Hello, ThaddeusSholto! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
In your recent edits to The List of Seven and The Six Messiahs you removed the category "Sherlock Holmes Pastiche" with the comment "no it isn't because he isn't even in it". I'm not sure if you know what the term "pastiche" means, but it's alright that Holmes doesn't appear in a pastiche novel. Look at one of the most famous Holmes pastiches, Sexton Blake; Holmes doesn't appear in the Blake stories, but it is undoubtly a Holmes Pastiche, e.g.
http://www.schoolandholmes.com/charactersbi.htmlDamiantgordon (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blake's authors consciously modeled him on Sherlock Holmes. List of Seven and Six Messiahs use Conan Doyle as a character. He isn't modeled on Sherlock Holmes as he created Sherlock Holmes. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you totally, but I think that the character of Jack Sparks in the two novels is a pastiche of Holmes, he is ascetic, aloof, mentally and physically extraordinary, a violinist. He also uses a magnifying glass, smokes a pipe and play strange music on his violin, characteristics similar to Sherlock Holmes. Damiantgordon (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The description in the article itself makes him seem more like Doc Savage, but if you really think he is a Holmes pastiche then I guess we should probably add it back into that category. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sherlock series 3
This is really annoying because the anonymous user is correct in that Sue Vertue said on Twitter that The Guardian had misquoted Moffat, and series 3 is unlikely to air in 2012 (but will be in production). But, Vertue's account isn't verified, so we technically can't use that source to correct report! I guess we're just doomed to wait until a RS confirms it. The JPStalk to me21:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm TBrandley. Your recent edit to the page Elementary (TV series) appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TBrandley21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elementary (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MBC 4 (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Lescroart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book Club (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.
Hi, I don't think your rollback of my edit on the article The House of Silk was a good move. To suggest a 2011 British Sherloch Holmes novel coincides with "the first time the Conan Doyle Estate had authorised a new Sherlock Holmes pastiche" means supporting a fringe claim than ignores thousands of sources documenting thousands of pre-2011 SH pastiches, most of which had the appoval of the estate because they were published before 2000, the year the copyright on the character expired in the United Kingdom. It even means we are telling the reader that the 1954 pastiche collection The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes was not athorized by the Doyle estate, even though it was co-written by Doyle's own son! When it comes to outlandish assertions, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and Wikipedia's guidelines don't put all sources on the same level: there are reliable sources and unreliable sources. The former can be used in Wikipedia articles, the latter cannot be used. It's not always easy to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources, however in this case there is only one source and I'd say this is a textbook example of unreliable source: an article written in a generalist newspaper by a person who is not a SH scholar or expert and obviously has no idea of what she is talking about, and full of nonsense like "Doyle's last 13 stories were published as The Return of Sherlock Holmes in 1905". There has to be a reason why Wikipedia distinguishes between reliable and unreliable sources. What do you think? --Newblackwhite (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is a reliable source as is Publishers Weekly which also said "The hype surrounding what’s being billed as the first pastiche ever officially approved by the Conan Doyle estate..." [1] So is the Financial Times "Now the Doyle estate has, for the first time, officially sanctioned the continuation of the great saga" [2]
Whether you like it or agree the fact is the book was advertised as the first authorized continuation and that was a major part of the promotional campaign. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read your second link since I am not registered, while I can read your first link. Still, if there are multiple sources, it's better to add them in the article so that it is clear the claim was reported by many newspapers and not just in that single article.
Anyway, I think you are missing the point when you write "The Guardian is a reliable source". A newspaper is not necessary always 100% reliable or always 100% unreliable as a source: many of them are regarded as reliable for everyday subjects but unreliable for specialized subjects if not written by people who are experts on the subject itself. And I serously don't see how you can call reliable an article saying Doyle's last Holmes collection was published in 1905. If we don't remove the claim, we should at least replace the source, maybe using the Publishers Weekly article you linked above.
At any rate, I think it is a violation of WP:NPOV to simply register the claim that it was the first pastiche approved by the Doyle estate without also informing the reader that the claim is false accoring to countless reliable sources. --Newblackwhite (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are running in circles... if you are seriously convinced that an article saying Doyle published his last SH story in 1905 is a reliable source just because it was published by The Guardian, then I guess nothing I could say can convince you of the opposite. Which is sad, because I think these kind of misunderstandings between editors are one of the reasons that are driving many Wikipedia contributors away these days.
Also, why do you say that "there is nothing not neutral about it"? It is fair to say the claim was made as part of the promotion of the book, but it is not neutral to imply the claim may be true, because we have reliable sources saying it's not. Again, I don't see why we should have a disagreement over such a simple fact.
I won't do complex edits for the time being to avoid an edit war, so I'll start by simply replacing the Guardian source with the Publishers Weekly source you mentioned. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "The book was promoted with the claim..." so Wikipedia is not making any claims of truth about the claim and therefore it is perfectly neutral. The Guardian article is one of the first that appears on google when searching review for the book and it is a reliable source so it belongs in the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I will follow the rule that we must assume good faith, but if it weren't for that rule I would almost think that you are trolling. You reverted my edit while writing in the summary that "The Guardian is a reliable source". I have asked you before, and I'll ask you again, since you never answered: how can an article claiming Doyle stopped writing Holmes stories in 1905 be regarded as a reliable source? Hopefully I'll get a real answer this time. You obviously are an expert on Sherlock Holmes, so you know that Doyle wrote 19 SH short stories and one SH novel between 1908 and 1927, as certified by millions of sources. Just because the Guardian published the article it doesn't mean what's written in it is reliable.
But the most puzzling thing is that for some reason it seems to be of vital importance to you that the Guardian article keeps staying in the page, even now that you have found other articles that say the same thing without inflicting readers with that Doyle stopped in 1905 nonsense.
"Wikipedia is not making any claims of truth about the claim and therefore it is perfectly neutral": on the surface, it seems that Wikipedia neither supports nor rejects the claim. However, the fact that the claim is not rejected will lead many people to assume that it is true, even though it is shown by reliable sources to be wrong. What's the point of confusing people if we can avoid that? Plus, it is not neutral to give undue weight to the claim made during the promotion of the book while totally ignoring the overwhelming consensus among the reliable sources that the claim is wrong.
