User talk:Random149

Welcome!

Hello, Random149, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I tried to move "John A. Meacham" from sandbox to article. I can't see how to respond to the red alert at the top and am concerned about making matters worse. Thanks so much for your suggestions.

@Random149:, no big issue, I removed the template, should now be fine. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugs and kisses. Thank you! Random149 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Klaus F. Riegel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Stern. 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) 06:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Random149! Your additions to World Hypotheses 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, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can 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, however, 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 in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
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. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. 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 in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Why do you keep edit-warring random punditry into the Political polarization in the United States article? David Brooks, Frank Bruni and George Packer are not experts on polarization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 01:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

ANSWER. Is this how I should reply on a talk page? I am NOT engaged in an edit war! My first posting was deleted (OK) which I accepted as feedback that I should consider. I waited a day (as wikipedia advises) and then rewrote the introduction to provide a better rational for my posting. If this didn't work, ok to delete my posting. Reposting ONCE with a new rational can hardly be called an editing war! I have no interest in pursuing this. I read three recent books and I thought they all addressed political polarization. So I was just trying to contribute to wikipedia. Random149 (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political polarization in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Brooks.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link, thank you, I fixed it. Random149 (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Hi Random149! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Political polarization in the United States that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. --Renat 01:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the feedback. I will be more careful. (I had been using "minor" for my own posts, not for anything that touched on or deleted what anyone else had written.) Random149 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]