Jump to content

User talk:Girth Summit/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Maxime Demers

Hi Girth, Im working in hydrographic too as a marine geomatician here in Canada. Maxime Demers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.215.32.23 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010‎ (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Girth Summit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Gian (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome Gian. I confess I'm slightly surprised by the welcome, since I've been editing Wikipedia for a few years now (albeit somewhat sporadically!), but thanks all the same.Girth Summit (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Reflexology

I guess you have some arguments supporting your undo of my edit on reflexology. Please tell me. --Blindvei (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page; I didn't undo your edit, that was someone else, but I've explained why I think they did it.Girth Summit (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging users

Hi Girth Summit,

I only just saw your now two-week old comment here. Please be aware that templates are available to draw the attention of users you are dressing; see {{ping}}, {{re}}, and others. You don't have to use those, although they're convenient; you can also just link the username, like this: Hi, [[User:Mathglot|]], Regarding your post... and the user will be alerted by the notifications system that you are pinging them. More at WP:TALK and Help:Talk pages. It isn't necessary to ping a user on their own talk page, but anywhere else, it's considered a courtesy; unless they say "I'm watching this page," or, "I have this page watchlisted," which is their way of saying, "Don't ping me, please." One peculiarity of the Notifications system: if you misspell someone's name in a notification and then fix it later, you must change your sig (i.e., add a new ~~~~ at the end) or the notification won't be issued. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot. (I hope that ping worked correctly!) I'll start pinging people in future. In that instance, I'd assumed that you would be notified of the revert and would look at the talk page, but I suppose you edit a lot of pages and don't have time to investigate every change. The tip is appreciated.Girth Summit (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
As you can see, it did! Best, Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

This is excellent advice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It took a bit of time to type, but if it helps everyone avoid a repeat of yesterday's events, I'll consider it time well spent!Girth Summit (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI

You are generous, but this was not remotely a fair comment from an admin who should know better. You expressed yourself perfectly well, and appropriately, and don't let that foolish reply make you think otherwise. Grandpallama (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Grandpallama. Thought it best to err on the side of caution and explain what I meant in less confrontational language. Glad you could see what I was getting at! Girth Summit (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I mean, that certainly speaks well of your thoughtfulness, and good on you for taking the high road, but it was an inane statement to make about your original comment; nothing you said was confrontational or unwarranted, which is what bugged me about the response. Again, admins should (and generally do) know better, but it's also possible that a history of such comments from that particular admin may make me especially annoyed when I see them directed at someone who is newer. Happy editing! :) Grandpallama (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Glasgow and Weegies

In regards to the reverted edit on the Glasgow page [1] - I think you are wrong in this case. The two removed citations don't back up the claim, and the Peter Greenberg guide is 9 years old and written by an American. I can say confidently as someone from Glasgow that "weegie" is a very, very East-coast term (not always derogatory) and you would find it very rare to be used by someone from Glasgow.

A cursory google can back this up - I'm not fully up to scratch in Wikis citation quality requirements, but these pages should give you an idea:

https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/1wz08j/the_weegie_words_20_terms_that_prove_you_come/ http://www.fivestarvisas.com/newsandviews/welcome-to-glasgow/ http://www.rsdb.org/slur/weegie https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080426161932AAX3qg0&guccounter=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.158.82 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi 109.174.158.82, there is a bit of a problem with sourcing here, I agree. The Peter Greenberg guide isn't ideal - he's a recognised and respected journalist, with a widely read travel blog, but I agree he's not a renowned expert on Glasgow dialect. However, the ones you found in your Google search aren't usable - they're all self published sources/blogs from non-notable people/companies etc.
I think that the Evening Times article perhaps sheds the most light on this - it's a 2014 article from a Glasgow paper, written for a Glasgow audience, and it uses the term repeatedly - that would seem to suggest that it is used by people from the city. (FWIW, which isn't much, I'm from Glasgow and I use the term, and I know plenty of other Glaswegians who do likewise). Can you find any reliable sources saying differently? Girth Summit (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah agreed, the sources are bad on both sides - which is my main reason for removing that section; there's nothing to back up the claim that we take on that moniker proudly. Personal experience tells me that it's not a term people from Glasgow use proudly, but as I say, it's rare not unheard of. I would say the two best sources to contest it are the rsdb link above, and this: https://lingomash.com/slang-meanings/19590/slang-meaning-of-wegie-weegie as well as the fact that most (Glasgow) user-posted comments in relation to the word seem to be negative.--Bryan5631 (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Bryan5631 I can't agree that those are the best of what is definitely a bad bunch - they're both user-generated content, with no obvious editorial oversight, so not verifiable. To my mind, the Evening Times is the best source, because it is a notable publisher based in Glasgow and written for a Glasgow audience. It is using the word, in what I would say is quite a proud way - however, I accept that that is different from it asserting that the word is used with pride, and inferring the one from the other probably involves an element of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
The only source that your edit left in the text was Peter Greenberg, and he doesn't say anywhere that it's disparaging - all he says is that Glaswegians wear it with pride. I've asked for comment about this at WP:RSN, so we can see what other editors think about the sourcing. If it's contentious, it might be best to remove all reference to the word from the article until some proper sources can be identified.Girth Summit (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
That's fair, you're right about the Evening Times having a bit more validation to it. I think it would be very hard to verify either side of the argument conclusively to be honest, as it is mostly an opinion-based statement - but waiting on inpu from other editors is a good idea.--Bryan5631 (talk) 010:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RSN The Star (Malaysia)

Hi Girth Summit. At RSN, you wrote, actually giving information on how to donate to her charity. All I see is a contact email address. Are you seeing something else? --Ronz (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

HI Ronz It was the bit where it says Those who wish to help..., then gives phone numbers for two of the volunteers, and an e-mail address for her charity. I thought that was obviously a request for donations, but if you think that's a problematic inference I'd be happy to strike and reword? GirthSummit (blether) 15:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe a quote would be clearer. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Done.GirthSummit (blether) 15:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Time series database

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time series database. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foursquare

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foursquare. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. --John (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

John That warning template is for use when someone is adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. I added entirely uncontroversial material, with sources that were discussed on the talk page and at WP:RSN. Don't be so aggressive, and please just engage with the discussion on the talk page, and explain your position - so far, all you've done is drop links to policies, but you're not responding to any arguments about why they don't apply. GirthSummit (blether) 10:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of cognitive biases

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cognitive biases. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Your recent advice to Willwill0415 has been both valuable and kind. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, —PaleoNeonate – 16:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christine Blasey Ford

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christine Blasey Ford. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Dogs

Dog Lover
To the one who loves dogs! And the one who is very nice! 24escheuanimal (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

213.78.70.193

Hi Girth, You make me sad - reference 'Me , sitting at my desk, now' :) And juvenile is a great word! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.70.193 (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't be sad - look, I gave you a new section. Juvenile is quite a good word, although it's not really up there with kerfuffle and bamboozle. We still can't add them willy-nilly to articles without sourcing. I'm sure you really are sitting at your desk, but I can't verify that fact. GirthSummit (blether) 12:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Dogmatic.. another good word, as is pedantic and doctrinaire. Not sure I approve of the use of "will-nilly" not quite in keeping with the high brow nature of this fine online data repository. Honestly, i expect better from you Girth :) p.s. I do like my new section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.70.193 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing afghans in Germany and afghans in Russia afghan diaspora

We need to change it to German afghans, Russian afghans, Turkish afghans, Indian afghans, Swedish afghans. Please change title in Wikipedia please get everybody involved to change it. Sameem123 (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sameem123, thanks for your note. My user talk page isn't the place to have this discussion however - you need to go to the talk page for each of the articles in question, and make your case there. You will need to explain why you think we need to make these changes - it's not enough just to say 'we need to change it' - you need to say 'we need to change it because...'. Thanks! GirthSummit (blether) 07:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel that’s all afghan kids who are born in different countries like afghans in Germany or other countries are ethnic groups you can change it to afghan Germans and Swedish afghans and British afghans its afghan diaspora. There’s my explanation. Sameem123 (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, Sameem123, you can explain that on the talk page of each of the articles, rather than here. Thanks. GirthSummit (blether) 08:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletions from Keith M. Davidson

The IP that made this edit resolves to LA. What do you want to bet it's Davidson himself? Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Very possible. More likely his intern/flunky, who's getting shouted at right now because the stuff is still up. Gotta feel for the guy, but you can't just go around deleting all the stuff your boss doesn't like... GirthSummit (blether) 19:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
+1 Based on what I've read about him, Davidson might just be as likely to take this directly to the Foundation. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Please make the article more balanced

Dear Sir

You point out the fact that most scholars reject the historicity of the Bible. But these are biased researchers for who it will be hard to accept that what they reject is true. Most evangelical scholars accept that it is historically accurate MilBenedict (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@MilBenedict: See the note I left on your talk page. If you want to add something about what evangelical scholars think, you will need reliable sources, and to add content at an appropriate point in the article. What you absolutely must not do is insert your own words into the text of a direct quote taken from an attributed scholarly source. I would also add that if a view is held by the overwhelming majority of historians, then that view represents the historical consensus, even if you don't agree with it - it doesn't need to be obfuscated with phrases like 'the consensus of liberal scholars' or whatever. GirthSummit (blether) 10:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of scholars who are not evangelical or practicing catholics or orthodox donnot accept the Biblie’s historicity. The opposite is true for the evangelical scholars. Both choose to focus and interpret the evidence accordingly. When you say majority what do you mean? The vast majority or Biblical researchers are found in Christian universities. The faculties devoted to the Bible are relatively small is secular universities. And many like Kennet Kitchen teach in secular universities and yet support the reliability of the text do the Bible MilBenedict (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@MilBenedict: First things first - don't start a new section every time you add a new comment, and please read WP:INDENT for notes on how to indent conversations to make it easier to follow who's saying what.
To address your comment: the consensus of historians is the consensus of all historians, of any faith or none. We're not talking about bible scholars, we're talking about historians whose studies touch upon this issue - anyone working on the period that the bible covers, but it might also touch on the history of ideas, history of literature, history of early languages, etc. It is not necessary for someone specifically to be a scholar of the bible to have a view on this - historians are trained to evaluate the sources available for their area of study. Now, please read the links I've provided on your talk page, and consider whether you would be able to write some content for the page which is reliably sources and could be put on the page to fill in some of the gaps you think it has. GirthSummit (blether) 10:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the SPI

It seemed pretty obvious but I was too busy to do anything. But you need to move your last comment as it's in the wrong section. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Done. I'm on a bit of a learning curve at the moment, I appreciate the friendly steer. GirthSummit (blether) 20:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Girth Summit. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left a comment for you at WP:PERM/R. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Amanda, I'll start having a look at Huggle and STiki now. Regarding your message, I' afraid I can't remember the specific edit that you were referring to, and of course now it's oversighted I can't check; however, I will make sure I read the relevant guidelines carefully and familiarise myself with what does need oversighting and how to get help when it's required. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 08:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Cummulonimbus article deleted section

Dear Girth, I deleted the Commercial Aviation section on purpose because, as an airline pilot, it contained some very bad advices resulting from misinterpreting Robert Buck's book, Weather Flying.

  • First misconception: flying around a thunderstorm is dangerous.

In the book, pages 261 and 262, Buck discusses an hypothetical flight through a cold front in a small airplane flying around 10,000ft. What the author really says is that there is a risk associated when trying to climb to go through an opening in the line of clouds as it may outclimb the aircraft in an altitude where the stall speed and max speed are very close to each other.