I will reply but then any further comments from you will be deleted because you just seem to want to argue your own point of view. The Guardian is a reliable source as it meets all the criteria at WP:RS regardless of whether or not you think the author is enough of an expert. Wikipedia is about verifiablility and not truth. Please read that last sentence once again: Wikipedia is about verifiablility and not truth. The Guardian article is not being used as a reference to support the claim that Doyle's last Holmes collection was published in 1905 so it doesn't matter whether or not that one aspect of the Guardian article is untrue. It is being used to support the true and verifiable claim that The House of Silk was advertised as the first non-Doyle work to be officially authorized by the Doyle estate. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thaddeus, I haven't examined the sources in detail but there's validity to what Nbw says. Sources are not 100% reliable or unreliable, but have to be evaluated for their reliability on individual points, in context. The Independent is certainly reliable in general, but on a specialized topic of literary history like this, it may not be so, and that's especially true when the same article contains such a glaring error (1905 etc.). You're right, TS, that WP is about V and not T, but the V relies on evaluation of sources in context, like I said; the 1905 error pretty much disqualifies that author as not having first idea what he or she is talking about. Anyway, surely by now there is scholarly commentary on the work itself that can be used in place of either 2011 source. EEng21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is one error in a source that doesn't disqualify the source otherwise any book with a typo would be thrown out. It isn't being used as a source for any claim about the dates of Doyle publications so that error is not relevant to what it is being used to reference which it is accurate about. Newblackwhite initially tried to throw out the whole thing because they don't agree that House of Silk should be seen as an authorized sequel which you can see from this edit they made with an edit summary that makes no note of that removal. Now they are trying to impugn the source for a different reason which is still a workaround to eliminate the claim that the book was advertised as an officially recognized work by the Doyle estate. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TS, anyone who calls himself Thaddeus Sholto is OK in my book, and I'm looking forward to working with you on Saga-related stuff for a long time to come, but your approach to source evaluation is oversimplified. I don't know the history of the specific content dispute, so I can't take a position on just what the article should say, but I suggest you take it from me as an experienced editor: a source that says Henry VIII enjoyed Shakespeare, or that the last Holmes stories were published in 1905, is pretty much out of the running as anything but a source on itself. Now please, both of you, there must be authoritative sources on this that will avoid this problem altogether. EEng02:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the statement that the book is promoted as the first authorized etc etc belongs in the article, and from what I've seen it looks like it really is authorized. Whether it's the first seems to be the sticking point. I can't get into this right now, though. EEng02:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, ThaddeusSholto. 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 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.
Kia Ora Thaddeus.
You seem like a sensible Wikipedia. I'm just wondering why when I put in when the film was released in New Zealand, you reverted it? Makes very little sense. If it was put in the wrong part of the article can't you have just moved it? Please please remember to do that in future, it's so annoying if you just delete the whole thing. Okay? Thanks man. Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your great work on Sherlock Holmes related stuff! I'm really happy to see you that you are using From Holmes to Sherlock as a source. If you ever need help finding a reliable source on any Holmes or Conan Doyle related matter, feel free to contact me (even if I have noticed that you seem to have a good knowledge about these things yourself). You can email me at mattias221b@gmail.com. And I hope that you or someone else in the WikiProject can create a Wikipedia page on Edith Meiser. She certainly deserves it. Best regards, Mattias Boström MattiasB (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I join Mattias in thanking you for your fine work with regard to the world of Sherlock Holmes. I have another suggestion: a page for I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere[3]], the first podcast dedicated to Sherlock Holmes, which has been in existence since 2007 (the site since 2005, when it began as The Baker Street Blog). Happy to take questions if you have any. Scottmonty (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliments of my work. I have thought of authoring an article for IHOSE but I have thus far been unable to corral enough secondary sources to begin. It is on my every growing list of things to attend to though so when I see reference material which meets the criteria it squirrel it away for later use. I'm certain it will happen someday even if it is not me who begins the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (The Whole Art of Detection) has been reviewed!
@Rosguill: Wouldn't reviews require actually quoting their content? I have replaced some of the quotes but I worry that interpreting someone else's words isn't as reliable as simply quoting them. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of an art than a science, and you can definitely use quotes, but avoid scenarios where the entire section just reads "Critic X said "quote", Critic Y said "quote"". Generally, I try to summarize the key points of the review (whether it's positive or negative, other overarching themes), and then include a quotation if there's any particularly noteworthy turn of phrase that is worth including but that would be inappropriate in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. Crit McCriticson recommended the book, praising its "breathtaking descriptive imagery", while also criticizing the character development as "unrealistic" and "lacking depth".). signed, Rosguilltalk22:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actresses who have played Irene Adler until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
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.
In 2021, a movement related to philosophical counseling began in Bangladesh. This is a critical point of the development of philosophical practice in the mentioned country.
Philosophical counseling is a new field and everyone from their place should come forward and contribute to expand the field.
I am objecting and demanding a proper explanation on your editing the article of philosophical counseling. You have removed a critical information and part of the history of the related field based on assumption with no concrete proof. Would you be kind enough to give a proper explanation on why you did that? There was no false information given.
No no. You are misuderstanding me. I had another account beside this but I forgot the password. It was not me who added the information in philosophical counseling. It was my colleage who edited it. However, it's an important part of development of philosophical practice and history of philosophical counseling and it should be added in the history of philosophical counseling. Bangladesh is developing country in all sector including philosophy. DreadlockHolmes (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you keep forgetting the password. You have only edited here to promote yourself. At least three accounts have added information about "Morsalin Islam Shouradip" and nothing else. You aren't exactly a neutral source about whether or not your own practice is important. WP:COI would apply here. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't edit from three accounts. In that case the person who had edited before I did from this account didn't have conflict of interest. In that case, your editing doesn't fall under WP:COI. DreadlockHolmes (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, someone before me edited the content and we don't know the person. I am not Morsalin Islam Shouradip but I work with him. Okay, you can say this edit fall under WP:COI.
