User talk:Wehpudicabok

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

Hello, Wehpudicabok, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Koveras ^☭ 11:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Yay!

~AlienSix(WeComeAlive) 08:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Clock drift

Edit summaries as terse as "grammar" should probably supported by more research, e.g.

Clock drift refers to several related phenomena ...

which was just a click away when you edited.
--Jerzy•t 03:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. How about "Clock drift, multiple phenomena where a clock..." instead? I've seen so many people treat "phenomena" as singular that I changed it without thinking. I think emphasizing the plural would help readability. Wehpudicabok (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here i am, responding a full month later; how embarrassing! And i failed to provide the relevant link.... I reverted at Leap second#See also. You now suggest adopting language from the pg i objected to you having ignored, but i am not embarrassed to refuse to embrace other shortcomings (of both pages) without fixing them, if we are going beyond the specifics of your edit.
Here's my take:

The lead of our Clock drift article is defective -- starting immediately after the mention of the article's topic, with the lexicographic word "refers" (which is appropriate in the leads of a Dab page only bcz a Dab page is not about the topic that appears in its title, but about that word and the senses in which it can be used. Beyond that, if i had been responding more broadly, i'd have had to concede to you that "clock drift" refers to one thing, and clock drift is that one thing, namely imprecision (or limited precision) in clocks. (I think these articles could implicitly reflect focus on either imprecise match between the measurement and what is measured -- as in the first sent in the first sect after the lead --, or between independent measurements of the same thing -- as in the lead. But I doubt that the implicit choice needs to be explicit, if only it were consistent within the article.)
My instinct is that entries in the "See also" section of Leap second are a navigational, rather than an informational, mechanism -- like the entries in Dabs, where we are explicit that the first question is "does the link succeed in speaking for itself?", and if the answer is "no", implicitly the second is "how little is needed to keep the average user from feeling they've been a fool of by following the link?" So my opening response is
Really? Why not "*Clock drift, imprecision"

--Jerzy•t 20:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited MS Paint Adventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Online gaming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

i like ur homestuck userbox :] Nucg5040 (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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.

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... On Talk:Sinfest#Removal_of_unsourced/poorly_sourced_BLP_content, there's a discussion where another editor is claiming that coverage of the content of a webcomic could potentially fall under WP:BLP if reporting what the comic depicts could be defamatory toward the author. (For reference, the comic has incorporated antisemitic conspiracy theories directly into its plotline, something the current version of the Wikipedia article on it no longer mentions.) I strongly disagree with this editor, since the name of the author of the comic is not in dispute and the rest of the article is about the comic itself, not the author, but I'm only an occasional editor and don't have a ton of familiarity with BLP. Can someone please explain to me whether BLP covers works of fiction in this way? Wehpudicabok (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the BLP has been interpreted that way by some editors. You and your counterparty will have to hash out exactly what it means for certain facts to be potentially defamatory. The decision should be based as much as possible on what some independent reporter has said about it; you don't want it to be based on your opinion or on an implication. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the BLP policy! I'm still uncertain what to do about the article, however. We can't really base a decision on independent reporting on Sinfest, because there isn't really any, not anymore. As far as I can tell, no reliable sources have covered Sinfest in a long time; the citations that established its notability are generally around two decades old. Wehpudicabok (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, I'm CommunityNotesContributor. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Views of Elon Musk, but you didn't provide a reliable source.[1] I've now added a reliable source to the claim,[2] so as to avoid original research or unverifiable content. Please remember to includes references to reliable sources in future. Thanks, CNC (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad. Thank you for helping! I'll do better next time. Wehpudicabok (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]