  • Second misconception: fly through the heaviest rain portion of a cummulonimbus cloud.

In page 267, Robert Buck explains that before airborne weather radar, pilots would pick the darkest part of the storm if they had to go through it. The author continues explaining that after the invention of the radar, the heaviest radar echo, which was due to heavy rain consisted in the storm core, so pilots began avoiding it. But the heaviest turbulence isn't exactly in the middle of the heavy rain, but very close, so avoiding the rain area by a good margin, you'll probably miss the worst of the turbulence. If you want, I can reproduce both excerpts from the book to you. Regards, s_arman 22:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samir.arman (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the note. I suggest you bring thiss up at the article talk page, where all interested parties can review your comments. Simply deleting the entire section might not be the best approach. cheers GirthSummit (blether) 22:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

How to pages

Wasn't thinking... Thanks! I need to go to bed. Jim1138 (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The Alt-right page

Hi, I put in the quotation marks again as I explained in my original edit. Please understand the use of correct English in this instance. If a conservative uses "Alt-left" as a smear, they are not implying a false equivalence to the Alt-right. They are implying an ACTUAL equivalence. The implication of the equivalence is not "false" to the person making the implication. It is only "false" to the commentator on the implication, such as Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League (whom is obviously biased against the implication). He calls it a "false equivalence" in the linked source. It should therefore be in quotation marks only. If you remove these quotation marks, you are making this page non-neutral, and slanted towards his opinion, making it into a fact. It is not a fact that far left has no equivalence to the far right in terms of violence. It is an OPINION only. Many will disagree with this opinion. The Far left are well known to use violence and direct action as a tactic, as are the far right. Quotation marks must remain for quoted opinions. Thanks for your understanding. Transcendent28 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Transcendent28: See MOS:QUOTE. Quotation marks are to be used to denote attributed quotations, not to imply an air of doubt about something. The use of the quotes is correct in the second time that false equivalence is used in the paragraph, since the phrase is directly attributed to Mark Pitcavage, but in the first sentence there is no direct attribution so the quote marks are not necessary. The whole paragraph is rather awkward and repetitive however, so it might be better to reword the whole thing? GirthSummit (blether) 11:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your reply. I tried removing the "false" words before but someone removed my changes due to the sentence being sourced. The trouble is, the source is actually a quote of someone's opinion. Without quotation marks, it's stating the "false equivalence" as a fact. It's not about casting doubt on it, it's about being politically neutral. If someone makes a smear against someone else, it is highly possible that the smearer believes their smear to be true, eg. if you call someone an "idiot", you might not be making a false accusation of them being an idiot. You could be ACTUALLY calling them an idiot. It's the same with the smear "Alt-left". I don't want this to turn into an edit war, because I'll get banned. Would you agree though, that removing the first instance of "false" would be the right thing to do, and then keep quotation marks round the second "False equivalence"?Transcendent28 (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Transcendent28: I don't agree with your interpretation about the statement of fact. The assertion that is being made in Wikipedia's voice is that the term has been criticised as implying false equivalence - we're not saying that it is a false equivalence, we're saying that people have said that it's one, so I don't have a problem with the neutrality. I do think that the two sentences should probably be rolled into one, or otherwise redrafted, because they are currently quite repetitive. The quotation marks should be kept if we are quoting a specific individual, but they aren't essential. The best thing to do might be to propose some new wording on the article talk page? GirthSummit (blether) 13:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

GABgab 00:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!

Hello, Girth Summit, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki 09:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.
Orphan Wiki 09:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Orphan Wiki - it took me a bit of time to get my head around it, but I think I've figured out the basic functions. I'll continue playing around with it, but I can see this being something that I start using regularly. I've been doing a lot of work using Twinkle and recent changes lately, but I like how Stiki offers a way to look at older diffs and catch vandalism that made it through the recent change patrol. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
No problem :) Yeah, I currently use Huggle, Twinkle and Stiki, and I've gotta say that Stiki is my favourite one. As you mention, there's plenty of vandalism that slips through the net cast by ClueBot_NG and RC patrollers, and the fact that this can still be cleared up is fantastic. I also think it's quite user friendly too. :)
Any questions on it, let me know, or post a message over at Wikipedia talk: STiki. Orphan Wiki 16:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hyundai atos

I have add more text at Hyundai Atos can you help me in the “access date” in references? Thanks

OK, looking at it now.GirthSummit (blether) 13:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@TataPower2: The problem is that you are writing 'accessdate' as one word. It should be two words - 'access date' - I think that if you change that, the references will work.
Please can I check a point with you about your username - 'Tata' is obviously a brand of car, and since you are editing an article about a particular car model, can you confirm whether you have any relationship with Tata - are you an employee? It's not necessarily a problem if you are, but there are certain rules you have to follow, including declaring your interest - see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 13:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Quantrell/ Quantrill

Thank you for contacting me. As a writer , I should have known better. I can find and cite sources and will do so when i regain access to my books , specifically those pertaining to my ancestor William Clarke Quantrell. Thank you and apologies for the arbitrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. James Quantrell (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi C. James Quantrell, thanks for understanding the situation. Just to be clear about what we do in historical articles at Wikipedia: it's not the place to correct mistakes that historians have made. Our job is to reflect what historians have said, even if it contains mistakes. If our article is wrong about how most historians spell the name, and you can present reliable sources to demonstrate that, then you will have no problem gaining consensus for these changes; if, on the other hand, most historians spell it the way our article does, then we must continue to do so even if it is wrong. Wikipedia isn't the place to publish original research or to right great wrongs; our aim is to summarise what up-to-date scholarly sources have to say about a subject. I suggest you find what sources you can, and discuss the changes on the talk page, according to our bold-revert-discuss cycle. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed citation from Fabiano Caruana

Hello, My edit was removed from the Fabiano Caruana Wiki ["Although he is not Jewish"] because the source was unreliable. Can you explain this. It's from the just-released New York Times article profiling Fabiano Caruana. He grew up in a heavily Jewish and Italian American neighborhood and attended an afterschool program hosted by a Jewish institution, but he himself is not Jewish. Within, there is a picture of his childhood home showing a picture of Jesus, which I posted.

What's the issue? He is Catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.11.48 (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @108.53.11.48:. Nowhere in that article does it say 'he is a Catholic', or 'he is not Jewish' - therefore, it does not support your assertion. That photograph is not useful as a source for your assertion because (1) it's not clear that it is a picture of Jesus (it doesn't look like one to me, and I was brought up Catholic - I've seen loads) and (2) even if it was clearly a picture of Jesus, you can not infer from that that he is a Catholic - that is WP:OR. I am not a Muslim, but I have Islamic prayer mats in my home - because I think they are beautiful. Find a reliable source that says 'He is not Jewish', or 'He is Catholic' - don't infer stuff from the pictures. GirthSummit (blether) 19:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Girth, Fair enough. Please explicitly state that he went to Park Slope’s Congregation Beth Elohim for explicitly academic (concentration issues), and not for religious. The article is misleading and invites inferences that he attended the Jewish institution for religious reasons and he did not. Otherwise, why even mention it's a Jewish institution? It was a strictly academic program. Nobody writes "He attended Boston College, a Catholic institution" in their articles. Please fix.
That is a depiction of Jesus - it has a halo above his head. I feel as if you are deliberately being obtuse, but whatever. See: https://imgur.com/j041bMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.11.48 (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/nov/07/fabiano-caruana-chess-interview-world-championship-magnus-carlsen
"A dual US-Italian citizen who was born in Miami and spent his childhood in Brooklyn’s Park Slope neighborhood, Caruana – who goes by Fabi – started playing chess aged five in an after-school program that he had joined to address issues concentrating in school."
https://www.chess-site.com/chess-players/fabiano-caruana/
"At the age of five, Fabiano Caruana learned chess in an after-school chess program. His parents had enrolled him because he was experiencing some disciplinary problems and they hoped the program would help. "
@108.53.11.48: OK, first off, please read WP:THREAD - it gives some advice on how to structure talk page discussions so that it's clear who is saying what.
Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Next, be careful about saying things like 'I feel as if you are deliberately being obtuse' - you are required to assume good faith of other editors - I've spent quite a bit of time responding to you, and I'm not doing it to frustrate you. I am not being obtuse, I just don't agree with you.
Even if this was an picture of Christ on the cross, wearing a crown of thorns and with the wound on his side, this would not be a reliable source to say that the subject of the article is a Catholic , or even that he is not Jewish - you need a reliable, independently-published source saying words like 'he is a Catholic', or 'he is not Jewish'. That's not just my opinion - I genuinely don't care whether this guy is Jewish, Hindu, Norse pagan or whatever - it's policy. A reliable source is required for any assertion, and when it's about a living person the policy is strictly enforced. The quotes you've pasted above say literally nothing about his faith.
As it stands, I don't see any policy-based reason to change the current wording of this section of the article. The fact that he was discovered in a Jewish education centre is factual, non-defamatory, neutrally presented and reliably sourced. If you really think that his faith is an important matter than should be discussed in the article, then go and find a reliable source that actually tells us what his faith is (without us having to rely on inference), and write a sentence to add to the article. If you find such a source, I'll be happy to help you with inline citation formatting. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 23:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

False warning for nonconstructive edit

I read in my talk page that I had been warned on an edit that replaced a speedy deletion tag "because it did not appear constructive." I assume this was meant for the person who deleted the speedy delete tag, but if it is not, could you please explain why it was not constructive?

Thanks, QUICKWITTEDHARE CONVERSE 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@QuickWittedHare: I'm truly sorry, I messed up. I am new to Huggle, and was attempting to CSD the page myself - how I managed to template you, I am not sure, but I obviously need to go a bit slower on Huggle. I'll strike the template on your talk page and apologise there as well. GirthSummit (blether) 00:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar

Congratulations, Girth Summit! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks West.andrew.g - much appreciated. I'm enjoying using it, it's a great tool. GirthSummit (blether) 17:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

HelpmeChoose99

Dear fellow contributor, Thank you for your comments. However in this case I believe you editorialising. TD Mary Mitchell O'Connor is pro abortion. I do not think many people would find that controversial. In editing biographies, we have a commitment to accurately descript peoples views and in this case I urge you to this standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpmeChoose99 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi HelpmeChoose99, thanks for your note. I've created a new section for it, and slightly refactored your comment - I hope you don't mind.
WP:Editorializing has a specific meaning around here - is that what you are saying I am guilty of? I don't see how it's relevant.
What I am doing is trying to ensure that our biographical article about a living person (WP:BLP) is neutrally written and accurately sourced. If you want to say that she is 'pro-abortion', then you will need a reliable source to support that assertion. In an area such as this, it is important that we do not use our own judgment to determine what 'most people would agree with'; instead we represent what reliable sources say about the subject of the article as closely as we can. Do not introduce your own phrases to define people of their views - use the phrases that the sources use. GirthSummit (blether) 19:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Misidentified vandalism on Game theory, but essential to the sense.