Let me ask you something. Why don't you add the information as you see it suits? That will not fall under WP:COI. It will expand the history of philosophical counseling and help many others to work in this field.
You can add this you know? Because it's not a false information. It is also an important information. I don't know if you noticed but the paragraph about India cited a link to a particular syllabus of a particular university. Morsalin Islam Shouradip has researched and wrote three books on philosophical counseling. It is an important beginning of philosophical practice in our country as well as in philosophical counseling. DreadlockHolmes (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't happen to believe it suits. The reference isn't a valid reference and it doesn't say what you want it to say. A librarything page listing the titles of self published books isn't enough. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a relatively new field you know? There's not much references out there. That's why there are references of university's syllabus. Reconsider your decision that's my urge. It is important because it helps expand the area of philosophical practice. You can 'not mention' the name you know? I don't have objection about that. I feel it's important to add that philosophical counseling started in Bangladesh, too. DreadlockHolmes (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is too new to have references then it is too new to be included. In time, if it is notable enough, the references will exist and it can be added by someone without a conflict of interest. At this point it is just pretty blatant promotion for yourself and your self published books. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to mention the name 'Morsalin Islam Shouradip'. I just think it's important to add that philosophical counseling has started in Bangladesh too. Will you reconsider this? DreadlockHolmes (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references for philosophical counseling in Bangladesh. The librarything page isn't a valid reference as it is just a page you started for yourself and it doesn't say anything at all about philosophical counseling in Bangladesh. Please stop asking me to reconsider helping you promote yourself. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Tell me what'd be a valid reference? The librarything page was an approved author page by the librarything approval committee. Pray, enlighten me on the valid references. A syllabus of an university, an article in a journal - those would be valid references? DreadlockHolmes (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources (WP:RS) should be "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." They also need to be from a neutral point of view which your own librarything page would not be (WP:RSSELF and WP:UGC) Meaning no disrespect but if your work was as important as you are making it out to be then someone else would have added it already with numerous references. As it stands that hasn't happened. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "cite" is not a valid reference. The "someone else" was either you using an alt account (WP:SOCK) or a friend you engaged to do it for you (WP:MEAT). I'm tired of talking circles about the same thing again and again. I provided a host of links to relevant guidelines so please spend some portion of today reading them. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I shall read it. I understood you. However, I deny your accusation. I am tired too. I just told you the fact and the importance. Nothing else.
Removing a novelette from the list of authors of Sherlock Holmes
In 2021, a novelette named 'A Dive into the Void' had been published in Smashwords and Amazon. It features Sherlock Holmes and a consulting philosopher who finds himself in Dr. Watson's body. It's a psychological adventure of Sherlock Holmes and A consulting philosopher. However you removed it over mere assumption of 'likely self promotion'.
There are many short stories there which has no page or article or no other mention anywhere except the book or site or magazine where they were published. How 'A Dive into the Void' is any different from them?
Moreover, Sherlock Holmes is an open topic now. Which means anyone can write story of Sherlock Holmes, and they will all be, if nothing, author of new Sherlock Holmes stories.
It is unexpected of this kind of behaviour from an experience user like you. Therefore, I demand a proper explanation why you removed the novelette 'A Dive into the Void' from the list of new Sherlock Holmes author? Did you find any false information? Did you find that there's no such book under that name? Do you question the ability of the author? Or do you rather put only the names 'you' prefer yourself rather than the truth? Is the Wikipedia anymore people's encyclopedia or it has already became corrupted and became a site of personal preferences?
The reply to the previous section covers this, too. You were just self promoting your own self published book. The articles aren't for every novel or short story ever written but for notable examples by authors with existing articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I accept your explanation on this one. However, it was my pure intention, not self promoting, to add a Sherlock adventure there. I didn't realize it was only for notable examples.
Nonetheless, I don't agree with your explanation on your editing of philosophical counseling and I urge you to consider that again.
@ThaddeusSholto I have reviewed the citations and they do not support the extraordinary marketing claims. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising it is an encyclopaedia and must be written as one. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have a conflict of interest here as Companies House confirms the company was founded in 1996. What is said in an interview by an owner of a company cannot be used as a qualitative source. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no conflict of interest. Wikipedia requires reliable sources that are independent from the subject which the reference you continue to remove is. I have taken this up with the edit warring noticeboard so please take your replies there and stop sending me alerts every three minutes with accusations and insults. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can find thousand of sources to prove my point, the guardian never said it wasn't a Jamaican dish but that it is enjoyed across the Caribbean. I have also included proofs that the observer, a Caribbean news paper company stated that its Jamaican while news sources from other countries call their just a stew. The dish is authentically a Jamaican dish and im sure you can find this information online along with what i have sited so what is your problem? Thinkerbell22 (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I warned you that you were violating 3RR and I explained that you continually added information that wasn't actually in the references. Now I will report you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A type of cabinet: Thank you. I have a little spare time today so I decided to explore some other articles and the recent changes link but usually I am just a gnome who sticks to Sherlock Holmes and other mystery articles. I probably won't continue looking at recent changes beyond today. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@119.73.115.196: You have used at least two IPs to delete this information and been reverted both times. Open a discussion on the talk page if you feel the information is incorrect or doesn't belong in the article. As it stands, the information is referenced and has been in the article for quite some time. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me why are you so arrogant and illogical at the same time?? If someone born at the pakistani soil why the hell you included them in indian diaspora?? 119.73.115.196 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted some more info on how that external link was inappropriate. I linked to another wiki site because wikipedia didnt seem to have a article on Kenjaku TianHolla (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't attempting discussion. You are hopping IPs to post calls to arms on talk pages because your unreferenced changes that go against consensus are being removed. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit of "List of Federal Political Scandals ..."
Under the entry for Senator Brewster, there are several factual errors that I have tried to correct. Senator Brewster did not plead no contest to any crime in 1973, was originally sentenced to two to six years in prison (which was overturned), and wasn't fined $10,000 until his final nolo contendere plea in 1975 to a single count of "accepting an unlawful gratuity without corrupt intent", which is legally distinct from "accepting bribes", a crime of which he was never convicted, including in cases where convictions were overturned.
