User talk:7804j

Translating from other language Wikipedias

Hello! I noticed that you recently created Box turtle. This appears to be a close translation of es:tortuga de caja, which is a featured article on the Spanish Wikipedia. Thank you for putting in the work to translating the article. However, please note that translations require attribution under the terms of Wikipedia's license. When translating from one Wikipedia project to another, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've inserted translated content, disclosing the copying and linking to the source page, e.g., translated content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if the close translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{Translated page}} 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 translated or 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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I found the same issue when reviewing Kassite dynasty which was translated by an OKA editor, Racnela21. The OKA instructions list attribution as a necessary step but I reckon that OKA work needs a stronger and more formal checklist to ensure that such things are actually done. The article in that case was featured (FA) on the source wikipedia and such articles tend to be quite large and complex. There's lots to be done with such a big article and, for example, no categories have been added to the translated version yet. A checklist would help catch such omissions and so the work would go more smoothly. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, that's actually a good idea! I have created a checklist for our translators and will include it in our processes.7804j (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I worked with Racnela21 to fix up the attribution for Kassite dynasty and have added some missing top-and-tail elements like a short description and categories. So, that article is just about done. The one thing that is still missing is a template on the talk page which explains that this was an OKA achievement. Do you have something like that? I'm an event coordinator and so attend many editathons and they usually recommend leaving an event template on the talk page of the articles which were created and improved. The Women in Red project, for example, has a lot of these, such as {{WIR-29}}. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the ideas! The short description was missing from our workflow, so I have added it. The categories were already in the list, but were missed by Racnela21 -- I will put in place a process for more close check of the work of new translators so that these things are less likely to be missed in the future.

We didn't have a template, so I created an initial draft here and we will be adding it to talk pages. At the moment, it is a very simple one as I am not yet familiar with the more advanced features of templates, but this is something that we could look into improving in the future once I have more volunteers supporting me in running OKA.7804j (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your workflow and documentation seems to be coming along nicely but you might like to see what others have done before. Looking around, I find that there's a WikiProject Intertranswiki. I'm not familiar with its history but it still seems active. Maybe the OKA could affiliate as a task force of that project? Andrew🐉(talk) 16:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charlson Comorbidity Index

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Charlson Comorbidity Index requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://thpttranhungdao.edu.vn/comorbidity-la-gi.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Gender Equality Act (Switzerland) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Gender Equality Act (Switzerland), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Novempopulania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elusa. 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) 06:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Political rights act (Switzerland) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Political rights act (Switzerland), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Swiss Federal Pension Fund moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Swiss Federal Pension Fund, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Swiss Abroad Act (Switzerland) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Swiss Abroad Act (Switzerland),is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Host State Act (Switzerland) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Host State Act (Switzerland), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution (second request)

Hi. I see in Federal Consumer Credit Act (Switzerland) you included material /translated from the French Wikipedia. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Federal Consumer Credit Act (Switzerland) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Federal Consumer Credit Act (Switzerland), is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) 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. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Federal Department of Home Affairs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal Statistical Office.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Federal Office of Personnel moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Federal Office of Personnel, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Federal Office of Information Technology, Systems and Telecommunication moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Federal Office of Information Technology, Systems and Telecommunication, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Federal Office for Buildings and Logistics moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Federal Office for Buildings and Logistics, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Federal Office for Agriculture moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Federal Office for Agriculture. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and the article is predicated purely on primary sources. Any secondary source would contribute to reliability/notability.. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Legal topics

Moved from User talk:Racnela21 § Brazilian legal topics in need of translation

7804j, thanks for your OKA project to improve/expand Wikipedia's coverage of foreign language Wikipedia topics. I am involved with a similar, medium-to-long-term project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of legal topics at Wikipedia. The list of articles that need to be created for this project is long (multiple years, probably). I have started with criminal law in France and in Brazil. Nav boxes show the possible range for expansion for creation of new articles in the red links at ({{French criminal law}} and {{Brazilian criminal law}}. These are just two of the 193 nations in the UN, and criminal law is just one of the types of law in France and Brazil, others being: Constitutional, Administrative, Family & Succession, Property, Contra○t, Civil, Corporate, Taxation, Labor, and Civil procedure and arbitration., with variations according to country. So an estimate of notable topics for this project is 193 x 10 or 1930, not all of which exist as articles (most do not) for your translation project. But this may give you an idea of what topics are available to be created or translated, and I will be creating more of them as we go. Adding Elinruby. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the context!