Hallo, Girth Summit; perhaps you could check out whether your edit that I have just reverted was a simple slip on your part or suggests a possible improvement to STiki (with which I am unfamiliar). PJTraill (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi PJTraill - I re-read it, and you are absolutely correct - my bad. I'm in the process of noting on the editor's page that this was a mistake. I might insert a note in the text asking editors not to change this - it looks like other people have made the same incorrect correction (incorrection ought to be a word) in the past. Thanks for letting me know, and apologies for the disruption. GirthSummit (blether) 11:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks; an HTML comment sounds like a good idea. PJTraill (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

My Ben Bishop post earlier

I apologize for my actions with the Ben Bishop post. I had been drinking and was very grumpy from a moment between Ben Bishop and Brad Marchand. It won’t happen again. I am a huge hockey fan and I let my irritation get the better of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruinsfan1144 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries Bruinsfan1144. Thanks for putting your hands up, we've all made edits we regret later. WP:EUI is a good read! GirthSummit (blether) 13:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Girth Summit. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

classical definition of Ayurveda

The definition [1]describing the subject ayurveda must be present in the lede . so I made the new additions . These have to be present in the lede .Still I am Open for further discussion about the subject. 112.133.244.13 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't agree with you - what you are trying to add is one particular definition of Ayurveda, but there are others; the lead already defines what it is using other sources, and the source you are trying to include is already discussed in the body of the text. I don't think this content needs to be added to the lead, but I would not necessarily be averse to it being added further down in the article (if it was properly referenced, and the grammar and punctuation were to be tidied up).
I assume that you are the owner of the user account Nikhilesh1712? I say this because you are adding the same content that that account added recently, and which has been reverted several times by tronvillain, Roxy the dog and myself? What you are doing in repeatedly restoring content that has been reverted could be considered as edit warring. Please read WP:BRD, and then if you still want to add this content to the lead, start a discussion at the article talk page. If you continue to reinsert it without gaining consensus, your account may be blocked from editing.
Another point - you do not need to use the 'ref' tags to link to a Wikipedia article, you can simply write the title of the article in double square brackets to make a wikilink. (Having said that, I didn't really need a wikilink to definition, I already knew what that word meant).
Also, articles in Wikipedia have a lead section, which is different from a journalistic lede. It's worth reading this section of our manual of style for further guidance on what should and should not be included.
Finally (!) - please remember to log in when editing. It allows other editors to ping you in conversations and makes it a lot easier to keep track of who is doing and saying what. GirthSummit (blether) 16:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ definition

Apology

I am sorry but am not really familiar with the landscape in wiki, I personally am from Namibia i am a Wambo and thought to just correct the text I will gather and prepare audio to further explain my reason for my action, is it possible that you could share your email address inorder for me to forward them to you.

thank You --NAMIBIAWIKI (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User talk:NAMIBIAWIKI

Hi NAMIBIAWIKI - no apology needed! I'm going to put a 'welcome' template on your talk page with some links on how to go about building good articles. What you need are reliable, published sources using the spelling that you want us to use. If you made recordings yourself, and use that to argue that 'Ovambo' is wrong, it would be WP:Original Research, which isn't allowed. At Wikipedia, our job is to reflect what reliable sources say, even if we think that they are wrong - we're an encylopedia, not a place to WP:right great wrongs. If you can find published sources that you think support your argument, I'd be happy to take a look at them. GirthSummit (blether) 15:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Girth Summit
Thank you this is highly appriciated
NAMIBIAWIKI (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

107.77.216.59

Hi Girth, this is Oberstein123, the true user of the IP address the section is named after. I never made that edit to Bad Bunny, nor do I know who he is. I don’t know who else is using this IP besides me. If there is any way to find out what happened, please tell me. Thanks. Oberstein123 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oberstein123: Hi, I'm not sure what you're talking about here - I'm not aware of having reverted any edits recently at Bad Bunny, can you provide some WP:diffs so I can work out what this is about? Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 20:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Oberstein123: Scratch that previous comment - I see that I did revert an edit, and leave a message at thee IP's talkpage, on the 1st of November (didn't check back far enough initially, sorry). I'm not an expert on IP addresses, so I could be wrong on this, but I don't think that phones get assigned a specific IP that they keep when they are connected via a mobile phone network - the service provider will have a range of addresses, that they assign dynamically as users log on. It might be an address that you often get assigned, but there will be other users who get it as well.
My advice would simply be to log in to your account whenever you edit, so there can't be any confusion about the IP. If you want more guidance on this, you could ask over at the WP:Teahouse, you'd probably people with more expertise than me over there. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for getting back to me. Oberstein123 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Haskell Coffin

Thanks for your message.

>My suggestion would be to for you to create a page detailing the William Henry Coffin who you were talking about, supported by reliable sources, and then we could make >it clear to the reader that we have two articles for different artists of this name. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)

The problem with the existing entry is in its heading. The info presented there is about W. Haskell Coffin, and is accurate. The heading is false. William Henry Coffin is a different artist, who lived earlier, and who is irrelevant to the information presented in the article. Starting a new page for William Henry Coffin would not solve the problem, and I don't know that much about him. I have written a book on W. Haskell Coffin (http://www.enchantmentink.com/booka.php), and the heading on the existing article should be changed to read just Haskell Coffin, or at worst W. Haskell Coffin (Haskell never used more than W. Haskell in his signatures, probably because he didn't want to be confused with William Henry Coffin!). Thanks, Norm Platnick, Enchantment Ink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normplat (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Normplat: OK - changing the title of a page can't be done by ordinary editors, what you need to do is request that the content be moved to another page with a different title. The instructions for requesting a move are found at WP:RM. I've never been through this process myself, but hopefully the instrutions are clear enough. GirthSummit (blether) 13:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Normplat: Hi - I did a bit more reading about page moves, and I now realise that I (as an 'autoconfirmed' user) can do a page move. I read through the sources in this article, and I agree with you that there seems to have been some confusion between these two similarly named artists. I've moved the page to William Haskell Coffin. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 08:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Whoops

Apparently TW didn't catch enough there. Tried to get a revert, but it missed the second edit which I'm assuming happened right as I made the rollback. Sorry! :( Neot/c 14:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries Neolytical - happens to all of us! GirthSummit (blether) 14:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Elaine Philips

Uh hello. Do you know what the term “lame duck” means? She is not a former state senator as she is still in office until 12/31. Lame duck is the accepted and correct term for her status but she is most certainly not the former state senator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.122.7 (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I do know what 'lame duck' means, although perhaps there is some regional variation - in the UK, it's pejorative, and certainly not 'accepted and correct'. I can see that you believe that your usage was correct, and so I apologise for the suggestion that your edit may have been vandalism; nevertheless, I'd suggest that it's a subjective term, which shouldn't be used in the first sentence of the lead in Wikipedia's voice. Either way, this is something of a moot point, given that my reversion of your edit was several weeks ago; there have been numerous changes to the article since then, and the text that I reverted to is no longer present in the article. GirthSummit (blether) 22:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Did I respond to you regarding Cindy Alexander edit?

Hi, not sure if I responded to you regarding your post about editing Cindy Alexander's page and not entering why I edited it. I will do so in the future. Thanks for the heads up. Pennyframstad (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)pennyframstad

Hi there. I don't think that you did respond to me, but I went back and had a look at what you were doing at the time and I can see I was wrong to revert you - sorry about that. I use Huggle to review recent changes - it allows you to review recent changes very quickly, and it's really useful for responding quickly to the many vandalistic edits that come in constantly, but it is easy to make a mistake sometimes, which is what I'm afraid happened here. I saw your edit, and it rang a few alarm bells for me (no edit summary, removal of content, a typo in the content you added), and I wasn't aware that it was part of a series of changes that you'd been making - so yes, I reverted as potential vandalism. I can see that I should have looked more closely however, as you were doing lots of small changes to improve the article. It would help recent change patrollers like myself if, when you're doing work like that, you just include a small edit summary saying something along the lines of 'moving content to another section' or whatever; nevertheless, I should have looked more closely, so sorry for the unnecessary revert. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, Girth Summit! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki 10:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphan Wiki 10:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Your review of my recent edit to Social networking service

Hi Girth, thank you for taking the time to give me valuable feedback. I do have several sources some of which I would like to share with you:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/has-dopamine-got-us-hooked-on-tech-facebook-apps-addiction

https://www.ama.org/publications/MarketingNews/Pages/feeding-the-addiction.aspx

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-wise/201209/why-were-all-addicted-texts-twitter-and-google

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5362930/

I was under the impression it was a fairly obvious statement I was making about social media being found to affect the brain. But now I see your point of needing the citation so that everything is factual. I have done some reading up on how to add a citation (yes, I am a newbie :)) but I would need your inputs on what would be considered a valid source. Do let me know which of the above links would be acceptable.

And thank you for taking the time to walk me through all this. Truly appreciate your effort in helping keep Wikipedia clean.

@TestBedMatron: Hi, thanks for reaching out. Before I get into the sources you provided above, I'd like to draw your attention to our WP:MEDRS guidelines, which provide information on sourcing requirements for biomedical information. The assertion that you made in the article - that the 'positive-only' notifications on social media sites lead to demonstrable changes in the brains of users, similar to those in addicts - seems to me to fall squarely within the realm of biomedical information, so the MEDRS guidelines would apply here. Reviewing your sources:
  • The Harvard 'SITN' site is a blog - an expert blog, but a blog nonetheless - and so would not meet MEDRS
  • The Guardian/Observer article is journalism, synthesising the thoughts and findings of various researchers. Not MEDRS-compliant.
  • The AMA site is also journalism, from the American Marketing Association - not MEDRS-compliant.
  • The Psychology Today piece is popular science journalism - admittedly written by an expert - but the research it draws upon is a paper from 1998, long before social media sites as we know them today existed - I don't see how we could use that to support the assertion, even if it was MEDRS-compliant.
  • The 'Science Reports' paper is probably the strongest - it's a research paper, published in an academic journal. However, it's a very small (20 subjects) primary study, and MEDRS generally looks for secondary studies such as meta-analyses; furthermore, it appears only to be looking at whether social networking sites themselves are addictive - we can't infer from it that it is the 'positive-only' notifications that cause changes in the brains without breaking rules on WP:SYNTH.
I'm sorry I can't be a bit more positive about the sources you found - writing on biomedical areas is tricky, it arguably requires a higher level of personal expertise, and better access to professional sources, than other areas on Wikipedia. What you would really be looking for would be a large study, or an analysis of multiple smaller studies, published in a respected scientific journal or psychology/neurology textbook, specifically discussing changes in the brain linked to 'positive-only' notifications on social media sites. If no such source exists, Wikipedia can't say that such changes in the brain actually happen. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow! You really have set a very high benchmark for a contributor. Thank you for not just pointing out the exact issues with each of the source but for also setting an example of how a newbie should be articulate and thorough. Lots of best wishes to you TestBedMatron (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi TestBedMatron, you're welcome, and thank you for the kind words. I put most of my effort here into removing vandalism and unsourced nonsense from our articles; I'm always happy to help someone who is genuinely trying to improve the project, and willing to put a bit of time into finding sources, it makes a nice change! Let me know if you need any help in the future. (By the way, I refactored your last comment slightly - we use colons to indent comments on talk pages to make it clear who is responding to whom. You can read more about it at WP:THREAD). Happy editing! GirthSummit (blether) 19:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

128.59.76.187

I literally played drums in this band. We are not a band anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.76.187 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I played in a few (terrible) bands that were not good enough to warrant a WP page, so congratulations! Let's cut to the chase: I believe you - I'm not saying you're a liar. However, this is the internet - nobody can check that you are who you say you are. Imagine that your band had not broken up, and that you were still totally active - would you want us to take the word of a random internet troll that you had split up? How can I tell that's not what you're doing right now? We aim for verifiability in everything we publish - please provide a reliable source to confirm your assertion. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 20:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you for your message and I apologize for my tone. There is no way I can get a citation because that would require a publication or an interview to confirm the news which won't be happening anytime soon as we have disbanded once again and won't be taking an requests for press. Please let me know what else I can provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.76.187 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. The best bet is to wait for a reliable source to report the fact that your band has split up. I appreciate that might take a bit of time, but that's just the way n encyclopedia works - it's not a news source, it's not up to the minute, it just reflects what other sources say. We might be able to use a primary source in extremis - did the band have an official website? It's not ideal, but I'd have thought that would be acceptable as a source, given the circumstances. GirthSummit (blether) 00:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Girth Summit: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Sei Noelle (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

On Boomerangs

There is really no doubt that throwing sticks were being used by early hominins. I am not extrapolating and if you actually read the sources I have given the conclusion is clear. Throwing adaptations in the clavicle and humerus appear over two million years ago and are not a consequence of previous bipedal adaptations (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267812769_Clavicle_length_throwing_performance_and_the_reconstruction_of_the_Homo_erectus_shoulder). There are not only digging sticks from Acheulean sites in England, but projectile spears in Germany as well. This means that less sophisticated tecnology such as throwing sticks are likely to have preceded such developments. Large scale utilization of small mammals in the Lower Paleolithic layers of Zhoukoudian indicates sophisticated wooden projectile (throwing sticks) or trapping, of which the former is more likely. There is no other alternative-- scavenging is not even practical of small animals in such numbers. Tell me what you think of this and we can include something about early hominins and throwing sticks.

