User talk:西城東路

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, 西城東路, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  McSly (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Modern Hebrew are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 西城東路 (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful change of wording

[edit]

Your recent editing of the article Italic languages replaced a perfectly normal, well known, English word (comparison) with one which is obsolete (comparation). I have no idea why you did that, but it really isn't helpful. The word "comparison" will be recognised and understood by virtually any native speaker of English, and probably by most other people with a reasonably competent understanding of English, while scarcely anyone will ever have heard of "comparation". Please don't make changes to English wording unless the new version has a definite advantage over the old one, and in that case please provide an edit summary giving an indication of what you think that advantage is. JBW (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suffixes hapax legomenon (Greek for "once read") or oligos legomenon (Greek for "few times read") of word formation shall be reduced, e. g. "-ison" of "comparison" from the verb to "compare". 西城東路 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that you mean you removed the word "comparison" because the suffix "-ison" is used in only that word. If that is what you mean, then I have three things to say about it.
  • That is not what "hapax legomenon" means; that means a word which is recorded only once in the extant record of a language.
  • It is not true that the suffix -ison from Latin words with roots ending -ation- is unique to "comparison"; there were many such words in Middle English, and a few have survived into modern English, such as "jettison" and "venison".
  • Although those two points may or may not be of interest to you, a much more important point is that Wikipedia seeks to use English as it is normally used and understood, not to impose forms of language which are not normal because some Wikipedia editor personally prefers them. You are perfectly welcome to wage a campaign to rid English of unusual word formations if you wish to, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Imposing forms which most readers of the encyclopaedia won't understand is totally unhelpful, and flies right against Wikipedia's manual of style. JBW (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Apothecary Diaries. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 西城東路 (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Folk costume (October 17)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Folk costume 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 resubmit after they have been resolved.
—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, 西城東路! 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! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert (living people)

[edit]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 09:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who? List them. 西城東路 (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits Special:Diff/1317255338 and Special:Diff/1317442309 discuss Suthida, who is a living person covered under the biographies of living persons contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 13:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other living persons? 西城東路 (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons (WP:CT/BLP) defines the contentious topic "articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles". Suthida is a living person, so she is covered under this contentious topic. You also mentioned the current king of Thailand (Vajiralongkorn) in Special:Diff/1317255338, who is also a living person that is covered under this contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 14:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recently deceased people: How long is the "recent"? 西城東路 (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Recently dead or probably dead (WP:BDP) says that the meaning of recent in recently deceased depends on the context, and varies depending on editor judgment: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime." — Newslinger talk 14:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]