My attempt to edit Senator Brewster's entry in the List of Federal Political Scandals article is an effort to correct a plethora of factual inaccuracies, not to attempt to remove any information. Am happy to provide context for any further discussion about this, but as it was reverted, his entry is wholly incorrect. EstateGLB (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice my changes keep getting reversed. I am green when it comes to Wiki editing, but please could you tell me why they keep getting reverted? How can i best go about getting the changes made that comply with the guidelines? Are you just not allowed to add information to your own page? I understand that some of the information I have added isn't cited with an article but many many pages don't have sources, including for example the other notable people on the page of my former secondary school. I'm not completely clear on why they are allowed to be there uncited but all the information I provide does. I do apologise if I'm creating an annoyance for you so if I can just know how best to get this through I'd happily stop bothering you with having to reverse it all. ScarlettHarlett (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScarlettHarlett: I tried to explain on your talk page with the conflict of interest notice and I did in every single edit summary. Biographies of living people require references. You are either adding large amounts of text without references or adding references that don't state what you claim they do like this edit which doesn't even mention George Green's School in the reference. You really should not be editing your own article but instead make suggestions on the talk page of the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand what you're saying. What I'd like to know is how I am able to get around this when all the articles written about me out there and worth citing don't make reference to me as Harry but my persona as Scarlett and my career. If it's the case that I can just cite my instagram page or social media or what not to prove what I'e written is true then I would be more than happy to go back and cite everything I can, but I get the feeling that isn't a legitimate means of proof? ScarlettHarlett (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScarlettHarlett: That does pose a bit of a problem but WP:BLPSELFPUB appears to allow for self-published sources by the subject about the subject within certain parameters. Balance must be maintained so the article isn't primarily primary self-published sources. I'm currently trying to do some searching for references to beef up the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other "notable alumni" entries on George Green's School are either referenced there or have references on their own articles about having attended George Green's School. Things must be verifiable around here or people will just write whatever they want and it becomes impossible to know what's true. I realize it can seem like a high hurdle at first but it really is for everyone's benefit. Especially the subject of articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I just tried to add in only an image that I own as well as correcting the date of birth but even that was rejected. I feel I'm getting it all wrong here but I thought at the very least as those were in the box on the right (forgive me for not knowing the actual terms) that it would be okay! I daren't spend any more time trying to add things in correctly as I fear I don't know the rules well enough. I do apologise! ScarlettHarlett (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScarlettHarlett: I restored the image but the birthdate isn't referenced. We come up against WP:BLP again with that one. If you can find a reference with your birthdate or at least birth year, please put it up on the article talk page and I will incorporate it as soon as I can. That foes for any other referenced material you can find, of course. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScarlettHarlett Birthdate is one of the things where we may allow a self-published source. It can be challenged, but usually we'll allow a birthdate from a (verified) social media site or official website, unless there are contradictory dates in other reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How to do properly
ScarlettHarlett In general, editors with a COI can request edits on the *Talk* page of the article. You can use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/COI and enter what you think will change. This will generate a request on the talk page of the article and someone will take a look. Some of the editors who have the page Scarlett Harlett on their watchlist are *very* experienced with articles about Drag Queens who have been part of the Drag Race Franchise. And feel free to include in your requests anything referenced that is similar to one of the UK Queens. Requests that come in through the Edit Request Wizard won't cause problems. We do appreciate your efforts and thank you for having the conversation so that the article can be improved.Naraht (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are some citations now there and I am not sure why you are returning the banner for no citations. The new articles I have just linked contain dozens of citations which you can add if you like. The banner you have added looks unneeded at this time since multiple articles are now linked. HenryRoan (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References in other articles don't cross over. They could be deleted from those other articles at any time so this article needs to be referenced itself for the claims made. I changed the banner to refimprove instead because there is still a whole paragraph unreferenced. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AarushSinha10: Everything in the section you blanked was referenced. If you take issue with the reliability of the references please use the article talk page to explain your concerns. Wholesale deleting sections simply because you disagree with them isn't how consensus editing works. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and a little more help on Ammon Bundy please?
Thank you for help on the formatting of my addition. Can you assist with one more thing? There is one word in the list of restrictions that keeps not passing the editing filter. You removed my notation that I forgot to remove but didn't fix the word itself to be accurate for the quote? Can you do that or do we need to wait for the report on the edit filter failure to get addressed by someone else? USNavelObservatory (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello! I've seen, that you removed the External links. Sorry! But this party is got a Facebook, and i just writed the External links thing, and the Facebook link. But you're clever, for not removing the Political parties in Hungary. :) Good job! That's all, have nice day. KovZXad1970 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusSholto That's okay, it's not problem. :) Listen, Gábor Vona anounced, that his party is only runs to the 2024 European Parliament Election, except for the 2024 Local elections in Hungary, like Péter Márki-Zay's party, Everybody's Hungary People's Party (Mindenki Magyarországa Néppárt), which is also only runs to the 2024 EU Parliament Election. But László Toroczkai's Our Homeland Movement (Mi Hazánk Mozgalom) runs on the 2024 EU Parliament Election, and the 2024 Local elections in Hungary. The Our Homeland Movement is got their own Budapest Mayor, who runs in the Budapest Mayoral Election, like Gergely Karácsony, who is supported by the Left-wing politicans and parties in Budapest. The Fidesz and the KDNP is still looking for their mayor, who is running to Budapest Mayoral Election, which is will be a male or female, who are they will be supported by the Fidesz-KDNP political alliance. Péter Márki-Zay and the Everybody's Hungary People's Party is asking Donald Tusk, who is the leader of the European People's Party Group in the European Parliament, which Márki-Zay's party is want to be the member of the EPP Group. The Fidesz is left from the EPP, since 2021, but the KDNP is still a member of this group. The Fidesz will finding the new European group, which is Right-Wing, and they hates the Illegal Migrants, and the European Federalism ideology, and they also hate Soros György (George Soros). KovZXad1970 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also on The Hundred-Light Year Diary
Hello! I've just seen that you removed two lines in the "See also" section for the article "The Hundred-Year Diary" I've created today. At first I was wondering, why the two most closely related ones were removed while the other two loosely connected could stay, but then (together with your comment) I realized that both of these pages don't exist yet and their link was red. I intend to change that and create both in the future (in fact "The Arrows of Time" is the third part of a trilogy, whose first part "The Clockwork Rocket" I've just created moments before; it was my first page created in the english Wikipedia, although I have already been active in the german Wikipedia) and that's why I already linked them. I just want to make sure, that there is no misunderstanding here: If those pages are created, will it be okay to come back and this time properly link them in the "See also" section? Of course I would also do it the other way around and for example link "The Hundred-Light-Year Diary" under "The Arrows of Time" with the remark, that the author already prepared the same premise there. Thanks for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel Adrian Antz: You can and absolutely should add them to the "see also" once the articles are created. I removed them for now because there was currently no article to "see" there. I added a stub tag and a category on my next edit to try and get the article connected to others. If you need any help, please feel free to ask. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now also removed them in the german translation and will come back for both when the articles are done! Thank you for your help, I'll write you if I have another question. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the above article, it would appear that you are correct about WP:NCRIVER. I quoted it because someone else did in justification of the lower case 'river', which it definitely does not support, though I had failed to spot that it was specifically about article titles. However, correct English usage (both British and US English) is to capitalise the descriptive noun when used as part of the name, whether the actual name includes the word 'River' or not. The manual of style completely supports this concept for geographical names in general but mentions several specific and similar examples at manual of style though does not specifically mention rivers. However: Wikipedia demands consistent usage throughout articles and rivers should be treated the same as cities, towns, mountains etc. 2A00:23C8:9883:2601:C1B3:AB16:610B:C8F9 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing the film in question is not original research. WP:NOR states "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, [...] an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."
