The redirect Department of Biochemistry has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 2 § Department of Biochemistry until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! And thank you for your recent edit on TP-Link. Since the talk page of this Wiki is inactive, I'm going to ask you here.

As TP-Link has been effectively split in half (TP-Link global, based in Irvine and TP-Link in China aren't the same cmpany, they just share the same trademark), I wonder if you would suggest we remove the mention of TP-Link as a "Chinese" company or at least specify it originated in China but it's international operations are no longer run from there (at least officially). I'd add the CEO of the international branch recently applied for a green card Auguste76840 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auguste76840. I am not interested in the TP-Link company or any information about it. I am not familiar with the information you mentioned regarding the company. I think you should discuss it with editors who are more knowledgeable and interested in the topic, or initiate a Request for Comments process to gather broader community perspectives. Cfls (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tiangong University Seal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found that, in this edit, you introduced into the lede a claim that Jeff Landry lost his seat owing to a court-ordered redistricting. This is unsourced, which is fine in the lede, but nothing in the article body then or now supported that claim. Indeed, he lost his seat to a fellow incumbent after Louisiana lost a seat in the census. Double-bunking was inevitable.

Might I ask why you summarized this election so? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 03:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iseult. Oh, that may have been a misunderstanding on my part. Please feel free to improve the article with reliable sources. Thank you! Cfls (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cfls. Thank you for your work on Divisions of the University of Chicago. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

It seems reasonable to have this separately from the rather long University of Chicago; I note that it is appropriate linked as a daughter article from University of Chicago#Graduate research divisions

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother making edits like this one? This seems to be a textbook case of WP:NOTBROKEN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

reverted. thanks for your notes! Cfls (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to discuss with you about the changes you made and I thought you have misunderstood the distinction between the two divisions that created by the rival states.

The provinces in Taiwan are retain as administrative divisions without provincial governmental organs, but the divisions are remaining in governmental systems in official affairs, such as statistics and annual census. This is why the description states “no actual control” referring to the PRC’s hypothetical division, not “no actual government”, the province is currently under actual control of Taiwan’s ROC government, thus the term “claim” is used to refer to the PRC’s part.

There are similar cases such as Committee for the Five Northern Korean Provinces as de jure divisions created by South Korea, as reference. Sheherherhers (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposing anything about the geopolitical status quo or situations. What I mean is that the disambiguator is already clear and self-explanatory: one entry refers to ROC and the other to PRC. There is no need for additional phrasing beyond the internal links themselves. I do not see any need to elaborate on this on a disambiguation page. Per WP:DABNOT, it is unnecessary to have such long descriptions. The disambiguation links are already sufficient to "direct a reader seeking information on a topic to the right page". Cfls (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“The disambiguator is already clear and self-explanatory” on what basis? The divisions between the PRC/ROC are different things, and you have changed two times from “de jure province” to “province of China” with the same exact expression referring to both entries. How is that clear and self-explanatory? Not all people know about the Cross-strait relations and it requires further more than simply making it alphabetical order with the same name. Sheherherhers (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“it is unnecessary to have such long descriptions”… and no issue with other ambiguous pages such as China (disambiguation), or Republic of China (disambiguation) with prolonged descriptions of each entries, I found your point is untenable and hardly persuasive. Could you explain what criteria you are using to define “long descriptions”? Just curious. Sheherherhers (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to remain the status before your edits and simplify the description of each entries, the previous edition has remained largely unchanged and steady before your submission. Sheherherhers (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your awesome work on Wikipedia! I saw your change to Rockefeller Center. I’m not sure I understand your intent with the edit. Columbia cashed out their ownership in the 1980s. Please let me know if I misunderstood your intent! Thanks for all your work! Hawkinsw2005 (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkinsw2005.

As far as I know: Columbia University once owned the land and, in 1928, leased it to John D. Rockefeller Jr. for the development that became Rockefeller Center. Later, the ownership changed; Tishman Speyer bought the original buildings and land in 2000.

I am not quite sure about the specific details. Please feel free to make changes if reliable sources support otherwise.

Thank you for your notes! Cfls (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are absolutely right! I have double-checked the details here, and found that Columbia University had agreed to sell the land in February 1985 and that the transaction was expected to close later that month. You are absolutely right about this! Thank you for the catch. I am going to revise the edit accordingly.

Thank you so much for the catch! Cfls (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great!! Hawkinsw2005 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted your move of this page to Whitney Museum of American Art. It has been located at this title for several years, and the new title is actually longer and less concise, so I do not think WP:RMUM applies here. Please open an WP:RM for the new title. I could see there being a case to move the article title to the longer name per WP:COMMONNAME, if indeed "Whitney Museum of American Art" were the common name, but I think it would be good to have more eyes on this. Thanks. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]