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:
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]
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]
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:
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.
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.
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]
Recent edit reversion
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]
Disambiguation link notification for May 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Georgism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Possession.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Demurrage currency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channel island.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Samoht27 was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Antinatalism. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Efilism and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Zero Contradictions!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -Samoht27 (talk)22:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
You asked for a further review. Another editor agreed, so I have done this for you based upon what I see before me
You have produced WP:BOMBARD because of multiple instances of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. Three is not a target, it's a limit. Aim for one. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.
When you have culled a large number of your references then reviewers may be able to determine verified notability. As it stands you have hidden notability within a reference fog.
This will benefit from a tough précis, too.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Efilism and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by PARAKANYAA was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Sources ultimately do not show this is notable, other than a brief spate of references in the context of the terrorist attack. They are ultimately passing outside of this. Many of the references are also extremely poor (CulturalPhilistine??? We're really doing this????) and there is a serious WP:SYNTH problem where many of the references do not mention the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Efilism and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I did not edit Project Veritas to say that the media group is defunct. I claimed that it is defunct in the edit summary. My actual edit only changed the copula in the lead sentence from "is" to "was".
I hadn't seen the news article that you included in your edit summary, so I was not aware of that information.
I am writing about your edits of July 27, 2025, which undid certain revisions of mine. One of the sentences you restored reads as follows:
"In particular, he noticed the asymmetry between the durability and hoardability of money versus the fragility of goods and services which depreciate due to entropy and the passage of time."
Three problems with that sentence had prompted my revisions to it.
First, "noticed" should be "noted." The communicative act is the noting, not the mere noticing, which is a subjective event.
Second, "between A versus B" is a wrong, ungainly locution. "Between" takes an "and," not a "versus." I restructured the sentence to rid it of that construction. If my rewrite is not to your liking, then please consider changing it to "between, on the one hand, the durability and hoardability of money and, on the other, the fragility of goods and services, which depreciate due to entropy and the passage of time."
Third, "fragility" is a term of art in economics, and it does not apply here. The quality of goods and services that is the subject of the contrast is their finite shelf-life.
Permit me to add that, judging by the oversight you have brought to the article over the years, you appear to be treating it as a personal vanity project and are unwilling to unleash it for wiki crowd-surfing. (I may be guilty of the same pride of authorship with respect to the edits of mine that I'm trying to vindicate.) That seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.
I apologize for going on at such length, but I love this sort of thing. I say all this in what I hope is a constructive spirit, consistent with your own kind words about my edits, which I appreciate. I promise to shut up and go away and simply abide by whatever you say. Ciao! 2603:6010:100:6E85:B86D:1EFB:69B0:631E (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP. Thank you for reaching out on this topic and explaining the reasoning behind the word choice in your edits. Orwell's six rules of writing is a major influence in my writing and edits. I think it's better to write multiple short sentences, rather than a few longer sentences that are harder to follow. I never considered the connotations that you mentioned here. Hopefully, these points explain why I reverted a few of your edits.
I'm not picky on choosing between "noticed" versus "noted". "noticed" felt more natural to me at the time, whereas "noted" felt weird. But I guess "noted" is better for emphasizing that Gesell is probably the first known economist to have written about this topic. "noted" could also start feeling more natural to me if it were used more widely, so I guess we'll change that verb back to your proposed edit.
I can see why "versus" might feel inappropriate to some people, but I chose that one because it made the sentence shorter. Using "and" instead of "versus" could made the sentence harder to parse since "and" is used in the other two subjects. But I suppose we could choose "and" instead of "versus" if we want to eliminate the unintended connotation of "versus".
I chose "fragility" because it is an antonym to "durability", a quality of traditional money that functions as a store of value. I was not aware that "fragility" had another meaning in economics. I didn't realize that "fragility" might be too ambiguous to convey the intended meaning. You're correct that the finite shelf-life of goods and services was the intended meaning that I meant to convey.
I never heard of Silvio Gesell until late October of last year. I made two edits to his article around January, since I couldn't find evidence to verify Gesell was an Esperanto speaker or supportive of Esperanto. However, I wouldn't be surprised if this was true. I didn't make most of my edits to Silvio Gesell until April of this year, around the same time when I finished watching the video course about Silvio Gesell and demurrage currency released by the Henry George School of Economics.
Most of my contributions to the Gesell article have consisted of copy-editing text translated from the German article, adding two paragraphs to the lead summary, adding some information about Gesell's economic philosophy, and adding images from Wikimedia Commons. Most of the article's content was not created by me. I am proud of both my edits and the good edits to the article, including yours. Like I said in my edit summary, I think that most of your edits were good edits. I do not view the article as a "personal vanity project". I view it as a collaborative project and a good source of information for summarizing Gesell's life and his ideas about economics.