Hi, thanks for reaching out. It seems to me that you are drawing conclusions from published work here, which are not present in the work itself. That is, unfortunately, original research. If you want to assert that boomerangs were used by prehistoric Europeans, you must support it with a reliable source that says that boomerangs were used by prehistoric Europeans - we cannot draw inferences, no matter how obvious they seem to us. If you can present a source that directly supports the assertion you made, then I will support your changes. Paraphrasing is fine, indeed encouraged; but drawing conclusions from sources which are not explicitly stated in the sources themselves is not allowed. GirthSummit (blether) 23:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Completion of Counter-Vandalism Academy

CVU Academy Graduate
Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of 100%. Well done! Further information on your achievement can be found here.

It has been an absolute pleasure working with you these past few months. I appreciate your patience as I kept you waiting for feedback much too long on some assignments. Lately, I've been feeling a little discouraged by the whole Counter-Vandalism Academy program—I wasn't sure if it was very helpful for the students or the project, since much of the stuff we covered were things that some editors learn on their own over time. I was delighted to hear that you found it helpful.

Hope to see you around! Mz7 (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mz7 - I certainly did find it useful. I'm sure that you're right in that I might have been able to learn a lot of the course content on my own, but having someone to direct me to the relevant policies made the learning process much smoother; the problem with trial and error is that the error bit can be disheartening, and has the potential to be disruptive. Having someone experienced to turn to with questions like the stuff about revdel/oversight, or with problems like the one I encountered trying to install STiki, was really reassuring. Thank you for taking the time to do that, and I too hope to see you around the place. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 09:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

About changes

About changes
You asked about reference . I have watched his videos since very long on youtube. Also i have provided references in external link box. Also you can search on google . I am new on wiki. So please don't change edition this time. I will authentic information always not fake. Love from india Slaveraza (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Linking to off-wiki identities

Hi, please do not link to off-wiki identities or website in SPIs. I've removed and suppressed one you just made. Even if it appears obvious, out policy on outing does not allow the connection to be made unless the individual makes it themselves (and a username doesn't count.) If making the connection is needed, you can contact the functionaries team who can review it in private, but in this case I do not think it is necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

And never mind, I see that one of the accounts *did* make a link. I did not see that before, so I've reversed my suppression, but I'm still keeping the content out (it can be seen in the history). If there's a link made on-wiki and you're saying it in an SPI, make it clear it was self-revealed. Otherwise those of us CUs who are also OS are going to get flustered TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi TonyBallioni, thanks for the advice. I thought the real-life identity was relevant since he was mentioning himself in the edits that he made, but I take your point - if I ever need to do anything like that again, I'll make it clear that the user has self-identified on their user page. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 09:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Girth Summit, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Everedux (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For making a sincere effort to welcome someone to Wikipedia and engage constructively. Very impressed. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Wikipedia needs more kind people. You answered that call. Thank you for helping 24escheuanimal. 24escheuanimal (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You have a Wikifriend!

Being a buddy
Thank you for being a good friend to 24escheuanimal 24escheuanimal (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

IP Editing

Dear Girth, I recently received a message regarding an edit associated with an IP address from O2/Telefonica. First, I am a Registered User (AOR) but I was shocked to realise that Wikipedia allows edits from complete "randoms" with no accountability. Second, given that this system is so easy to abuse, I would like to know how Wikipedia decided that this was ever a good idea or how it prevents innocent users from being affected. All I see recently is a very large drop in quality and less reliable information. Please use your influence to rid us of these idiots. I realise that we would like to keep Wikipedia "open" but "wide open to abuse" will just lose everyone's "trust". 82.132.218.227 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Jimmy.Plus (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jimmy.Plus: Hi, thanks for reaching out. I think I can explain what's happened here:
  • I'm not an expert on IP addresses, but my understanding is that ones like yours can be shared by multiple users - not simultaneously, but when you log in to your network, O2/Telefonica will assign you an address - they might commonly assign you the same one, but it might be used by someone else when you're not using it.
  • The reason you saw the message is because you were not logged into your Wikipedia account - if you log into your account, you will only see messages intended for yourself, not for anonymous users of your IP address.
  • Wikipedia has always allowed people to edit anonymously. As a recent change patroller, I frequently see good edits from IP users; on the other hand, I also see a lot of vandalism. We have a range of tools to help us identify and fight the vandalism however, such as protecting pages from IP edits, and blocking specific IP addresses from editing. Don't worry though - even if your IP address ended up getting blocked because someone else was using it for vandalism, you would be OK because you have already created your account. So long as you log in, you would still be able to edit.
  • As for my influence to change anything, I'm afraid that's pretty minimal! I do what I can to fight vandalism and protect the quality of content on Wikipedia, that's really all we can do. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 08:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Further Girth Summit's points, I'd like to add that it is entirely possible for editors to sign up for multiple accounts with or without IP addresses, and this would be no more or less accountable, as far as I am aware. A user with an account would still have to be blocked by IP in any case. All I can see is that users who edit by account are allowed additional privilages, such as editing semi-protected articles and becoming admins. As such I'm not entirely clear on what you might mean, but if there's something I've overlooked I'm of course very open to dialogue. Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

May I have help?

Hi, Girth Summit! It's me 24escheuanimal. May I have your help? I want to create a signature but I don't know how. Can you help me? Thanks, This is 24escheuanimal by the way. Thank you for always helping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24escheuanimal (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi 24escheuanimal, sorry for the slow response - I've not been logging in regularly over the holiday season, and I'm now at a conference in the US so pretty busy. Briefly, you can edit your signature by going into 'Preferences' (at the top of the page, near the link to your talk page), and scrolling down to the 'Signature' section. You then code the style you want to use. You can find guidance on how to code it, as well as a few notes on what is and is not allowed, at WP:SIGTUT. Another idea is to look at the coding for other people's signatures you like the look of, simply by going into edit mode on a talk page they have commented on, and seeing how they did it. Make sure to modify it sufficiently so that you make it your own however - you don't want a signature that looks just like somebody else's, it can be confusing for other editors. Hope that's helpful GirthSummit (blether) 19:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleting

Why did you delete my editing in some wiki pages. My corrections were actually correct Xeno7 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Xeno7:, thanks for reaching out. I checked through your history, and found the edits I reverted. In both cases, the reason I gave in the edit summary was that your edits broke the formatting of the infobox - did you actually look at the articles after you hit the 'publish changes' button? Inserting text within an infobox without following the template will cause the whole box to display on screen as a bunch of unformatted text - which is exactly what happened in both of those instances.
Additionally, I'd note that you were adding information in the Greek language with Greek characters. This is English Wikipedia, you should use the English language, or explain (in English) why you are inserting text in Greek (if for example it is a direct quote from a source, which you will then go on to translate).
Out of curiosity, I've just entered the text that inserted into Google Translate: 'MOUNTAIN VASES AND TAKE IT OUR OLD CUSTOMERS WILL BE YOU' inserted a the top of the infobox of a professional basketball player, and 'POWDER AND GINNAKOPOULE BURNS' added to that of a businessman. I had assumed that these were good-faith attempts to improve the article by a new user who didn't know how to format infoboxes, but now I'm not so sure - can you explain what you were doing here, or should I just go ahead and report you to admins for vandalism? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Tidewings

Since Tidewings' talk page ended up (by default) on my watchlist after posting warnings of edit warring there, I have been surreptitiously watching your interaction with him. I must applaud your patience in dealing with him. I have been editing articles on Macedonia (both ancient and modern) for a decade now and some of our practices (like not calling ancient Macedonia a "Greek kingdom" in the first sentence) are based on long-standing consensus and compromise among many editors, both Greek and non-Greek ("non-Greek" includes very few actual Macedonians, although new Greek editors think that we all live on the same avenue in Skopje). Whenever there are real-world events in the Greece/Macedonia copyright infringement dispute, new Greek editors arrive to plant the Greek flag in the first sentence of ancient Macedonia articles again (too often by edit warring). The pattern repeats itself so often that it's predictable and new editors like Tidewings simply look like every other previous one. I just wanted to thank you again for your efforts with Tidewings. Perhaps they will pay off. I see that he has at least expanded beyond editing just the one article and is editing on a second one. Cheers. --Taivo (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for reaching out. I kind of expected that you might be watching - I know that, if I'd been involved in a dispute with someone, I'd probably have half an eye on their talkpage for a while. I hope you don't take offence at anything I've said in the conversation - if I'm honest, I do think you were a bit bitey, and quick to assume nationalistic motivations. I also think, as I hope I've made clear, that their response to that was disproportionate.
As someone who edits in pseudoscience/medicine areas, I do understand the frustration of seeing new account after new account come along with the same tired old arguments; I know how it can become frustrating. I've been trying to help Tidewings because I genuinely believe in helping new editors get to grips with processes here. We clashed at the article on Feta - I was doing routine anti-vandal work and reverted him, and he reinstated his edit, but at least started a section on the talk page and engaged in discussion - I take that as a sign that they are able and willing to engage in good faith collaboration, if given the right encouragement. We were able to arrive at a compromise that I think actually benefited the article, so I hope that this is an editor who, once they learn how to go about doing things, may be a benefit to the project.
I actually teach on ancient Greece - to nine year olds! So, I have an interest in the area, but am no kind of expert. I appreciate that there is an established consensus position on how we refer to Macedonia on pages like this; I'm not personally seeking to change that, but others are entitled to do so if they have appropriate sources and arguments. I've so far seen neither from Tidewings, but so I have a better understanding of the current position, could you point me to the sources used to support the consensus? I haven't yet read up on the links you provided early in the conversation to discussions back in 2005 - 2010 - if it's all in there then I'll review them, but if there's anything more recent than that I'd be keen to read it.
If nothing else, I'm learning a lot during this discussion! Thanks again for dropping me a note. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I took no offense to anything you said. I do, indeed, bite the new guys and shouldn't. I don't have your patience. As to the matter of calling ancient Macedonia a "Greek" kingdom in the first sentence, if there were specific references used they are buried back in the discussions in the middle of the '00's. The problem is that there are reliable sources that call the ancient Macedonians "Greeks" without a second's hesitation and there are reliable sources that don't call the Macedonians "Greeks" ever or at least without a considerable amount of description of the complexities and differences. The truth is that the ancient Macedonians, at least before Alexander, are probably better described as "almost, but not quite Greeks" or "barely Greeks". There were ancient authors who unambiguously distinguished them from Greeks and there were ancient authors who included them as Greeks (so I always get a chuckle whenever a newbie claims that they have command of the ancient sources--that usually only means that they're a native speaker of Greek, not that they're an expert on the ancient sources). So the compromise that has been worked out amongst (almost) all the long-time editors of these articles, both Greek and non-Greek, is that the first sentence should not make a commitment to the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians, but that the complexities should be clearly described in the article--both the similarities and differences, the ways they acted like Greeks and the ways they didn't, etc. If a reader gets through one of these articles they understand the closeness of the Macedonians to the Greeks and that eventually the Macedonians merged into the Greeks. The reader can make their own decision about when the Macedonians became Greek without being forced to adhere to the "Greek" POV from the very beginning. I hope that clarifies the situation. That compromise was probably reached on another of the half dozen articles directly associated with ancient Macedonia and not necessarily in the history of Talk:History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). But the interested editors have applied that compromise throughout the ancient Macedonian suite of articles (although there may be one or two that have slipped through the net). --Taivo (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Then there is the political reason why the compromise was reached: putting "Greek" prominently in the first sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with fairly describing ancient Macedonia and everything to do with planting a Greek flag right up front and poking (modern) Macedonia in the eye with the flagpole. --Taivo (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. That does actually sound like a workable and sensible compromise to me - I agree that if it's contested, we should aim to present (and attribute) both sides without taking a view. GirthSummit (blether) 10:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User talk:198.97.67.51.