Moreover, MOS:WAF states, "Primary information is gathered from primary sources about the fictional universe, such as the original work of fiction or an affiliated work (e.g., another episode of the same TV series). Even articles with the strictest adherence to a real-world perspective still source the original work."
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise has multiple continuities (which you even acknowledged in one of your edits) and Drayton's relation to Leatherface changes depending on the continuity. In The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, he's described as his brother while in Texas Chainsaw 3D, he's explicitly stated to be his father. Anyone with access to these films can confirm this information, and per Wikipedia policies, the works in question are verifiable and are not original research. 2600:1700:7558:1890:A4B6:9989:5623:1950 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:1700:7558:1890:A4B6:9989:5623:1950:MOS:WAF says "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" Claiming there are different family relations with different continuity requires a reference. Further, the change you keep trying to make IS WP:OR as at no point in Texas Chainsaw 3D is Drayton directly named as the father of the family.
Incorrect. In Texas Chainsaw 3D, Drayton is directly named as Leatherface's father TWICE. In the opening of the film, Sheriff Hooper says, "Drayton! You know why I'm here! Come out and bring your son Jed. Hands high above your heads." Later on when the lynch mob shows up, Sheriff Hooper says, "I've got control of this, he's bringing his son out here."
And your argument that when writing about what's in a movie, we can't cite the movie in question is complete nonsense. By that logic, any plot summary of a fictional work would be original research. Saying random blogs that can easily make false statements about a movie are more reliable than the actual content of the movie is completely backwards. If an article says the sky is blue and uses a picture of the sky as a source, would you delete that and cite a webpage claiming the sky isn't blue? Because that's the kind of logic you're using. 162.224.166.63 (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:WAF says otherwise. Citing descriptive statements from the film is not "interpreting".
Also, I am not IP hopping, I am using the exact same computer every time. Whenever I edit, Wikipedia keeps changing my IP address. I have no idea why it does that, but it's out of my control. 162.224.166.63 (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon
Please read MOS:SAMESURNAME, which clearly states to refer to people with the same surname "by their given names for clarity and brevity". If you still want to contest this, please do not reply here and instead start a discussion on the talk page of the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
RedWarn is my current tool, & it allows for specifying the article & allows one to add further text to explain the problem. I sometimes continue to use Twinkle, which has similar capabilities & also has welcoming templates.
I'd posted something similar on an article talk pg someone reverted me there stating this very reason, so i decided that this wud be a more apt place. Now, here too?! U make me saad 😩
Also the NOTFORUM notice seems a li'l pejorative, since (correct me if I'm worng) I've seen it mostly apply on outright peddling of fake news and lies/disinformation sometimes or many a time accompanied with trolling rhetoric, which is certainly not what I was up to. hh 2402:E280:3D1D:5B0:8992:B002:E06E:55C5 (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reverted section was just an improvement suggestion
and I even rectified the place I put it in
I thought it was outright lies n inflammatory fake news n incivil trolling n all (that we see in the name of 'truth' on soc. media) that should/would be reverted with a WP:NOTFORUM tag not just a suggestion
Why do I feel like I'm in some 'first day of college' being 'traditionally corrected' by professors/seniors
Hello - after some comments and additional research by another editor recommending removal of the "authorship controversy" section you and I were discussing on Undue Weight grounds, I removed that section (see the Talk page for further details). I wanted to flag it for you since we debated the "original research" point and since you had mentioned a potential Undue Weight issue with that section yourself.
Hi! The edits previously made were striking talks that were not supposed to be struck down. I am simply removing those vandalized edits. Let me know if you have any questions, thank you! 182.160.103.106 (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that this article needs an upgrade. I can help with that and completely rewrite it in a high quality informative style. In return, I would like to leave a link to a topical article that fully meets all wikipedia's requirements and can be useful for many users.