So our team has already created several thousand articles on Wikipedia through translation (most of them very long) since I created OKA 1.5 years ago. So 2000 more articles to translate is not a problem. I actually feel that legal topics are very important and underrepresented in WP -- I have myself created a lot of stubs about Swiss federal laws to fill some of that gap for my own country.

Perhaps the easiest way to collaborate would be if I give you edit access to our work tracker at oka.wiki/tracker. You could then add all articles that you believe are ready for translation, mark them as "Priority 2", and one of our translators would pick them up at some point.

We have 15 full time translators covering EN, FR, PT, ES, RU, IT, DE, PL, AR languages at the moment. We're currently only publishing from these languages into EN WP, and from EN into ES and PT WP.

At the moment we focus on translation -- we may expand in the future in creating articles from scratch, if we get more funding

Let me know what you think

7804j (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding long translations: my understanding is that you are pretty much creating a bin of foreign article titles, and letting your members rummage through, pick what they want, and at that point, it's up to them to do what they want, while following Wikipedia policies and guidelines as would be required for any new, translated article, is that it? Or, does OKA pick them and assign them, or something else? In particular, I'm concerned whether there is a requirement or even a suggestion to translate the entire article, once an article has been decided upon by a given translator.

I hope that the answer to the latter is 'no'. A lot of foreign Wikipedias are lax about basic policies and guidelines that would get their articles deleted or decimated if published here, and I'm concerned that if we translate rubbish, we increase the amount of rubbish on en-wiki, and obviously that would not be good. Another problem, could be copying a poor overall article section structure into en-wiki.

Let's stipulate for a moment that all the foreign articles are model articles: clearly notable, and perfectly sourced. Even if that were the case, translating the whole article (especially if it's long) may not be the best strategy for OKA imho, or at least, for Wikipedia (hopefully there's no conflict there). Creating a new article where one didn't exist before is one of the most difficult tasks at Wikipedia, doubly or triply so in the case of a translation. People who know how to do that (i.e., all your members, presumably) are a scarce resource. I question whether we need/should ask them to translate entire articles. Once a notable, well-translated and -sourced stub is in place in English, the remaining task of expanding it is far easier—either by monolinguals doing it the regular way, or by translators who can just contribute a section or two of translated content here and there, if they wish to. That approach would open up these articles to a larger pool of editors who can handle the much easier expansion task.

So in my opinion, the best use of OKA from the point of view of Wikipedia, would be to maximize throughput of new translated articles, at the expense of fully-translated articles, by creating a shortish stub (maybe a several paragraph lead, or a short lead plus a few shortish sections; for a BLP, that might mean a paragraph each on Early life, Career, and Works) and then leave the other 90% of it untranslated, and move on to the next one. Remember that some large percentage of readers never read past the lead of an article, anyway. So, I see that approach as optimizing your resources as well as maximizing benefit to Wikipedia's readers by quintupling the number of articles being created, in exchange for reducing the average length from, say, 30,000 bytes to 6,000. There is WP:NODEADLINE, and if the article topic merits expansion, it will be at some point. (And if it doesn't, then why waste your members' time, and pay for it in the bargain?)

One other thing: judging how to best organize a large topic (by that I mean, what sections and subsections to include and in what order and nesting levels) is yet another skill, which probably isn't required for your members but which some may have, anyway. Typically, the organization of a large article (foreign or not) has grown organically, rather than been thought out as a long treatment from the start. That is completely normal, given how Wikipedia operates. However, often the overall organization is severely lacking due to the horse-designed-by-committee problem, and rationalizing the overall structure of such an article (even without adding or subtracting any text) is very complex; I've done it several times, and it's a thankless task. However, when faced with translating a long article from a foreign source, we now have a golden opportunity: namely, to look at the whole topic, decide how it ought to be organized, start from a scaffolding consisting of nothing but the section/subsection headers, and go from there. (It can still grow organically from a reduced set of sections so you don't start out with 25 empty sections in the article, but at least with a full design in mind that can grow from a logical starting point and a progression strategy thought out in advance.) I think that to translate a long article, which I assume for most of your members means following the original section organization, is a gigantic missed opportunity. Worse, once the new structure is in place, the likelihood that it will ever be overhauled and recast into a more logical section organization is minimal. So, that is another reason not to translate whole, long articles—or at least, not until the whole topic has been analyzed, and the proper section organization determined.

And if they do decide to translate the whole thing for whatever reason, the scaffold is a great way to chop it up into manageable pieces that can be revisited whenever, almost without any context or memory of what came before. Furthermore, it lends itself very well to specialization and task-sharing, i.e., other translators of the same language dipping in to just handle a section or two here and there, or even multiple translators all at the same time, divvying up the sections in order to get one particular article released quickly, if there is ever a reason to do that. You could assign your translator-organizers, a more limited group, the task of building scaffolds and adding the proper {{find sources}} queries per section, and all your other translators the task of going through, picking out section chunks, and translating them.