I have not edited Dark Matter and do not recall even reading the page. Hence I have no dispute regarding anything there. 198.97.67.50 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - if you look at your contributions, you'll see that Dark Matter was indeed the last article edited from your IP address before this talk page. It's possible that you share your IP address with other users - I'd recommend that you create an account in that case, to avoid getting messages intended for other people who share your IP address. (Also, if the IP address ends up blocked because of vandalism coming from it, you would be able to use your account despite the block). Hope that helps, cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete the Acacia 85 Page

Enjoy your deletion power from Yorkshire, England.

The citation was one book, which posses other citations to multiple sources. We have photos that are entirely in our possession as they were taken by our lodge, paid for by our lodge and maintained and kept and preserved by our lodge. Who do we cite? The book is ours, written by a member of our lodge and owned by our lodge. We cited the book and you boo-hoo it.

Delete the page and finish the conversation and debate about it. The rules of Wikipedia are to assume good faith, but how can a person when someone from on the other side of the world assumes a book is inaccurate or that a photo is not theirs?

No wonder so much foolish or inaccurate information is on Wikipedia......it is too cumbersome, too burdened, too entrenched.....with its "quality assurance" rules. The very same that lead to accurate images and information to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch1640 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Finch1640, thanks for reaching out, and I'm sorry if the nomination has upset you - this is not personal, I have no doubt about your good faith, and I have made no criticism about the book (except to note that it is quite old). This is about WP:NOTABILITY, not the veracity of your source. If you read the guidelines at WP:GNG, you will see what is required to determine the notability of a subject - significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.
I have zero deletion power - the notice is to tell you that I have started a conversation about deletion. If, and only if, that conversation establishes a consensus to delete, then an administrator will delete the page. You can join that conversation and add your thoughts. The surest way to avoid deletion will be to find some more sources which are reliable, independent of the organisation, and give it significant coverage - if you find those, I'll happily change my vote to keep.
Finally, my geographic location is utterly irrelevant. Notability is established by published sources only, not by local knowledge. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is an article that was written by our lodge by the Greenwich Free Press. And how do I cite sources for a photo that was taken 100 years ago and paid for by Acacia Lodge? There are in our possession.
https://greenwichfreepress.com/around-town/going-strong-after-200-years-acacia-lodge-lodge-keeps-masons-tradition-alive-in-greenwich-80834/
Here is our website:
https://lodge085.ctfreemasons.net/
Here is a picture of me being installed as Worshipful Master of the lodge, holding its charter from 1858.....if you want me to cite other sources I will literally have to cite the vital records at Town Hall to prove that these people existed. This is all so frustrating.
The lodge and Freemasonry in Greenwich has existed since 1763 in a number of historic buildings, which were referenced. Many of our members were notable people with distinguished histories.
You can purchase a facasimile printing of our history book here: https://www.amazon.com/History-Masonry-Greenwich-Connecticut-1763-1926/dp/1258186152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1548429501&sr=8-1&keywords=masonry+in+greenwich
Or an original, first edition here: https://www.amazon.com/Masonry-Greenwich-Connecticut-1763-1927/dp/B00R0PYO8C/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1548429536&sr=8-3&keywords=masonry+in+greenwich
Clearly there are numberless pages of information on literally any topic on Wikipedia, just Acacia Lodge and its brief, fascinating history is not appropriate.
Please just delete the page and and we'll on from this episode.
Hi ARM.Finch, thanks for reaching out. Are you the same person who posted earlier while logged in as Finch1640, or are you two different people?
As I explained above, I am not disputing the existence of this lodge - rather, I am questioning its notability. If you read the links I provided above, you will see how notability is established on Wikipedia. Websites, articles and books produced by an organisation are not considered when assessing that organisation's notability - we look for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All you have to do to establish notability is provide such independent sourcing.
Should I take your request to delete the page seriously? This question is important, as an author-requested deletion is sufficient grounds for what we call a 'speedy delete' here - in other words, the ongoing discussion at AfD would not be necessary, and an administrator could simply delete the page. If this is seriously what you want, I will make the necessary request. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure how citing an independent source is not notable enough, but I understand. Since a Probate Judge of Greenwich, Frederick A. Hubbard wrote the book, who also wrote, "Other Days in Greenwich," was a member of our lodge the source is not independent. Also, the fact that it was written in 1926, seems to have raised questions as well (unfortunately that is the time in which he lived and therefore he could only have written the book during that time period). He wrote the book to commemorate the lodge history and the building of the new masonic temple on 28 Havemeyer Place which was built by distinguished New York and national architects such as Robert Huston and Frederick E. G. Smith. Our first Worshipful Master, Luke A. Lockwood, was a pioneer of his day and even was a friend of King Edward VII, and single-handed wrote the entire jurisprudence for the Grand Lodge of Connecticut which is still in effect for today.
Yes, please just go ahead and delete it. Never using Wikipedia again.
Hi User:Honeywell1640, are you the same person who previously posted here as ARM.Finch and as Finch1640? Sorry to ask again, but since you seem to be using different accounts it's hard to be sure. The article was written by Finch1640, and so the request to delete would need to come from that account.
We generally need significant coverage in two independent sources to establish notability. So far, I can't see any independent sources - you have provided the lodge's website, a book written by a member, a local newspaper article written by a member - but nothing independent of the subject of the article. GirthSummit (blether) 16:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I am Finch1640, please delete the page. Also, the newspaper article was written by Leslie Yaeger, she is not a member of our lodge. She is the owner and chief editor of the Greenwich Free Press. She is entirely independent and wrote her own story...I was using an old account (ARM.Finch). Pardon the confusion. Please delete the page and be done with this.
@Honeywell1640: Thanks for confirming. You should be aware that there are specific rules around operating multiple accounts at the same time, and there are steps that you have to take to avoid being accused of sockpuppetry that would likely see your account blocked. Please see WP:MULTIPLE for details.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding about the Greenwish Free Press article - above, you said Here is an article that was written by our lodge by the Greenwich Free Press - I guess you meant that it was written about your lodge rather than by them. If you want to make the case for notability, you could mention this source at the AfD discussion. It's a local paper that writes advertorials for payment, so it would not be given as much credence as history book or a national newspaper, but it might carry some weight.
If you are sure you want me to say that you have requested deletion, would you mind logging in as your Finch1640 account and confirming? I don't have WP:CU privileges, so I am not able to confirm that the two accounts are collocated. I believe you, but need to do due diligence before saying that the author of the article has requested deletion. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

HI

I am new to this. How do I go about updating an existing pages information and photo?

Hi Allmsmusic, thanks for reaching out. First, quick tip - when you leave a message on a talk page, please sign your name - that way I don't have to go into the page history to find out who left it! You can do that by typing four tildes (they look like this: ~ ), or by pressing the button at the bottom of the editing browser called Sign your talk page posts.
Right, how to go about updating information and photos... there's a lot to discuss. I think that the best thing I can do is to put a welcome template on your talk page, which will include a lot of useful links for you to read. I can see that you've been reverted a few times, I'll summarise what the problems were:
  • I reverted you because you removed some content without explaining why; the content you remove actually included part of a reference to a cited source, so the content didn't make sense after your change.
  • The next set of edits you made (which were reverted) removed some text that was sourced (that means that it had references to published information, so that readers can verify that it was true), and you replaced it with text that was unreferenced - you didn't provide any sources. You have to provide reliable sources for any information you add - you can't just add stuff you know, you have to show where the information comes from so that other people can check that you're right.
  • I can't really work out what you were doing with the next set of edits - looks like you added a load of stuff, then you removed it, but you left a couple of random characters on the page, so someone reverted you again.
As for updating images, I'm not an expert on that. There's a load of information at WP:Images, but I can't really tell you too much about the process. One thing you have to be aware of is WP:COPYVIO - you must not upload images that you do not own the rights to, unless you can prove that they have been released for free use under an appropriate license, you can't just grab a picture from a website and put it on a page.
I'll put the welcome template on your talk page now. Long story short, there's quite a lot of ground to cover - I'd recommend starting slow, and building up your editing skills and familiarity with policies and guidelines as you go along. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 20:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ben2719941

Hi Girth. Unfortunately, Ben is one of those well-meaning but just-will-never-get-it editors. I have been fixing his poor editing since October 2016 when he had user name User:Ben271994. I've tried patience and instruction to get him to learn the ropes but it's been over two years now and his work is only minimally better. For some reason, his recent obsession is creating articles for any album in The Essential series. Typical "sources" he adds are primarily retail and database sites (iTunes, JBHiFi, Spotify, CDUniverse, Discogs). When I've added notability tags to his creations, he often just adds more of the same while removing the tag. I am concerned that he may fall under the WP:CIR umbrella because after all this time he still doesn't understand what notability means despite numerous attempts to explain it to him and his comments when communicating with other has been at times nonsensical, not to mention still not knowing how to thread or sign his posts on talk pages. By the way, I've redirected the Essential Mi-Sex article as well. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear

Why did The Essential Adam Ant got deleted for it had a Allmusic review source. Ben2719941 (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ben2719941, thanks for reaching out. Did you read the link I left in the edit summary (NALBUM)? The criteria there call for multiple non-trivial published works. The AllMusic reference is one such review - another such review would be necessary to demonstrate notability. I had a look before redirecting, but I couldn't find any. I've reinstated the redirect for now - if you can find another suitable review, then we could undo the redirect, but please don't reinstate the content before that. Let me know if you'd like me to check any sources for you to discuss whether or not they are suitable. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay then so if I found a second album review for The Essential Adam Ant, the album will be able to go back on Wikipedia?