I just wanted to rewrite this article in a better way as requested. There's a note above the article that says it needs to be changed. That's what I wanted to do. Why is that impossible? I didn't add a spam link, it was a relevant article that answered some queries. Dmitrii 1984-BCN (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of external link to book on WP:Clan Graham
Hello Thaddeus. I see that you deleted the link to my book on the Graham surname simply because I added the link myself. I appreciate your concern over a potential conflict of interest, but the book is endorsed by the Clan Graham Society and is in fact hosted on their webpage at https://clangrahamsociety.org/news-resources/#links; a physical copy is archived at the prestigious Innerpeffray Library in Scotland (see WP:Innerpeffray Library for this institution). A chapter from the book (Chap. 7) is also hosted by the The First Marquis of Montrose Society at https://www.firstmarquisofmontrosesociety.co.uk/members-archive/academic-papers/. The book has been cited extensively in recent Graham research, such as Alicia M.G. Graham (2023) The Grahams of Pennsylvania and Virginia: Our Scottish History of Warriors and Saints, Lightning Source, La Vergne. I prefer to link to the PDF of the book at Academia.edu as this is a newer revision, whereas the Clan Graham Society are yet to update the PDF on their server. In either case the eBook is available free of charge. I request that you undo the deletion of the external link as it has done a disservice to readers of the WP:Clan Graham entry. LloydGraham (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of WP: reads " Editors are expected to engage in good faith to resolve their disputes, and must not personalise disputes" and I would appreciate you abiding by this instruction. I tried to engage with you constructively but met only with a personal attack on my integrity; I have no idea who you are or why you have chosen to use such inflammatory language. I have duplicated my request on the WP:Clan Graham Talk page and requested a Third Opinion (WP:3O). LloydGraham (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LloydGraham: There was no bad faith on my part in removing COI edits. WP:COI states: "Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing" and that appears to be the case here. You have spent years adding yourself and your work to article in spite of warnings in the past like on Tron: Legacy. My language was not inflammatory and I'm not going to indulge fantasies to the contrary. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you care to look at the Talk:Tron: Legacy page, you will see that the COI dispute there was resolved in my favour by a neutral third party using the WP:Request For Edit mechanism. The text in the entry and the citation of my paper was not added by me but by them. I see that you have now single-handedly overruled the outcome of that lengthy process so I ask that you repect the previous arbitration and undo your deletion. If not, I will once again have to refer the matter to independent third parties. LloydGraham (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LloydGraham: My point was you knew back then that COI editing went against policy and yet you continued to do so on other articles. The guidelines apply to you whether or not you believe yourself above them. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
OK but I'm not sure why you think drawing more eyes to your years of self-promotion is going to do you any favors. I replied there with the same facts I have already given you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almanac edits
Hello Thaddeus - just wanted to note here that you edited/deleted information added to Almanac while it was in the middle of being edited and sources were being added. Had you waited one minute, you would have seen sources were being added. Had you done a quick Google search, you would have seen that there is also a Wikipedia article (in Catalan) about the topic at https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendari_dels_Pagesos Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.25.84.62 (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ThaddeusSholto, I'm not sure if this is the talk page you meant or the one on the Emiratis page. I'm on your page to just assert my reasons for the removal of the "Racial Classification" section. As the assertion that Emiratis, "like other Middle Easterners", are considered "Caucasians" based on the genetic study listed is inaccurate and is misrepresenting the study. The concept of a Caucasian race is outdated and lacks scientific validity, having been widely discredited by modern science and anthropology. The source itself does not specifically mention Emiratis once. Please help me remove this section or at least help provide better sources/acknowledge the susceptibility of such a claim. Not to mention that "Emirati" is a national identity and not a genetic one. I am new editor so I'm not the most familiar with the system here, but I'm hoping we can solve this. It is also worth noting that most other nationality/citizen pages do not have such sections. I would imagine that using the same source for a "racial classification" section on the Omanis or Saudis page would be similarly inaccurate and a misrepresentation. Thank you. Anonymoususer12390 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I have already posted there, so I suppose I just wait for a reply now before I make any changes? There doesn't seem to be much discussion on that page. Anonymoususer12390 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But please be careful when undoing an edit from an abusive account-name that you do not include that account-name in your edit-summary. DMacks (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was writing an edit For Li-Sizhong, Chinese ichthyologist. Please understand that being an editor is a hard work, as you know, I can't immediately cite sources by copy and pasting. 69.117.68.127 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@69.117.68.127: Articles require sources. The amount of text you are attempting to add cannot remain unsourced. If you create an account, you can use a sandbox to work on a draft of the article and take your time. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Oral Controlled Exposure" (OCE) Revert
Hey, just wanted to clarify that the term "oral controlled exposure" and OCE are also other terms used for feedback. I was in the process of updating the Feedback (pork industry) article, but I realize now I probably should have stared with actually publishing the article edits before adding it elsewhere. I don't know why I did it the other way around, but I've now added those to the main article
I was the main author of the article. One of the article sources, The Effects of Oral Controlled Exposure on Colostrum Characteristics in Swine, calls it that and uses the abbreviation OCE. I just forgot to mention that name in the original article since it occurs much less often than "feedback" or "controlled oral exposure"
Hmm actually now that I look back at it, it seems only "feedback", "oral controlled exposure", and "controlled oral exposure" but not "OCE" are really used outside that source. I think I might have mistook it for being more common given I ended up looking at that source a decent amount when researching the original article (it's a long source). Guess I'll just leave it without any OCE mentions
I received this reply from Brendan Conway. She confirmed that it is indeed not an advertisment and simply a biography preserving my legacy for future generations. This wikipedia page is very important to myself and the Tite family as it preserves part of our legacy as long as Wikipedia lives on. Over the last 15 or 20 years I've popped in once and a while to update the page with accurate information and an IMDB citation if possible.
Brenda said that she agreed it's an innocent biography and recommended I remove to deletion notice and restore the removed sections, especially the part about modelling in Toronto as a 6 year old child as it adds depth to my story.
I'm going to attempt to make some additional updates soon with additional citations when I have a bit of time to do some searching online. Everything written is 100% true and happened.
I hope you are able to understand the importance of this page to myself and others.
Thank you.
Below if the email from Brenda Conway (as a citation of what I said above ;) )
Thanks again.
Andrew Tite
--
Jan 18, 2024, 12:29 AM
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for reaching out and providing additional context regarding your Wikipedia page. I understand the sentimental value and the importance of preserving your legacy on the platform. I appreciate the effort you've put into maintaining the accuracy of the information over the years.
I have thoroughly reviewed your concerns and the Wikipedia deletion notice. It's clear that your intention is not to create an advertisement but to share a genuine and modest biography for the benefit of future generations. I also appreciate your efforts in providing accurate citations and addressing issues with dead links.