 Courtesy link: Draft talk:Brazilian criminal justice/Expand sections

I am still developing and trying out different approaches for this, and one that has worked for me recently, is to build a kind of scaffold consisting of a proposed section organization of an imagined completed article, even if I don't plan to write the whole thing myself,, and save it as a subpage of whatever Draft I am working on. In the case of a translation where many of the sources can only be found by using the proper search terms, which may not be obvious for foreign keywords, I add {{Expand section}} templates below the headings and include the proper search terms right in the template so that anyone clicking it will be directed to the sources. (See here for an example of that. Note that this is strictly a scaffold, and is content-free; that comes later, and is in progress here.) Everything else being equal, English sources are preferred, and the find-sources can/should be in English where that makes sense. I may also include one or more of {{Main}}, {{Further}}, or {{Further ill}} at top of section, for those cases where there is already some information available about the subtopic that is worth linking to (and possibly copying from, when we get to expanding that section). Perhaps this is getting a bit far afield from what you view as your mission, but since you asked for feedback, and I have done a fair number of translations, these are my thoughts about it.

There is one meta-issue, namely, that of talk venue: this being a wiki, in order to encourage more participation, you might consider creating a WP:WikiProject if you don't already have one. These are places where like-minded contributors interested in a topic can congregate and share information about improving something at Wikipedia; they can be topic-oriented (WP:FRANCE, WP:ASTRONOMY, WP:WikiProject Ancient Rome) or platform- support- or other-oriented (WP:AFC, WP:RETENTION, WP:WikiProject Template, WP:PNT). You could certainly create something like WP:WikiProject OKA Translations or call it anything you wish. This discussion we are having here on your Talk page really shouldn't be here, because it is not about your behavior or contributions as an editor, it is about a project to improve Wikipedia, which is exactly what WP:WikiProjects are for. If you need help setting one up, lmk. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Your paid editing organization

I note you state you are the founder of "oka.wiki". I have looked through some of the editors from this, and they are not following the conflict of interest or paid editing requirements. Specifically, editors who are paid must declare that using {{paid}}, not with any freehand written statement, must declare the client (which, if they are a donor to your organization, must be disclosed as such), and COI editors must, to propose a new article, write a draft and request review by articles for creation, and make substantial edits to existing articles via the edit request process, not directly edit mainspace. You may not have known that, so I am not going to block anyone yet, but I will be keeping a close eye and will block anyone who fails to abide by these policies from today forward, so please communicate to the editors you pay that they must do those things. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimbpade,

Thanks for pointing me to the paid tag -- I will ask all of our translators to use it immediately on their user page. It might take 1-2 days until everyone sees it and applies it to their user page (apologies if that's longer than ideal -- I am currently traveling in China where Wikipedia is banned, thus my connection is a bit patchy). At the moment, our editors disclose they are paid by OKA on their talk page, but without the template; we also disclose the full list of our paid editors on the list of paid editing companies.

While our editors receive a stipend, there is no conflict of interest per se as they are free to pick any topic they want. We provide them with a list of articles as suggestion, which is basically the list of all featured and good quality articles in other languages, but these are not selected following any kind of particular logic other than meeting wikipedia requirements (eg, having sufficient sources). Our website oka.wiki publishes the list of our donor, but as of now, the main donors are essentially myself (donating from my salary), my brother, and a couple of individuals making small contributions. We do not receive any donations from companies.

Could you point me to the guideline that indicates that all new articles from paid editing must go through AfC? I have seen that it is strongly recommended, but haven't seen any mention that it was mandatory. We publish over 2000 articles per year, so I would be concerned of overburdening the backlog of AfD if we were to submit every article. It would also be quite unmanageable for all edits to go through the edit request process given the high volume. 7804j (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The "occasional exception" in guidelines does not mean "wholesale ignore it". Paid editors go through AfC and edit requests, period. That's not negotiable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Seraphimblade. This is a warning to you and every editor who works with you: Comply robustly with WP:PAID, use WP:AFC for all new artcles, and use the WP:ER edit request process for changes to existing articles. The only exception is reverting obvious vandalism, and be crystal clear in your edit summaries. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade and Cullen328, for transparency, see also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki#OKA translators blocked from creating new articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Your name is missing from the list

Hi 7804j. I noticed that the talkpage template for OKA articles links to: Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies#Open Knowledge Association (OKA). Here, there are links to OKA editors, but your username (and function: founder) seem to be missing. I'm wondering why. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)