Ben2719941 (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - yes, if you can find another significant review, I would be happy to reassess the notability. Note the requirements set out in the link I gave you though - it has to be non-trivial (a proper review, not just a summary or a brief description), it has to be independent (not published by the record company, not a press release reproduced in a magazine, not on a commercial site selling the album) and it has to be in a reliable source (not WP:UGC for example). I'll be happy to take a look at anything you find.
By the way, you shouldn't put my signature after your comments then modify it. You can sign your posts easily by either typing four tildes (~), or by clicking on the 'Sign your posts on talk pages' button at the bottom of the editing window. See also WP:THREAD for information about threading talk page posts. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Will Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars get this sent to him as well because he have been deleting other people sources from Wikipedia when people add The Essential Dragon. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me Here is his user page if you do talk to him. Thanks Ben

Yes can you please take a look what you found for The Essential Adam Ant, I saw someone add Amazon review on The Essential Mi-Sex is that allowed an Amazon review?

Thanks Ben User talk:Ben2719941

Please allow my name to be added to Green Jelly

I joined this band today via invitr from Bill Manspeaker Gaddyman117 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gaddyman117 - I just left a note on your talkpage. GirthSummit (blether) 13:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit

Hello good sir Girth Summit my name is TheMusicMan1994, I'm brand new to Wikipedia, so what are the rules for edding? Please let me know Thanks (talk) 8:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicMan94 (talk • contribs)

I suspect from your editing history that you are the same person as User Ben2719941, and have opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ben2719941. Pinging @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: to inform them. GirthSummit (blether) 10:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you find something out to the case?. Please let me know. TheMusicMan94 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Good Sir Wikipedia have sent me a Getting Started page it means I'm new.

TheMusicMan94 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I sent a message to TheMusicMan94 on GMail, he told me that Ben2719941 and TheMusicMan94 are two different people, one name is Ben and the other one is named Thomas.

This has become a tragic comedy. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
'I e-mailed the other guy to ask whether he was me, and he told me that he wasn't. He's got a different name and everything.' Seems legit. GirthSummit (blether) 19:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

So do you believe me when TheMusicMan94 and Ben2719941 are two different people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicMan94 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I am required by policy to assume good faith; let's say though that in a case like this I have my doubts. It seems improbable to me that the first thing a new editor would do after creating an account would be to revert a redirect from an obscure article, and then leave messages on the talk pages of the two editors who had performed the redirect. This discussion is pointless however - there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation, checkusers will investigate behaviour, IP addresses, geographic locations and whatever else it is they do. When they reach a decision, they will take the appropriate action, and I will be content to abide by their judgement. GirthSummit (blether) 20:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Have they find something yet, how long will it take do you know? If they find nothing then what will happen to the page? Have a nice day today. Thanks TheMusicMan94 TheMusicMan94 (talk • contribs) Afternoon Girth Summit, I have apologize to Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I just let you know. Ben2719941Ben2719941 (talk • contribs)

Afternoon Girth Summit How Come The Essential Waylon Jennings Got Deleted For? IdreamofHorses check it and it was okay. Why Did It Got Removed For? The Essential Johnny Cash Didn’t Get Removed when someone added The Essential Johnny Cash. Ben2719941 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ben2719941 - first, please note that the article has not been deleted, it has been redirected - there is an important difference. Before I answer your question, can you confirm that you have read the edit summary I left when I created the redirect, and that you have read WP:NOTABILITY? GirthSummit (blether) 15:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you/ Ok?

Thanks for bringing up some issues with the new article SCPS International. I now tried to fix them. The problem is that the company is highly interesting, but one of the most difficult to “catch”. I’ve got to know them (with quite some pain) when I lost against their teams in court multiple times (I’m a lawyer in Europe), and did some research. This was my motivation to write the text, just for your info. But I think we are fine now. Are we? Thanks again for your efforts. Klaus Bells (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Klaus Bells, thanks for reaching out. I've reinstated the page curation tags - I'll outline my reasoning.
  • The writing still comes across as quite promotional. Phrases like 'to meet the challenges of the digital age', 'providing their clients a complex range of services at the crossroads of different job profiles' and 'one of the world’s largest international network for advertising agencies and promotion' are quite jargony, and read like they've come out of some promotional material. Our aim is to write neutrally, neither trying to puff the company or disparage it - simply to say what it is that they do.
  • The references could be improved, although I appreciate that might be difficult if there is not much written about them. However, you could start by putting page numbers into the references to books - that makes it a lot easier for reviewers and readers to verify the assertions you've made.
I hope that's helpful. CheersGirthSummit (blether) 17:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I do fully understand your point. Since English is not my mother tongue, maybe we could solve the problem together, since I doubt that there are many SCPS experts out there.
  • You could re-write the above mentioned content in a neutral way. The content ist not wrong, but you as a native speaker will have a better feeling what sounds neutrally and what not. So you could take the meaning and put it in your own words. I am not in love with my writing or the company ;-) So just go ahead :-)
  • Regarding the references I will try the best I can. However, these guys are so much into protecting what they’re doing that we will not find much randomly online.
Even I as a lawyer in Europe heard first about them after losing several cases which normally our side would have big chances to win. So I asked myself, who are these weird guys. I learnt they were from SCPS International. So I’m far, far away from promoting them, rather I “fear” them. My motivation is to tell the world that they exist. We’re talking of really tough guys here. So I will try my best to find better literature, but pls. don’t expect too much. It would be great if we could fix this thing together. It’s a short text, I am sure you can de-PR it quickly. I also see no need of long discussions since I am not a “stakeholder” in this and definitely also do not want PR language, especially not for them. Thanks for your efforts! Klaus Bells (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

History of India

I misspelled one word on the lead, but rest of the edit was constructive. You can check again. All recent edits to lead are new, since this month, I am just contributing further to improve it. Also see talk page where I have commented. 112.134.66.239 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In fairness, it wasn't so much of a misspelling as removing a chunk of text that rendered the sentence meaningless - that caught my eye, and so I reverted. However, I see that it was a genuine mistake rather than a test/vandalism, so I apologise for performing a wholesale revert rather than simply fixing the mistake. I see that discussion is ongoing on the talk page, and have no view on the content dispute. GirthSummit (blether) 11:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Training Team.

Hello, I was looking for a counter-vandalism trainer until I stumbled upon you. I wanted to know if you had an available spot for me, I know it says 0 but I don't have any other choice since the time is too far apart from the others. And there is only an hour difference between our time zones. Please let me know. AryanTheArticleArtist (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi AryanTheArticleArtist - thanks for reaching out. I've got two students on the go right now, and so I don't have a huge amount of free time; however, if you would be prepared to accept that we will have to go slowly due to my time constraints, I would be willing to take you through the course. Would you be happy with that? GirthSummit (blether) 13:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, yes, thank you for replying to me. I will be more than happy. AryanTheArticleArtist (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
AryanTheArticleArtist OK. Before we begin, I've got a question, and a recommendation.
Question - can you explain your thinking with regards to this revert? You didn't leave an edit summary (this is something we will discuss in the training), but I'd like you to explain in your own words what you thought was wrong with the edit.
Recommendation - you have a number of anti-vandal statements / userboxes on your talk page - nothing wrong with that, I've got a few myself! However, a couple of them are quite aggressive - 'this user screws vandals', describing yourself as a fierce warrior. Your userpage is your own, and I'm not going to tell you what to put on there; however, I'd advise you to tone that down a notch. Most vandals do what they do because they crave attention - they want us to take them seriously, to treat it like a battle. The best approach is to treat it more like a mundane housekeeping task - they make a mess, we clean it up (while blocking their accounts so they can't make a mess again). We'll do more about this during the course, but that would be my recommendation. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
GirthSummit, please see this. The IP was right, and was subsequently blocked unjustly. I happen to know this IP, who has been a valuable Wikipedia contributor for years. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies - that is indeed troubling. AryanTheArticleArtist - the series of reverts you performed there was not removing vandalism. The IP editor left an edit summary saying that they were removing editorializing (see MOS:EDITORIALIZING), which is indeed what they were doing - the material they removed was unsourced opinion, they were right to remove it. Even if they had been wrong though, that was a content dispute, and you both edit warred over it - you yourself went over WP:3RR, and you are probably lucky that you weren't blocked yourself. To prevent a repeat occurrence, I suggest that you perform no further reverts of any edits on any page until we have been through the basics of what vandalism is, and how you should respond to it. Please indicate here that you will agree to that, and I will set up the training page for you. GirthSummit (blether) 21:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I've just taken a closer look at this, and read through the discussion on the IP's talk page. I'll be frank with you, I think you could have handled that better. We do all make mistakes occasionally (I know I have) but when you realise you were in the wrong, you need to apologise - immediately, and fulsomely.
There is some suggestion at that talk page that this might not be your first account. I know nothing about that, and am prepared to assume good faith, but I'd like you to declare to me now whether you have ever had another account. Do that, and confirm that you will stop reverting until we've covered the basics, and I'll be happy to proceed. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 23:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, dear Girth Summit, I have taken time to read everything that you have to say, and I cannot agree more to it. I 100% understand the current situation and my mistake. Now, I will do what is necessary to avoid these mistakes.
I will agree to not revert anything until I have completed your course and have understood all of the important things regarding vandalism.
I do not own another account on Wikipedia, this is my first.
I will also take your advice on my talk page, I have removed the screw and the fierce warrior statement.
I will take any advice that you give to make this right, I know that you know better and you are very experienced. I apoligise for any things I may have caused that where wrong.
Doing wrong things are not my intention at all. AryanTheArticleArtist (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, good. I'll set your training page up this afternoon - in the meantime, you could read through WP:Vandalism carefully; also take a look at WP:THREAD, which discusses how to thread comments on talk pages to aid effective communication. I'll drop a note on your talk page when the training page ready to go. GirthSummit (blether) 10:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You are doing a very good job keeping this place clean keep it up

. 

Cedric White (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Cheers Cedric White GirthSummit (blether) 17:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Questions about a low profile edit war

Hello Girth Summit, I was about to ask your tutoring in order to become member of the Counter Vandalism Unit but I see that your only slot is already occupied. I'll wait for your slot to become free again. In the meantime I have some questions I hope some admin can help me to answer.

In the last few weeks there seems to be a low profile edit war on some items with IPA (International phonetic alphabet) transcriptions of Italian names. It seems that at least two groups of sockpuppets are competing on this topic. In particular, a user called Miaowmiaowmew (blocked for abusing multiple accounts) added the IPA transcription on some articles, providing the related sources (which I verified were valid). A couple of weeks later, other users (also subsequently blocked for sockpuppeting, see this for reference) have modified the transcription and removed the sources without providing alternative references. Me and other users and admins have repeatedly restored the versions with sources but, again, other sockpuppets have restored the version without sources. See the revision history of Stefano Pescosolido or Davide Sanguinetti for example. The suggestion I received from Favonian is to open a discussion somewhere to get a "paper trail" in case of further reverts.

