Y-S.Ko! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as The Constitution of Liberty, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://archive.org/stream/TheConstitutionOfLiberty/The%20Constitution%20of%20Liberty_djvu.txt, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:The Constitution of Liberty and send an email with confirmation of permission to "[mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org ]". Make sure they quote the exact page name, The Constitution of Liberty, in their email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org ] or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:The Constitution of Liberty. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:The Constitution of Liberty with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

See Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:The Constitution of Liberty saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)