User talk:Emily.Owl

Hello, Emily.Owl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

Greetings, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for improving Wikipedia.

I partially reverted your recent edits to Benford's Law. I removed "such as those that occurred in Florida's 2000 elections" for lack of a reliable source. Editors from both the left and the right have tried to use this article to make cases of election fraud. When an edit is likely to be contentious like this one, you need a reliable source that explicitly states the fact that you want to add.

You changed

Benford's law has also been applied for forensic auditing and fraud detection on data from the 2003 California gubernatorial election, the 2000 and 2004 United States presidential elections, and the 2009 German federal election; the Benford's Law Test was found to be "worth taking seriously as a statistical test for fraud," although "is not sensitive to distortions we know significantly affected many votes."[further explanation needed]

To read

Benford's law has also been applied for forensic auditing and fraud detection on data from the 2003 California gubernatorial election, the 2000 and 2004 United States presidential elections, and the 2009 German federal election. The Benford's Law Test was found to be "worth taking seriously as a statistical test for fraud," although "the test is not sensitive to distortions we know significantly affected many votes.", as occurred in Florida 2000 elections.

Using the summary slightly improved phrasing, changed quotation for readability and to remove "explain" tag, which I then did.

There are a couple of minor newbie mistakes, which we expect. Don't let me pointing them out discourage you.

• The way you inserted the new fact made it appear to be supported by one of the references. Was that what you intended? If so, did you verify it in the reference? I apologize if in fact that is what you intended and you did check the reference.
• Your edit summary, while being true, is slightly misleading. The most significant part of your edit is that you added a new fact. A summary such as added an example would have been better.
• Your example did not provide the requested explanation. The request was What were the results? Was fraud detected? I have to admit, that request wasn't entirely clear, but I read it as asking what were the results of the Benford analysis in cases where it was insensitive to known distortions.

These are newbie mistakes, and we expect them. Don't let it get you down. Please keep editing. Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Cheers, Constant314 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. You sent me a message saying that my to Doctor Who missing episodes was unconstructive/unhelpful. You reversed it. Please may I have an explanation? In the original, error in the credit sequence of Doctor Who was highlighted using italics for the miscredited actors entire name. In my version, I removed italics and underlined only the erroneous part of the credit instead. In my opinion, this highlights the issue more effectively than placing the entire word in italics. While you are free to disagree, I feel you go too far in suggesting that I am somehow being wilfully unconstructive. 5.80.60.33 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert here is essentially good, the reverted edit absolutely added a contentious label to the subject that was unencyclopedic; however, your revert also re-introduced language which was even more contentious than what was removed. Just wanted to advise you to double check content per MOS:LABEL before a revert. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for my first ever thanks

also I yoinked your templates for my own profile ^w^

ArachnidInner (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought I had mentioned it, sorry. I believed the information was far too detailed for something that isn't significant. I'm taking it upon myself to redo thos whole page as he's clearly done this himself. He's responsible for a few homeless deaths in nz, there's articles I'm collecting that show this. I'll have a much more in depth look at these processes before doing so, sorry for the inconvenience. Iseesoiseeso (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first milestone. It is based on being here a certain minimum time and making a certain minimum of edits. Some article won't let beginners edit. Constant314 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’ve noticed that you’re a constructive editor with some editing experience who might be interested in staying long-term on Wikipedia. I’m not sure if you know, but we have a great adoption program that you might be interested in. If so, I’m happy to adopt you and/or enroll you into my adoption school; you are also free to contact any of the other adopters on that page too, if you wish. This message is just to let you know that this program exists; feel no pressure to take part :). Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why did u remove the line from our page im sure you dont even know what we were talking about, its an Eazy E unreleased album and it was going to be the first full length solo double album in the Gangsta Rap/Horrorcore genre he didnt release it and Pac took that spot with All Eyez On Me please stop editing our stuff we worked hard to make this Flesh1999 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add } to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emily.Owl. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Linear friction welding, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 09:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emily.Owl. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Linear friction welding".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]