Talk: Wasted Vote. I am a new potential contributor but must have made some mistake. I would appreciate your help and guidance. On September 10, 2018 I published several additional paragraphs to this article. However, for some reason these proposed contributions were quickly removed. Please tell me the reason. What must I do to make something like this content acceptable? I thought that reporting a published qualitative dimension to the concept of wasted votes would be seen as helping to make the article more comprehensive. What do you think? What do you advise? Stephen C Bosworth (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the Wasted Vote page, and click on Talk for that page. When I reverted your edit I posted a note. That note might provide a start of an agenda for fixing it up. Generally speaking, the talk page for the article would be a better place for this discussion, because then other people who are interested in the article will also see it.

There are also other venues for obtaining help. In addition to Wikipedia:Tutorial, myriad help pages, etc., you can interact with other users to obtain help at the Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Teahouse

And welcome to Wikipedia! (Even if revert doesn't feel like welcome.) M.boli (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Stephen C Bosworth

Please read the Wasted Vote talk page: Talk:Wasted vote.

• I put your edit there, so we could work on it.
• I cleaned up the wiki-formatting.
• I have made several suggestions as to appropriate Wikipedia pages for your contribution, and how this might be incorporated into Wikipedia

My edit comments when I revert your additions have informed you that the article talk page is the place to look. This is the second time I am informing you on your talk page that the article talk page is the place to look. I have pinged you from the article talk page. Still you plunk your paragraph into a place it doesn't belong, with broken wikipedia formatting, and plaintively ask why you are being reverted and where to look to find information. This is unreal. M.boli (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you Create new pages and Upload images.

Disambigation pages

Please note that disambiguation pages like Evaluative voting are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
• Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references
• Do not add articles to acronym or initials disambiguation pages unless the person or entity is widely known by that name (in which case it should be stated in the linked article).

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to Evaluative voting that may be more in line with your previous edit. Leschnei (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Section 5.5.5 in [[Proportional Representation]], to in [[Proportional Representation#Evaluative Proportional Representation (EPR)|Proportional Representation]]. It will take the reader directly to the section, and will not break if someone changes the order of subsections. Leschnei (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU from Steve

An article you recently created, Evaluative Proportional Representation, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Evaluative Proportional Representation 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 and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stephen C Bosworth! 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! McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Single transferable vote. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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.

In particular, please review MOS:LEAD for how to craft a good article lead. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Single transferable vote, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Evaluative Proportional Representation 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 and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stephen C Bosworth: you seem to be diving into the deep end of the pool by trying to edit electoral reform articles here on English Wikipedia (as I'm seeing over at Talk:Single transferable vote#Process), especially given what I'm seeing of your lack of mastery of talk pages. I'd recommend a couple things:

• Read Help:Talk pages a bit more carefully than it seems that you have (possibly watching the introductory video over there)
• You should probably learn about creating userspace drafts in your "sandbox". See Help:Sandbox tutorial to learn more about that.
• Possibly try your hand at editing electowiki (e.g. this page: https://electowiki.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote). Over on electowiki, we like to think we're a little more forgiving of people who understand election methods more than they understand editing wiki pages on MediaWiki (the software running on electowiki and English Wikipedia). I'll note that we also don't take too kindly to wholesale replacements of entire articles over there, but we allow people to get deeper in the weeds about election methods over there.

These are just a few suggestions, though the first two (learning about talk pages and userspace drafts) are probably more important than the third, since you'll also run into problems on electowiki if you're too cavalier about replacing articles outright. Good luck (whatever you decide)! -- RobLa (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Evaluative Proportional Representation 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 and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stephen C Bosworth. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Evaluative Proportional Representation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]