:I’ve replied on the article’s talk page with my answer. Thanks for asking on my talk page; I had somehow failed to watch the messages on your talk page so I’ve now replied to those as well. An option that might get you the replies of more experienced editors is to ask questions at the [[WP:teahouse|teahouse]], but feel free to ask me things if your prefer. [[User:lp0 on fire|<span style=”color: #c56030″>lp0 on fire</span>]] [[User talk:lp0 on fire|<span style=”color: #64cea0″>()</span>]] 13:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:I’ve replied on the article’s talk page with my answer. Thanks for asking on my talk page; I had somehow failed to watch the messages on your talk page so I’ve now replied to those as well. An option that might get you the replies of more experienced editors is to ask questions at the [[WP:teahouse|teahouse]], but feel free to ask me things if your prefer. [[User:lp0 on fire|<span style=”color: #c56030″>lp0 on fire</span>]] [[User talk:lp0 on fire|<span style=”color: #64cea0″>()</span>]] 13:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::Given (a) the length of the “daughter” article and (b) the fact that all the other sections also have daughter articles, my sense is that a merge would be inconsistent with both standard Wikipedia practice and also the rest of the parent article. [[User:Kirsten Jørgensdatter|Kirsten Jørgensdatter]] ([[User talk:Kirsten Jørgensdatter|talk]]) 22:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi Lp0 on fire! I noticed your contributions 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:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Bearian (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! I’m definitely staying; my worry is whether I’ll ever leave (:
- Just one question if that’s alright: I’m never sure how much detail I’m expected to put in an edit summary. Thanks in advance for the help! lp0 on fire (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- You don’t need to be incredibly detailed if it’s not a controversial edit. For example, if I remove unsourced material, I’ll just say “unsourced” instead of “removing material that is unsourced…” or anything like that. For more controversial edits that would need some more elaboration, I’d personally just explain that a bit in the summary. It is a summary first and foremost, so ideally, if somebody disagrees with your reasoning, you guys will talk it out on a talk page. This is how I’ve been getting on anyway, haven’t had any issues with summaries thus far. jolielover♥talk 13:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! lp0 on fire (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- You don’t need to be incredibly detailed if it’s not a controversial edit. For example, if I remove unsourced material, I’ll just say “unsourced” instead of “removing material that is unsourced…” or anything like that. For more controversial edits that would need some more elaboration, I’d personally just explain that a bit in the summary. It is a summary first and foremost, so ideally, if somebody disagrees with your reasoning, you guys will talk it out on a talk page. This is how I’ve been getting on anyway, haven’t had any issues with summaries thus far. jolielover♥talk 13:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exact sequence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kernel. 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) 19:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.
Hello mr Lp0 on Fire how are you doing??? Can i add every informations about dosojin but with a lot of words and details please??? Don’t worry i wont use ai 2A02:1388:2086:BF35:0:0:E09F:E962 (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! Yes, that’s fine, as long as you follow Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks for contributing! lp0 on fire () 06:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, I’d like to add to this: please read Wikipedia:Summary style and don’t add more information than is necessary for a summary. lp0 on fire () 06:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
maybe they stopped updating it but it says 2025 on the page so it’s probably black magic 86.124.190.212 (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia! The statement “it is not known” is much stronger than “I do not know” since it suggests that nobody knows anywhere, or at least that the information hasn’t been released to the general public. As such, a citation from a reliable source is required for that claim. lp0 on fire () 08:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- In fact, I just found out there’s a whole essay on this if you fancy a read: WP:UNKNOWN. lp0 on fire () 16:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding a situation about another editor that involves a comment you have posted. The thread is User:Gordon Maximo and bludgeoning at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#RfC: A simple clarification to IAR. — Newslinger talk 18:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello Lp0 on fire. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user’s talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they’ve been previously warned. These warnings end up accumulating on vandals and are a measure for future editors and eventualy administrators. Thank you! BrandNewSaint (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @BrandNewSaint:! Could you specify which reversion you’re referring to? I usually do warn after reverting, but if someone has never edited before I sometimes prefer to use the integrated warning/welcome templates like {{welcome-unregistered-unconstructive}}. If I forgot to warn someone that was probably a mistake, but I use Twinkle so that shouldn’t happen often lp0 on fire () 19:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Specifically I meant this: Josephine Bakhita: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia
- But since the offender quickly added another edit afterwards, maybe I just caught it before you could send them the proper warning for the initial revert. Either way, thank you for your patrolling! BrandNewSaint (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- No problem, thank you for exactly the same 🙂 lp0 on fire () 20:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Please check sources for such claims before restoring controversial content. Most, if not all of that was wp:UGC. New editors may not be aware of wp:RS. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was rushing a little and tired and only saw the most recent revert which had a blank edsum. I should’ve noticed it had previously been reverted after citing a valid reason. I also probably should have scrutinised the content in question a bit more closely. lp0 on fire () 20:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I asked a question yesterday about merging two pages
My takeaway from the guidance I could find online
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging
is that this would be reasonable but I was wondering if you had an opinion on this. Should I just go ahead and do this or would it be better to start a “Merge proposal” discussion? Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve replied on the article’s talk page with my answer. Thanks for asking on my talk page; I had somehow failed to watch the messages on your talk page so I’ve now replied to those as well. An option that might get you the replies of more experienced editors is to ask questions at the teahouse, but feel free to ask me things if your prefer. lp0 on fire () 13:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Given (a) the length of the “daughter” article and (b) the fact that all the other sections also have daughter articles, my sense is that a merge would be inconsistent with both standard Wikipedia practice and also the rest of the parent article. Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
