Hi Senomo Drines! I noticedyour contributions toKeyboard layout and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, thecontributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages ontalk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!John Maynard Friedman (talk)19:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be churlish, but you made the same mistake as has been made by many (most?) new editors: your addition of citations, welcome though they are, was not a "minor edit" in Wikipedia terms. That description is for trivial spelling or grammar corrections. Size doesn't matter: for example, changing "not" to "now" is just one letter but could be very significant. For more info, seeWP:minor edit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)19:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll prefer not to use minor edit at all, as every edit needs to be reviewed, whether or not it’s minor is irrelevant to meSenomo Drines (talk)15:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to quote the directly-copied definition atEnantioselective synthesis! TheMOS:CURLY style guideline instructs us to use straight-quotes, not curly ones. Could you update your change to conform to that?DMacks (talk)03:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very muchSenomo Drines (talk)15:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to edit war.It’s simply standardization.Every other top university states it almost exactly the same.“Among the top/most prestigious universities [in the world].It’s worded like that because it’s not really controversial.Harvard is among the most prestigious universities on earth.Saying that it is “regarded as THE most prestigious”, while citing a source that doesn’t say that doesn’t make sense.You stated that you wanted to change it to avoid bias and subjectivity, while stating it in a way that is debatably more bias and subjective.Harvard is currently not ranked as the #1 university by most top uni rankings, but it is always in the top 5, making it AMONG the most prestigious universities in the world based on both rankings and statistics.FinnSoThin (talk)19:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the phrase to “regarded as one of the most prestigious”Senomo Drines (talk)15:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kvng was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it atMeasuring network throughput instead.

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 resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Download and Upload Speed 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 andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Kvng (talk)03:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Senomo Drines!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 theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~Kvng (talk)03:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Senomo Drines. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "Download and Upload Speed".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.✗plicit01:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you reopened a closed DRN request that had been closed byUser:Kovcszaln6? If you thought that a DRN case could be conducted with only the filing editor participating, when it was declined by the other editor, then you were mistaken. We mostly provide moderated discussion, which is a form of mediation. Mediation requires at least two participants, and is usually intended to try to work out a compromise. If you were mistaken and thought that there could be a one-party DRN case, then we now know what the misunderstanding was. Otherwise, please explain what you were trying to do.

By the way, I will probably be inquiring about the procedure for merge requests atVPP, and that may have been what you were trying to ask.

If you reopened the case due to the idea that there could be a one-party case, then this can be closed as a simple misunderstanding.Robert McClenon (talk)21:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted the DRN as something not just about mediation, but just as a way of getting another person into the discussion. Its easy to decline any DRN that someone adds you in, and in my opinion it doesn't get anything done. It was written in the top of the page that the case filer (which is me) must participate in the request, but there is nothing that says a discussion can't occur without the other party. Rather, it actually implied that a discussion couldstill occur without the other party.

"This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia.You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups."

There is nothing in that paragraph that says the one being disputedmust be active for the matter to continue. Thus, under that principle, I undid the revision and left it open.

It says in the very first sentence that the DRN is "an informal place to resolve content disputes", not as a means for mediation, and disputes can be solved on a one-party basis. It is apparent that mediation is not the main goal here, that's just a very common user request.Compromises aren't always a good thing either. Case in point, deciding between eating 100 hotdogs or 100 hamburgers is bad either way. But you can compromise by eating 50 of each, and now its suddenly a positive decision.Senomo Drines (talk)22:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a policy page. Bold editing is great, but not on policy pages. You will be blocked if there are further edits without first gaining a clear consensus.Johnuniq (talk)04:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bold editing is allowed on policy pages without consensus, as said by theofficial policies and guidelines Wikipedia article. I am aware that edit wars are not in Wikipedia's policy, but I have already deferred back in my lastrevision during the dispute theWP:3RR page asking the other to discuss further with me in the talk page before reaching consensus.Senomo Drines (talk)04:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were bold, and your bold edits were contested. It is not okay to impose changes to any page that have been disputed. If you think my points of dispute were insufficient for you to pay any mind, then you were wrong. If you truly feel you can takeany qualified explanation other editors give while discussing issues with your edits as permission to try a different edit—without making any effort to confirm whether their concerns have actually been addressed—then you are more interested in getting your own way through attrition than in what others may think or want.Remsense ‥ 论04:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Senomo Drines: I don't want there to be any doubt. I will block you if you edit that page without prior consensus. If you want to discuss the matter, I suggest asking if I am out of line atWP:Teahouse. A more risky approach (WP:BOOMERANG) would be to ask atWP:AN.Johnuniq (talk)05:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think you are acting out of line, and I understand where you are coming from, but the guidelines do say that I amtechnically allowed to do it. I think the crux of the issue is said in this line:

"Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards."