My questions are: If I restore the version with the sources am I really doing something wrong? Do I risk of being involved in edit wars? Which is the most appropriate place to open a discussion and find a consensus on this issue? is a consensus really necessary since on the one hand we have a version with reliable sources and on the other no source at all? Thanks a lot in advance, Horst Hof (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Horst Hof - good questions. I'll look into this more fully once I've got a bit of time (hopefully later today), but briefly... any kind of repetitive reverting can be seen as disruptive, but it sounds like there is a consensus version that you are protecting, so the way forward might be page protection - has anyone discussed or suggested that on these pages already? I'd have thought an administrator would be willing to consider it in this case to stop the disruption.
With regard to the CVUA training, my slot is technically filled, but my current student isn't very active and it's not absorbing very much time at the moment. If you are still interested, I'd be willing to get you started on it. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your quick answer. Concerning the CVU training, Yes! I'm still interested and ready to start as soon as you have a bit of time to dedicate to me.
Concerning the edit war issue, actually the sockpuppets are not targeting a single page but at least 15 or 20. It is a systematical action, sockpuppets appear in waves of four or five and make four or five edits each.
Check the edits of this group and this other group for example. Sometimes they also seem to operate as unlogged IPs (ranges 5.170.0.0/18 and 151.48.0.0/16). Horst Hof (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Horst Hof OK, I've looked into this a bit more now. These have all been identified as socks of a blocked user; as such, you are safe to revert them under WP:3RRNO, criterion 3. Note that criterion 4 allows you to do as many reverts as you have to to stop obvious vandalism, but you need to tread carefully there - these edits are not, in and of themselves, obvious vandalism - the problem is the socking, bludgeoning and disruption, so you'd need to be confident that it was a sock.
You say it's 15 - 20 pages that are the sockmaster's targets - I assume it's always the same ones? I don't see any reason why protection couldn't be applied to all of the pages in question, but there might be other solutions like a range block that could be applied. I think that the place to gain a consensus for best way forward would be WP:ANI - it seems to me to fit the description of a chronic, intractable problem. If you start a new section there, providing links to the SPI cases and diffs of the problematic edits (just a few examples, noting that there are lots more and they're always the same), administrators there would able to discuss the options and hopefully arrive at a solution.
With regard to the CVUA training, I'll start the wheels moving now. I'll set you up a page for us to work on, and will ping you from there. GirthSummit (blether) 14:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Apologies - I've just re-read your initial message - you say the sourced IPA transcriptions were added by a blocked sockmaster, and then changed to an unsourced version by another blocked sockmaster - I missed the first bit. I now see why Matthew hk is suggesting removing the IPA transcription until consensus is reached - that way, you are not 'favouring' either of the blocked socks. I think that technically that would be the right course of action, but it would be a bit of a pain to go through all the pages doing that - I'd probably just go to ANI now, explain the situation, and wait for advice on the best approach. GirthSummit (blether) 14:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank's a lot again. Happy to start training. :-) Horst Hof (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit, I am going to open the discussion on the topic above on ANI, it is my firt time I open a discussion there. Would you be so kind to revise what I'm going to write? Here is the text I'm going to post:

________

In the last few weeks there seems to be a low profile edit war on some items with IPA (International phonetic alphabet) transcriptions of Italian names. It seems that at least two groups of sockpuppets are competing on this topic. In particular, a user called Miaowmiaowmew (blocked for abusing multiple accounts) added the IPA transcription on some articles, providing the related sources (which I verified were valid). A couple of weeks later, other users (also subsequently blocked for sockpuppeting, see this for reference) have modified the transcription and removed the sources without providing alternative references. Me and other users and admins have repeatedly restored the versions with sources but, again, other sockpuppets have restored the version without sources. See the revision history of Stefano Pescosolido or Davide Sanguinetti for example.

The sockpuppets of the group of Ragaricus seems targeting specifically the edits of Miaowmiaowmew on italian personalities. It is a systematical action, sockpuppets appear in waves of four or five and make four or five edits each then disappear.

Check the edits of this group and this other group for example. Sometimes they also seem to operate as unlogged IPs (ranges 5.170.0.0/18 and 151.48.0.0/16).

I asked an opinion to some admins and experienced users and they suggested to open a discussion to get a "paper trail" in case of further reverts. In case of future further sockpuppets waves, what is the best way to deal with this issue?

________

Do you think it is clear enough, should I add more diffs or more clarifications? Thans a lot in advance. Horst Hof (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I think that's pretty clear. I'd suggest that you mention the names of the other users and admins who have been involved by giving them a courtesy ping - that will notify them that the discussion is going on, so they can give their thought. Also, make sure you notify Miaowmiaowmew and Ragaricus on their talk pages when you open the discussion - there is a template you can use for this, it will be displayed when you create the new section at ANI - copy it, and paste it onto their talk pages, with your signature. Even though they're blocked for socking, you still need to notify them. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks again, I will. Horst Hof (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Horst Hof - you might have noticed that the discussion you started at WP:ANI has been archived without a resolution. That's a bit disappointing, but I guess it indicates that there's not anything immediately obvious that can be done outside the normal actions of blocking socks and/or requesting page protection for the pages in question. We'll cover page protection in the CVUA course, but essentially pages that are subject to repeatd vandalism from multiple different accounts/IPs can be given different levels of protection, so that only auto-confirmed users (or even only admins in serious cases) can edit them. If the disruption continues on those pages, we'll apply for protection. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Girth Summit, thanks for letting me know and for you comment. It would seem to me quite reasonable to restore the sourced version, but the way proposed by Matthew hk is also a viable and valid solution.
Concerning this topic (italian IPA) I've seen a new episode this morning. If you have a bit of time, please compare this Special:Diff/881761386 to this Special:DIff/877241290, don't you think that wordings, style, etc. are absolutely the same? The edit of the anonymous IP (5.170.x.x again) is related to this dispute.
It's a since couple of months or more that there is an uncommon high rate of activity releated to italian IPA (and less frequently spanish IPA).
A couple of weeks ago there was at least four SPI reports concurrently open related to this topic (Lascava, Viviocon, Ragaricus and Iuscaogdan), and it seems to me very unusual for such a sectorial topic.
Horst Hof (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
​Again about this subject, Favonian left a message on my talk page asking my opinion on recent edits coming from the same IP range. Just wanted to let you know in case you want to leave comment too. Horst Hof (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Horst Hof To be honest, the linguistics discussion is beyond me, and I don't have any view on what it 'right', so I'll limit my response to the approach we should take in order to stop disruption. Despite the fact that the initial pronunciation was added by a sock, if they are in line with the consensus at WP:WikiProject_Linguistics#Nasal_allophones_inconsistency/incoherence_in_some_Help:IPA_pages this page then it's OK to keep them. If those pages are the target of disruptive editing from multiple new accounts and IPs, the correct approach is probably to apply for Page Protection. We will cover that in a future part of the CVUA training, but it's something you can do through Twinkle - select the option 'RPP', and ask for temporary semi-protection; do it on as many pages as necessary to stop the disruption. Pinging @Favonian: as a courtesy as they were involved in this. cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

PhoeusLaw

Hello girth I added some content in biocentrism(ethics) and you reverted it Could you please explain your actions? PhoebusLaw (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi PhoebusLaw, thanks fr reaching out. First of all, when you leave a comment on a talk page (either an article talk page, or another editor's talk page), you should use the 'new section' option (unless of course you are replying or commenting on an existing discussion). You can find more information about talk page discussions at WP:THREAD.
Your contribution seemed to be your own opinions and thoughts about the subject - that would be original research, which is not permitted on articles. If the content can be attributed to a reliable source, you should cite that source after the assertions.
I'm going to put a welcome template on your talk page, which will include a number of links that will allow you to find out more about how editing works on Wikipedia articles. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Marvin Bracy-Williams name change source below

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/os-sp-orlando-apollos-marvin-bracy-williams-1026-story.html

"Marvin Bracy ... Bracy (5-9, 181), who now goes by Marvin Bracy-Williams, was one of six players assigned to the Apollos’ roster, the league announced Friday."

OK, that looks as though it might warrant a page move. I would do it for you, but unfortunately, because I'm in the UK, I can't read the source myself (quite a lot of American newspapers block access to their websites to European readers), so I can't check this for myself. You can request a change at [[2]], or you could raise it on the article talk page and suggest the page be moved (You won't be able to move it yourself when editing as an IP - you'd need an account with auto-confirmed status). GirthSummit (blether) 15:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


Thanks - made a request directly on article page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marvin_Bracy#Requesting/suggesting_page_move_due_to_name_change

Speedy deletion declined: Muhammad Sajjad Khan

Hello Girth Summit. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Muhammad Sajjad Khan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims coverage in reliable source, being Commander in Chief of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen also indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 09:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know SoWhy - sorry, I was hasty with the CSD, I should have researched Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, I agree that the redirect is more appropriate. With regard to the claim of coverage in reliable sources (for future reference), is a claim of coverage in a single reliable source sufficient grounds not to nominate for CSD A7? I was using the NPP flowchart, which calls for coverage in 2 or more reliable sources. I followed up the link that was there, but trying to read the whole article led to a 404 error; I searched, but couldn't find any other references, which led me to the CSD A7 (although I accept I should have come to a different conclusion on the point about the credible claim of importance or significance). Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 10:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The subject was better known as Sajjad Afghani (also a redirect) and searching for that name on GNews/GBooks yields a number of hits that might be used to write an article about them. In this case, a reliable source and being the Commander of a notable entity together was sufficient to fail A7. PS: Since the article was from 1999, it's somewhat to be expected that the URL no longer works 20 years later but such sources can often be found using the Internet Archive. Regards SoWhy 11:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Your removal of sources

User:Girth Summit, Hi. This is for your information: While it is true that an article must rely mostly on secondary sources (which I will do my best to provide for that article Promontory of Tyre), it is also true that Wikipedia often cites Talmudic sources, so there was no justified reason for you to delete those sources. In fact, mentioning the "Babylonian Talmud" without showing exactly where it is mentioned, would be wrong.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Davidbena - yes, sorry, you'll see that I self-reverted shortly after removing them. I initially thought that you were actually citing a Wikipedia page as a source, and removed; on closer inspection, I realised that it was a reference to our pages on the ancient sources. I reinstated the cites, but I've tagged as unclear citation style and requiring secondary sources - do you think that's fair? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's fair. I will add the secondary sources later and remove the templates. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the Vandal on Colonial Women of Virginia

Girth SummitBut how in the world did you catch it so fast. I have the article on my watch list, and his vandalism didn't show up, but your reverts did. I read your polite comments on 71.245.248.227 talk page, which you created. It is obvious that he is a troll, and I use the male in reference. I can't imagine a female being a troll, but certainly can an immature male.. Thanks again, but tell me how did you even catch the vandalism, is there a patrol function. I would love to be on it. Oldperson (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oldperson, thanks for reaching out, and for the kind words. I work as a 'recent changes patroller' - basically, I volunteer my time to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. If you look at the panel on the left of your screen, you'll see a blue link called 'Recent Changes' (underneath 'Interaction'). That shows recent changes made to Wikipedia pages - I monitor that, using some of the filters available, and investigate suspicious changes as they come in. If it's vandalism or trolling, I revert it, and warn the user using a tool called Twinkle. The warning messages are automatic - I didn't type that! They are escalated depending on the severity of the vandalism and the number of times they've done it, but if they keep on doing it we ask an administrator to block their account - that usually happens pretty quickly, to minimise the disruption. If you're interested in finding out more, you could look at the information at our Counter Vandalism Unit Academy - there are volunteer trainers who are willing to help you learn how to do it. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 22:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Girth summit Definitely interested. I am mystified as to why the vanals changes did not show up on my watchlist, but your reversions did. Not the first time I've noticed that some changes don't show up. I've done an IP Whois on the vandal, and the IP originates in Ashburn, VA so I imagine he has an interest in anything Virginia. I suspect some right of center political motivations as well.Oldperson (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Girth Summit screwed up typing the ping. SorryOldperson (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry about the ping - you don't need to ping a user on their own talk page, they're notified automatically.
By default, your watchlist will only show the most recent changes made to a page, and it will only update when you click 'View Newest Changes' or reload the page. I reverted the change less than a minute after it was made, so I guess your watchlist wasn't updated in that time. There are quite a few of us around the world doing similar work, and we manage to catch most vandalism very quickly, but there's always a certain amount that slips through so an extra pair of hands/eyes is always welcome. I'd offer to do the training myself, but I've got three students on the go already and it soaks up a fair amount of my time - if you reach out to one of the trainers listed here, I'm sure one of them would be happy to help. GirthSummit (blether) 23:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