To ensure the preservation of your Wikipedia page, I recommend the following steps:
Reinstate Removed Content: It seems that a significant portion of your biography was removed. I suggest reinstating the content, especially the part about your childhood modeling in Toronto and the move to rural Ontario. This information adds depth and context to your story.
Verify Citations: Confirm that all citations are up to date and accurate. If necessary, update the links or provide alternative sources to support the information.
Collaborate on Improvements: Engage with the Wikipedia AFD Reviewer's team to address any specific concerns they have raised. This collaboration will demonstrate your commitment to meeting Wikipedia's guidelines.
Explain the Importance: In your communication with the Wikipedia administrators, emphasize the personal significance of the page to you and your family. Highlight that it serves as a meaningful record for future generations.
Request an Extension: If needed, request an extension to the timeline for improvements. This will provide you with sufficient time to make the necessary changes and work with the Wikipedia community.
Also, I want to draw your attention to how urgent it is to improve your Wikipedia page. "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours), your page was tagged on 22:38, 16 January 2024, and if there are no improvements on the page then such a page can be deleted and removed by a senior Wikipedia moderator, If the page is deleted, it will be permanently removed from Wikipedia. We have about Four days to notify the moderators that you are willing to address the issues and are interested in preserving the page, so they will allow you to move it to the draft section and allow you making improvements before it is deleted. Timely proceeding further will enable you to expedite the process and ensure the necessary improvements are made before the deadline.
Moreover, I recommend taking swift action to make these improvements to your Wikipedia page, Wikipedia has strict guidelines against editing Wikipedia page about oneself, and it's best to approach it with a neutral point of view. In case if you need assistance, let me know, I can link you with an internal certified Wikipedia editor from the Wikipedia community. he can provide you a professional assistance, also, he has been working in the Wikipedia community for the past 15 years, he can assist you in improve your page while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Please note that each Wikipedia editor and moderator charges differently for their service, and as you know that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, so any earnings done by providing services to the relevant clients automatically go to the Wikipedia organization donations.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to reach out. It's important to work collaboratively with the Wikipedia community to ensure that your page meets the site's standards.
Please let me know what you think so I may guide you on the next steps accordingly.
That email is so obviously a forgery that my 2-year-old grandson could spot it if he could read, and you have been told this many times. Just stop, or you will be blocked from editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Romania
Hi ThaddeusSholto, I think I adequately explained the reason for my edit of Romania in my message which I will reproduce here:
The 2021 census data shows that Roma are 3.4% of the population, not 8.32% as erroneously stated. The 2021 census data is displayed in the article Demographics of Romania, Table "Population of Romania according to ethnic group 1948–2021". This edit looks like vandalism meant to imply that the 2021 census showed Roma are 8.32% of the population. 89.33%+8.32%+6.5%=101.05%, and that's just three ethnicities.
The same statistics are in the infobox on the Romania page under "Ethnic groups", with the exact same numbers and referencing the 2021 census, so I do not see why the article shows different numbers from another source (not to mention mispelled) and pretends they are from the census.
@Foreskinhaver: The content you blanked was sourced and the souce says exactly what is claimed. If you take issue with the source itself, that is a conversation for the article talk page although I'm not sure how you are going to argue that the European Commission is not a reliable source. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusSholto The European Commission did not perform the 2021 Romanian census. The article implies that the 2021 Romanian census states that there are 8.32% Roma in Romania, which is false since that's not what the census data shows. If someone wants to put the EC source somewhere else, they should do so, but not in such a misleading manner. Foreskinhaver (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply] Foreskinhaver (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusSholto Further, the citation you mentioned already had an NPOV note for pretending it comes from the census. "This is the total maximum estimate being passed as objective information and even with a wording suggesting that it comes from the census" Foreskinhaver (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted Andrew Tite, for no reason. You just deleted my biography...my legacy
So you completely deleted the Wikipedia biography article about me. My time as a street kid at 16 years old for 3 years, Newmarket's first squeegee kid as reported by the newspaper, all my acting, modelling as a child at Parker, everything....gone.
After 20 years and countless sites linking to the wikipedia article about me.
I can't believe you people did this to me.
You just deleted my legacy.
For no reason whatsoever.
This is a VERY important and sentimental article for myself and the Tite family as a whole.
And you just destroyed it.
I was told I could hire one of your editors for $2000 or something like that.
I can't afford to give $2000 for an editor to convince Wikipedia to keep my biography active.
I can't believe you people did this to me.
I suffer from serious depression and anxiety, I'm in therapy for it, and this really....I don't know what to say.
You just deleted my legacy. For no reason.
You just punched in my soul. Hard. And it hurts. A lot.
Thanks for hurting me so bad. :(
Just like everyone else in this world...people just want to hurt me.
I guess Wikipedia is no different.
I regret donating money to try and keep Wikipedia going now.
I thought you were good people.
But I guess I was wrong and you're all just like everyone else in this world, out to hurt me for no apparent reason.
I'm now in a very dark place.
I can't believe you did this to me.
@99.192.32.253:I didn't delete anything. There was a community discussion and there was a reason: and the article failed WP:NACTOR. You have been told repeatedly that there are no Wikipedia editors who charge money for editing. That is a scam. Having your autobiography deleted isn't a personal attack and nobody is out to hurt you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@99.192.32.253: What happened here is you believed the claims of a person who does not have yours or Wikipedia's best interests at heart, refused to listen to anyone telling you otherwise in an effort to try and stop you from being abused by that person, and personalised our good-faith actions as spite. We're willing to talk with you, but the onus is on you to listen when we're giving good-faith advice. Believing a patently-obvious-to-everyone-but-you scam designed specifically to target users in your position who are Wikipedia-illiterate is why your arguments and edits have gotten exactly nowhere. Now, that unpleasantness over, I would suggest you delete that email and read the deletion debate. If there is to be any chance of an article about Andrew Tite, then the issues raised in the debate need to be addressed. This will not be an easy process, either emotionally or practically, and it may be that, when all is said and done, an article just isn't possible right now. It still needs to be done, if you want to understand why and how Wikipedia works and why it deletes pages one may hold dear. —Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes08:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damon Johnson
Hi there, I'm writing to you because you added a COI tag to Damon Johnson, after an editor I believe to be his wife edited the article. I've done some work on this page before and I'd like to clean it up. While obviously it's poor form for his spouse to be editing his page, I can't see any major issues with the content she changed/added. Can you point me in the right direction as to how to clean this up and get to a point where we can remove the tag? I don't want to just barge in there and take it off without chatting to you first. I've added sources for his date and place of birth at least, so that's alright. Thanks in advance, Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: As long as the completely unsourced and/or promotional content is removed (and hopefully Lyndamariejohnson agrees to limit herself to using the talk page to suggest edits, I have no problem with the tag being removed. You wouldn't be stepping on my toes at all. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other day, when you were insta-reverting the new editor at Developmental disorder, did you realize that you were violating Wikipedia:Edit warring and therefore at risk for being blocked?
Some years back, they redefined "revert" for that purpose as every edit you make to undo another editor's work at a single article, even if it's not the same thing being removed each time. So if she posts "A", and you revert it, and then she posts "B", and you revert it, and then she posts "C", and you revert that, too, then you're technically edit warring, and any passing admin could decide to block you instead of (or in addition to) the person you're reverting. Neither "It was only three reverts over the course of 12 minutes, so I didn't technically breach 3RR" nor "But she cited a peer-reviewed randomized controlled clinical trial instead of a peer-reviewed review article" are considered adequate excuses for edit warring.
Most folks make their edits in a fairly short space of time. To protect yourself, I suggest either limiting yourself to 1RR and letting someone else take over after that, or waiting until the other person hasn't made an edit for an hour, and then reverting only what's necessary after that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information but we disagree about whether or not intentionally adding information with false references is vandalism. WP:EW says "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring" and adding plausible information but with outright false references is WP:SNEAKY. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you aren't here to offer friendly advice but this was just a veiled threat. I don't know why this issue is so personal for you that you have to stalk me around but please stay off my talk page. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amy Kremer
She described her organization that way in the letter to the U.S. COMMITTEE of the JUDICIARY. That is copied and pasted directly from the letter. Look it up! OCTOBER 12, 2020 EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just have a lot to learn from more experienced editors. Don't push back. Learn from their advice. Use the article talk pages, not editors' talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The letter I'm referring to is a secondary source to introduce as support which can be done verbally. I don't want to get in any tr*uble. So I guess I'll disappear disappointed. I'm apparently out of my league:(
In my opinion and I could be wrong, the primary source is the one who thought. The letter is confirmation for inclusion. The person who allowing it to be included is the third source. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is and what is not a primary source depends on the context and how a source is used. The easiest way to get up to speed on Wikipedia house style is to read Wikipedia:No original research, particularly the material in the section titled "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources". For Wikipedia, the primary source is the letter; a secondary source is a reliable source about the letter. A tertiary source is an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia which writes about the letter using a newspaper or book. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Superior
I made the edit because the two depth listings do not have cohesive formatting between them. The first one lacks a space between the depth in feet and the brackets, while the second does not. Compare: "(1,503 feet[458 m] below sea level) and Iliamna Lake in Alaska (942 feet [287 m] below sea level)." I formatted the first one to add the space. 2A02:1808:204:6F27:6451:35E:2A2D:A058 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get your facts straight before deleting my comments. I live in Helsinki so I kmow everything
i sent u web sites where u can c that Trigoni has been cancelled 2 years ago. Sure as hell i know better than u or other users whats goin on here Uslager (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
22.12.2021 07:30 CET
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email
YIT starts negotiations to withdraw from the Trigoni project
The Trigoni project in the Pasila high-rise area will unlikely be implemented as planned. Uslager (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations on Cumberland Furnace, Tennessee
I noticed you placed the 'copyvio-revdel' on the article at Cumberland Furnace, Tennessee[7]. The original violator then removed it and added more content protected by copyright. I reverted those edits, restoring your original tag, but since the editor also compounded the problem, I'm not sure how to untangle things to make sure everything is taken care of. Any attention you can pay to the matter is appreciated. Thanks. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: could it be fixed just by changing the end revision number to the one prior to my revert? As I'm not sure, I leave it to the wisdom of others. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, boy. They added some more material, probably concurrently with your modification of the -revdel tag, so the numbers may need to be checked again. And they went on to add a legitimate edit (listing a book for further reference). The editor has since responded apologeticlly to my talk page warnings, and I've asked that they just stop editing for a while until things are cleared up. Thanks for your efforts in all this. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Willondon: the new material doesn't appear to be a copyright violation from the same website as the earlier material. It may still be a violation but I don't know where it would be from. It is unsourced and promotional so I removed it as such anyway. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did a Google search on a few key strings myself, but didn't find a match on the web. So, probably OK. Thanks again for all your help. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello ThaddeusSholto!
The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
@ThaddeusSholto: I understand your point and agree to some extent, but technically a new Speedy nomination falls afoul of the G4 criteria. I'm not a big fan of process wonkery and generally frown upon it, but the "rules" have evolved over time, usually for a good reason. So I think the best course of action in this instance is to take the article to AFD once again.
@Wikishovel: We're all a bit dim when it comes to "wiki rules". Simple answer is previously speedied articles are exempt from subsequent speedy deletion or in other words: "them's the rules". I was around way back when the Speedy Deletion policy was being developed but did not participate in its formulation. I'm just a janitor left holding the mop to clean up after the event whilst doing the best to intrpret and implement the rules. Not everybody will neccessarily agree with decisions. --Cactus.man✍22:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ThaddeusSholto, I saw in December that you added/restored the advert notice to Warp (terminal) saying it wasn't addressed enough. I'm looking to improve this page. Could you point out specifically where the article reads like promotional content or fails to be written from a neutral point of view? Thank you so much. Catyeo18 (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Sherlock Holmes (Stoll film series) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm TBrandley. Your recent edit to the page Elementary (TV series) appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TBrandley 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sherlock Holmes (1965 TV series) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