From what I interpreted in policies and guidelines, boldly editing a policy page is fine so long as it doesn't devolve into a dispute, and unfortunately in this scenario, it ended up going haywire. But it could have been worse, as I did nevertheless mention WP:3RR and moved the discussion to the talk page.Senomo Drines (talk)13:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we're telling you to stop thinking in terms of what you can technically get away with.Remsense ‥ 论20:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Senomo Drines - Wikipedia relies on a combination of writtenpolicies and guidelines and community understandings of those policies and guidelines. If multiple editors try to caution you that they interpret the policies differently than you do, it is not useful to try to explain to them why your interpretation was the correct interpretation. In that situation, it is all right to explain to them why you interpreted the policy as you did, but to agree to accept their interpretation. In particular, if a policy as written is ambiguous or inconsistent, it is not useful to insist that your interpretation is correct, rather than acknowledging that other editors may have also had a reasonable interpretation. Within 48 hours, you have startedthree mostly unrelated disputes where you and other editors have disagreed:

• You called for two articles,Social psychology andSocial psychology (sociology) to bemerged.
• You twice reverted the action ofDRN volunteers who closed your DRN request.
• You tried to add language to a policy page that other editors disagreed with, and persisted in arguing with them both about the addition, and about the wisdom ofboldly editing a policy page.

An inexperienced editor who repeatedly argues that their interpretations of policy were correct will get a reputation forwikilawyering,even if their interpretations were correct. In the case of the policy on editing policy and guideline pages, the policy seems to be ambiguous, because it both permitsbold edits to policy pages, and discourages bold edits to policy pages. In such a case, it is all right to point out the inconsistency, but it is not useful to continue to argue about it. In particular, the other editors were trying to tell you that policy pages do not need to contain a great deal of how-to-edit language.

It is clear that you are trying to improve Wikipedia. However, trying to improve Wikipedia by insisting on the correctness of your interpretations is neither a good idea nor an effective way to improve Wikipedia. You have been cautioned, again.Robert McClenon (talk)17:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your point onWP:WL is interesting. My reverts were not based onWP:WINNING, I simply saw the rules as contradicting their points and went along with the policies. In my opinion, if you want to avoid future scenarios of differences in interpretation, the letter of the law should be very clear on what its saying; particularly, it should try to mirror its "spirit" as much as it can. For the DRN situation, there seems to be a differentiation between "mediating" and "resolving". That revert case should be taken as precedence and a rule should be added to avoid the same thing from happening again.

The Wikilawyering page does say this, after all. "Simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer." You said it yourself that I had good intentions, and Idid provide a rational explanation alongside the policy, not just blatantly putting the policy in there. Wikilawyering is characterized by using loopholes and bad intentions, or an overanalysis on a misconstrued specific point of the letter of the law that isn't reasonably based on common sense. I believe I acted from an interpretation of common sense, and I did bring up the fact that WP:1RR and WP:0RR were limiting factors on making bold edits, which I technically violated (stopped at WP:3RR). But the discussion on whether or not I'm Wikilawyering is very subjective and, ironically, down to interpretation, so let's just leave it at that.Senomo Drines (talk)16:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I wanted to apologize for my part in our collaborations on here starting off on the wrong foot. AsUser:isaacl said in your thread,Part of collaborating is engaging in discussion to gain understanding, and I could've done considerably better to that end on the several pages over which we've had our cluster of disagreements so far. I want to hit the refresh button, and I wanted to offer that understanding if it'd help you feel more comfortable on here also. Cheers.Remsense ‥ 论04:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine! I understand you weren't in the best mood back then, and it takes a lot of courage to apologize to somebody you formerly disagreed with. I accept it, wholeheartedly, and I appreciate how open-minded you've been with coming out to me like this on my talk page.Senomo Drines (talk)18:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desblokeo de dispositivo y reinicio de dispocitibo189.199.35.102 (talk)16:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No puedo reiniciar mi dispocitibo189.199.35.102 (talk)16:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while I appreciate your contributions to the series article, I'd like to gently remind you that plot sections should remain concise; seeMOS:AM#Plot andMOS:PLOT. Also, given that the article already includes episode summaries, excessive elaboration in the general plot section isn't necessary.Xexerss (talk)19:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC