User talk:Nsae Comp

Hi there. We're having a content dispute at the article above - the list of empires has a large 216 entries, and currently the article sees fit to repeat this list 6 times! Clearly a waste of storage and bandwidth. A better solution (saving at least 30% and making it much easier to read and use) would be a table with a column for each attribute, sortable, as used in many other articles (see the discussion). However, a silent editor keeps reverting attempts to clean up the article, without explanation. Please see the discussion (currently nobody disagrees). Your comments would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.207 (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Surface gravity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Nsae Comp. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nsae Comp. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nsae Comp. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Space exploration because it didn’t seem to make sense. You said “Habitability and the actual living in space is an intrinsic issue for human space exploration” which is ungrammatical and doesn’t mean anything (which is why I couldn’t fix it). And you said that it’s “often discussed along with the seperate colonialist issue of space colonization” which is a misreading of the referenced article. This WP article is about exploration, not colonisation, and the reference argues that colonisation is a misleading term because it’s not the same as “real” colonisation. That’s utterly different from what you wrote. And in any case who says that this subject is “often discussed”? Andyjsmith (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favour if you say that "This WP article is about exploration, not colonisation", then take the first paragraph about space colonisation out, then I will not see the necessity anymore to make the point about distinguishing the issue of space exploration and space colonisation. Nsae Comp (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You said "And in any case who says that this subject is “often discussed”?" ... National Geography in the article does:"When discussing space exploration, people often invoke stories about the exploration of our own planet, like the European conquest and colonization of the Americas" ... and it does not differentiate between any "real" colonization and "?" colonization, it speaks of space exploration VS colonization Nsae Comp (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monarchy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aristocracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a jester: —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the word "jester" is the problem, then "fool" would be an alternative, or "traveling entertainer" as a last resort. But the word used by the artist is "Gaukler" which is translated by the Cambridge Dictionary as "jester" ( https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/deutsch-englisch/gaukler ). I dont know if you are familiar with german? Please allow the source that I provided to be in the article and its content. If a sourced input is not allowed, what is? PS: this picture shows only a specific type of depiction of jesters. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Border, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karl Schroeder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cycler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Self-determination into Secession. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's articles related to spaceflight. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Spaceflight? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contrast.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human presence in space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extraterrestrial.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came across this in the uncategorised articles list, and noticed it also has no references. I would normally move it automatically to drafts, but I'm trying go kick that habit, so wanted to check with you first as to what your plans are? As I'm sure you know, verifiability from reliable, independent sources is probably the no.1 most important rule on WP, and therefore unreferenced articles like this are unlikely to survive for long. I'm still happy to move this to drafts, if you think it'll take you a while to add sufficient sources; that would at least protect it against deletion. What say you? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for being so considerate! I will try to catch up and add some references today, they should be easy to find. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Venus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akatsuki.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the pictures there and added citations for them to show examples. Obviously we can't insert everything there, so I we used a minimal of examples to illutrate an image. The article has plenty of diagrams but lacks pictures as it is. Adding three more is harmless; especially when reliably sourced.--Buzles (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article does not need to feature fotos, just diagrams is totally fine. Afterall its an empirical issue and not one of momentous situations like traffic jams, school classes, body hygiene. And no they were not well referenced. One image was for example just croped from another image that wasnt even about what it was croped for (I marked it for deletion). And no the citation was highly flawed, no dates, no publishers, no page. ... Plus at unfitting parts of the article: e.g. image of schoolclass in the para about the history of the concept.... Nsae Comp (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colonization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cultivation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space colonization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solaris.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human presence in space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helios 2.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have Alpha Centauri as 2 light years away; it is in fact 4.5 light years away. Serendi^podous 13:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I am afraid thats a misreading of the map. The distance is read at the unmarked end of the lines of the stars. Nsae Comp (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that true for some stars and not for others? Serendi^podous 14:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is true for all of them, for a detailed description see the file-description. PS: Some stars have allmost no line because they are close to the reference plane. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sophia Latjuba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nsae Comp,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username John B123 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, ISEF (disambiguation) for deletion, because it is unnecessary and disambiguates only a single page.

If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|John B123}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Rotation period

added a link pointing to Sidereal

Synodic day

added a link pointing to Synodic

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, apologies for accidentally reverting you on Space Race, it must have been a misclick. Incegnetty (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. All the best, Nsae Nsae Comp (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nsae!

Were you aware that @JustinTime55: had submitted Space Race for GAC? I am the reviewer of record, but now my review notes are basically worthless since you've come in and made modifications. That would normally be fine, but during the formal GAC process, things are supposed to follow stricter procedures (the reviewer makes suggestions and the nominator implements/contests them).

I think I'm going to fail the GAC until the article is in stable form. I really can't work on an automobile that's being taken apart as fast as it's being assembled. It can be resubmitted when you and Justin have worked out a plan. --Neopeius (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nsae Comp! You'll remember the discussions we had about Sea and Ocean on various talk pages. User:Femkemilene had suggested that I centralise the discussion and that I first have it in user space, and later bring it back to the talk pages. I have now set up a page in user space for brainstorming. My plan is to invite everyone to it in a little bit but fist I wanted to show it to just 1-2 people, namely you and User:Velella. Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EMsmile/Ocean_and_sea_articles_discussion I didn't feel a need to make it into a very polished page, as it's just for brainstorming. What do you think of the options I have listed there so far? Have I missed any? Are there any pros and cons missing? Do you think this will be useful, or is there anyway no chance to ever resolve this big knot? EMsmile (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for your contributions in

♡ Nsae Comp (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice observation, FYI I added a thread pointer with the climate project talk page to try to get some additional climate eds involved.

Thank you. Its good to have nice editors around! Nsae Comp (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Duchy of Bavaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Representation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orbit of the Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Satellite system.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am hesitant about the appropriateness of your recent edits to Age of Sail. As I understand the term, it applies to naval history, as opposed to maritime trade. It was coined by naval historians to refer to the period in which purpose-built sailing warships armed with cannon were the principal warships of navies (and particularly European/Western navies). So that is Mary Rose (1511) through to the 1850s, when there was a rush to build or convert the main warships of the French and British navies to screw propulsion (with some notable US Navy participation in this race). Frustratingly, naval historians just about to refuse to put this definition into print, so it is very difficult to cite a source for this.

"Age of sail" appears not to be used by maritime historians for trading vessels - which is perhaps just as well, since it would be a conflicting definition with that of naval historians. The "golden age of sail" is an unrelated period which refers to the surge in technological development of sailing vessels that happened (perhaps coincidentally) after the arrival of steam power. That is things like the replacement of rope standing rigging with wire, wrought iron components for hulls (knees, beams, etc.), iron hulls, patent winches and other equipment, and better understanding of optimal routing (Matthew Fontaine Maury).

Do you have any particular knowledge or sources that help resolve the problem of defining "age of sail", a term widely used by naval historians? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can recommend this: [1] Nsae Comp (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note the reference that you have given. However, I think there is still a problem for the article. Firstly one could throw the accusation that your ref is a "reference in passing" (

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) in that "Age of Sail" is mentioned, but is not really the subject of the paper and is certainly not defined or explained. That accusation is probably a little unfair, as the ref suggests that there is a (for want of a better description) trade/exploration meaning to "Age of Sail". However, we do not seem to have any more than that. I have looked for other papers presented at the same conference, but currently without success. Whilst we have a naval historian giving us a definition of the "Age of Sail" from a naval perspective (see archived talk pages of the article), there is still no source that makes clear what is meant in a trade/exploration context - just some suggestive evidence that the term is used in this field. I feel that the sources available so far do not make clear whether this is the same term used in 2 parts of maritime history, or 2 similar that different historical labels that have the same name. Further editing of the article without getting this point cleared up by authoritative references seems a little brave to me. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

[2] seems to have useful content, though I would like to see material that would be fundamental to an article in more than one source. I still have the feeling that "Age of Sail" has different definitions in military and non-military contexts - but that is something that needs to be confirmed in sources. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I responded over on the article's talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cape of Good Hope

added links pointing to Portuguese and Javanese

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories

added links pointing to Portuguese and Javanese

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hilal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nsae Comp, following concerns on the talk page I have restored an older version of the lead section of the Earth article. I share the concerns expressed there, particularly on readability. The previous version was not perfect by any means, but it was the result of extensive discussion during the recent featured article review. I hope that you will be able to help us improve the lead by reaching consensus on the talk page. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A total undo is highly unfounded and very destructive to the effort that I put in it. I do agree that a discussion is needed but I did not shy away from that and did answer and attend to it and the critique raised. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing ever gets destroyed on Wikipedia, don't worry. There are two editing preferences you may benefit from:

• Under the editing tab: "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)". An edit summary makes it easier for other to detect when help is needed.
• And under gadgets: "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange".
  talk) 17:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Tamzin: I redirect as you recommended to Ocean observations. Makes sense, thx.  Done Nsae Comp (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you're familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Your text would greatly benefit from having a (near)-native speaker copy-edit it. You're allowed two requests at the same time. I would very much recommend you make use of this, also to improve your mastery of English.

A second bit of advise is to bring one or two article up to

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Io.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine change color of legend chapter

lines

{{legend|#007FFF|Countries that have condemned the invasion}}
{{legend|#666666|Countries that have maintained a neutral stance}}
{{legend|#FF6600|Countries that have blamed the invasion on NATO provocation}}
{{legend|#D8E0E2|Unknown}}

to

{{legend|#007FFF|Countries that have condemned the invasion}}
{{legend|#666666|Countries that have maintained a neutral stance}}
{{legend|#FF8F8F|Countries that have blamed the invasion on NATO provocation}}
{{legend|#D8E0E2|Unknown}}

Thanks!--

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Space ethics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Space ethics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel responsible for this, since I was the one who initially added it to the list, but "supercluster complex" is an outdated term that hasn't been used since the early 90s, and since the discovery of Laneakea, it would appear Pieces-Cetus is falsified. That said, no one seems interested in talking about it anymore so I can't find a source saying it is. Serendi^podous 16:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: Thanks, but what edit or article are you refering to? Nsae Comp (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)/Nsae Comp (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The restoration of Pieces-Cetus to

Earth's location in the universe Serendi^podous 17:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Well as far as I am concerned the main entry is not sourced wrong and since you have no source that says it is not viewed valid anymore I would keep the entry. If you like I can take the Laniakea reference out, since it is infered by us (and anyway redundant if Laniakea is the entry before). Nsae Comp (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nsae Comp (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Corona Australis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sagittarius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an anon adding heights to List of lunar features (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). With these two edits the height of Mons André was set to 7.0km. It's not stated on the article nor in the single citation. A 7km high mountain with a diameter of 10km seems rather remarkable. Mons Dieter doesn't have a height on its page and the two external links don't list one. I queried the anon who said they where just copying data. Seems rather suspect. As you seem to be in the know and have worked on that page, I thought I'd drop it into your lap ask you about it. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I seem to also not find a source. Thanks for pinging. Nsae Comp (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

History of the European Union

added links pointing to Austrian and Goth

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Angular diameter

added a link pointing to Binocular

History of the European Union

added a link pointing to Internationalism

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You added a claim for a record to List of cycling records [3]. Unfortunately it did not include which recognised authority verified the record. Feel free to re add the claim if you can cite a recognised authority that verified this claim. --Find bruce (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Moon

added a link pointing to Liberation

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Planet into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions. Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 11:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was there anything in the above message that you found difficult to comprehend? I would be happy to elaborate. Eric ^talk 02:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reminder. I will take more care. Everything is clear.

Best wishes to you. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atmospheric entry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Earth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ancient Egyptian architecture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roman and Coptic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reflecting telescope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Birr.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angular resolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Micrometer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Venus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elongation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from NASA lunar outpost concepts into Moonbase. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder, must have forgoten. I am leaving now a note. Nsae Comp (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I deleted your reference to the discovery doctrine as you didn't cite a source stating that Terra Nullius is just another term for the discovery doctrine. Nor is there a discussion of this in the body of the article. Please note that the lead is meant to be a summary of the article and new information should be sourced and added to the body of the article before it is summarised in the lead. The article on the Discovery Doctrine states that Terra Nullius is just one part of the doctrine. If you can cite sources which prove they are the same thing, then the two articles will need to be merged. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that my edit equated terra nullius with the discovery doctrine. But fair enough that it is not in the body, thus not warrented to have in the lead. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have reverted to the previous version because I think your proposed changes need discussion. I think the whole article needs a rewrite to make it more concise and clear. I would be happy to work with you to improve the article and we might be able to get others to contribute through the talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space colonization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equatorial.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flyby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phases of Venus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glory.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]