I am not sure what you meant that there is close paraphrasing here. I checked the translation at Earwig and found zero overlap. Can we take the tag off? https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Phragmochaeta+canicularis&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0

I translated it from the italian page and attributed it. Thanks

--Akrasia25 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Akrasia25, Earwig is useful, but it doesn't pick up on everything. It appears to be unable to compare the page with the cited source - have you checked that? It's available here. Some sentences are almost copied verbatim - some sentences are identical except for a single word change; others are a bit 'more different', but you can still see the direct connection between the prose in the source and specific sentences in the article.
If you've translated it from the Italian page, it's likely that the root problem is that page - which is perhaps a direct translation of parts of this article. This is part of the problem with working from a single source - it's difficult not to paraphrase it too closely. It would be great if you were able to reword it. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Asking for guidance....

Could you mentor me with understanding Wikipedia. I was an IP editor for a year before creating the account. However, after creating an account I feel overwhelmed by the great number of policies that is supposed to be followed. @Masumrezarock100: recommended on my page that I ask for mentoring from somebody with experience and recommended you. Sohom (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sohom, thanks for reaching out. I act as a trainer in the counter vandalism academy unit - so really the training that I provide is specific to working against vandalism on Wikipedia. I think, from what I read on Masumrezarock100's talkpage, you are looking for guidance on general editing. I completely understand what you mean about the confusing range of policies, guidelines and customers, so I can point you towards a few pages that might be able to help. Note - I don't suggest that you read through all of them - take a look at them, and see which one you think would work best for you. They all cover similar content, in more or less depth, and in different ways.
Wikipedia:Tutorial This is a tutorial that guides you through the basics of writing.
Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure This is a bit more fun; it's aimed at younger editors, and makes learning more like a game.
This page offers much more formal, in depth academic training, intended for university students and academics.
User:Jytdog/How This is a page written by one of the most prolific editors Wikipedia has ever had. It's quite dry (there's a lot of reading, and no graphics!), but it contains all the main information you need on a single page, with links to policies etc.
I hope that's helpful - you're always welcome to drop me a line here to ask for any assistance or guidance, or there is the Teahouse where you can ask the community. GirthSummit (blether) 14:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
I do not know what to give you. You are a good teacher. I just read your and Aryan's whole training conversation. Good job man.
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 09:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Masumrezarock100 - much appreciated! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask you something. You said that you worked in US and other countries. Does that mean you travel across the globe?
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 23:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I used to, Masumrezarock100. I worked in marine geophysics - so, I used to go wherever the work was. Basically, I would use sonar techniques to map the seabed, or monitor engineering works - for oil and gas projects, offshore wind farm installation, telecommunications cable installation, harbour construction, etc. I did that for about fifteen years, and it was exciting to begin with - flying off to Brazil, India or Japan at a moment's notice because a job came up. You can only do that for so long though - I got fed up of airport lounges, having to miss important dates, never being able to say for sure I'd be there for a friend's wedding/birthday/whatever. So, about five years ago I quit my job and went back to uni - I became a primary school teacher. The pay isn't great, but I can't think of anything better to do with my time than having a serious conversation with a 9-year olds - they can always surprise you! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 23:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Interesting JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 09:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The Song Dixie

What makes you so sure that the established article is so correct, and why do you side with it by default? What do you know about this subject, as a Scottsman? I challenge your authoritarian belligerence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.13.222.58 (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not taking any 'side' - as editors we are expected to be neutral. You are making substantive changes to content, and removing sourced content, without explaining your rationale or gaining consensus. I don't have a view on whether or not your changes are correct - how could I form one when you haven't presented any sources supporting them? GirthSummit (blether) 17:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
You asked me on my page not to mention your nationality, citing that it isnt valid... well, I contend that it is, being that you aren't from my country, let alone The South. It's rather sad that the cadre of dimwits associated with this article's approval have actually allowed citations from a known bigot and fabricator of "facts" to improperly and inaccurately redefine the meaning and origins of the song Dixie, and in doing so have allowed an entirely one sided social justice agenda driven article to sully its meaning! How then, exactly, do you propose I end this farce and have a proper article on the subject place. How do you propose I have all of the erroneous citations you have placed removed and replaced with accurate ones? I am willing to wager that you will allow absolutely no such thing, as I suspect political favoritism and suppression of dissenting opinions by the so called "intelligentsia" of this site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.13.222.58 (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi - I refactored your comment slightly, just so it follows the guidelines on threaded discusssions at WP:THREAD - I hope that's OK.
My nationality isn't important because it doesn't stop me from determining whether our content is a fair summary of reliable published sources - that's what we aim to do here.
If you want to change the content of the article, you will need to make an argument for doing so based on reliable published sources. You say that the sources in the article are from a known bigot - what is your source for saying that? We can not do anything here based on personal opinion - but if you can bring heavyweight sources that support the arguments and changes you want to make, you will find that people take you seriously. So far, all you've done is make assertions based on your personal knowledge, which is not verifiable. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Thank you so much Girth Summit for your careful and effective coaching. I learned a lot in these weeks, by responding to the tasks you proposed but also by silently observing how you worked out some of the problems you met. I'm very proud to be your first graduate. I will surely meet situations in which I will hesitate, so I'm happy to read that you will be availble to help me even in the future. Thanks a lot again. Horst Hof (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Horst Hof - happy editing! GirthSummit (blether) 11:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Bengal Renaissance edit

Hi Girth Summit, I am a bit confused by your comment on my edit on Bengal Renaissance because when I open the page i can see the additions I made, intact. They are not removed as you said. I quote below the the additions I made and my thoughts on their source and reliability.

  • "But the modernization and efflorescence of Bengali culture was catalyzed by its contact with Western culture after the establishment of British rule in Bengal in 1857.(The best known general introduction NOTES ON BENGAL RENAISSANCE by SUSOVAN SARCAR)1 Bengalis were the first people in Asia to interact with Western culture, in modern period, in a deep and significant enough way to produce results of permanent interest for the world." (EUROPE RECONSIDERED By TAPAN ROYCHOUDHURY)2
  • "Nearly all the leading figures in various fields in India and even in whole Asia were Bengalis. Reformation of religion, society and education started with Rammohan Roy in India. The first great moderns in various fields in Asia- Novelist (Bankimchandra Chatterjee), poet (Rabindranath Tagore), painter (Rabindranath, Gaganendranath and Abanindranath Tagore along with Japanese Taikan), sculptor (Ramkinkar Baij),philosopher (Krishnachandra Bhattacharya) and scientist (Jagadish Chandra Bose) were from Bengal." 3
  • "Unlike the Italian Renaissance, it intended and managed to impact a very large area of society. Though almost all its leaders and exponents came from the middle class,many of them were in sympathy with socialism."4 source same as 1

If the source is the most established introductory book(as in paragraph 1,4) is it even necessary to refer to it? I think paragraph 2,3 is established by Wikipedia articles on the individuals mentioned. For instance - that Tagore is the first Asian Nobel Laureate for literature is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on him and proves my paragraph 2. That J.C.Bose is the first great scientist of modern Asia is established by the Wikipedia article on him. Please clarify the situation and whether my thoughts on reliable source satisfy you or not and the reasons, if you are dissatisfied. Debjyoti Mandal Lightofdev (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lightofdev, thanks for reaching out. If you check the revision history of the article, you'll see which edits I reverted - it was the additions to the lead. I am concerned about the sourcing for some of the other assertions though - 'Nearly all the leading figures in various fields...' is not sourced. All assertions should have inline citations so the reader can verify them - even if the same citation is used elsewhere in the article. See WP:V for more on this. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Girth Summit,
What I could not understand is that if you have removed my additions to the history section then how the article is still showing it?
I think I have mentioned the names of leading personalities of different fields and linked their names to the Wikipedia article on them which can establish that they are indeed the leading personalities of their respective fields. There are information in Bengal Renaissance article itself which can establish that.
Although i accept that it's a technical flaw not to mention source. But would the Wikipedia link be counted as source?
Although the Wikipedia articles on some of the leading personalities I mentioned is of poor quality and the source given is not the best one. For instance the eminence of novelist Bankimchandra is supported by a newspaper article. I think it should have been established by the History of Indian Literature published by Sahitya Academy (India Government's Academy of Literature ).
The same could be said about the article on philosopher Krishnachandra Bhattacharya.
I can provide name of source books and articles and quotes from relevant passages. But I have not yet understood how to insert it to the article.

If I write it to you could you please Insert it? Or can I get some workshop in editing in Kolkata? Or is there any way I can consult with other editors in Kolkata?Lightofdev (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lightofdev - Sorry for the slow response. I've refactored your comments above slightly, I hope that's OK? You can read more about using talk pages at WP:THREAD - sticking to the standard format helps make it easy to follow discussions.
If you look at the article history, you'll see that you added the content in two places - in the body of the article, and also in the lead. I only removed it from the lead, which is why it's still in the history section. However, as I said I'm uncomfortable with some of what is there because of the lack of sourcing.
To be clear, another Wikipedia page cannot be used as a source - see WP:RS, specifically WP:UGC for more on this.
My specific concerns are assertions like these:
  • the modernization and efflorescence of Bengali culture was catalyzed by its contact with Western culture after the establishment of British rule in Bengal in 1857
  • Bengalis were the first people in Asia to interact with Western culture
  • Bengal's conscious awareness and the changing modern world was more developed and ahead of the rest of India
  • Nearly all the leading figures in various fields in India and even in whole Asia were Bengalis
These kinds of assertion need to be supported by reliable sources - can you provide any, or is this your own analysis? GirthSummit (blether) 11:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Girth Summit,
Thank you for your response.
The source of the first two assertions you objected is-
"The impact of British rule, bourgeois economy and modern western culture was felt first in Bengal and produced an awakening known usually as the Bengal Renaissance."- Susobhan Sarkar (Bengal Renaissance and Other Essays. Introduction page 3 ) (September 1970 (P94)Copyright © 1970 by the People’s Publishing House Private Limited, New Delhi 55
"A fact not sufficiently emphasized in the literature on the East-West encounter in modern times is that the Bengali inteligencia was the first Asian group of any size whose mental world was transformed through its interaction with the waste. In 1817, Bengal's social leaders took the initiative to establish the first institution of Western higher education in Asia. By then through trade and colonial government, Bengalis had had more than six decades of close contact with a European nation. The change in their mental world has a relevance to wider themes. It is part of a process described very unsatisfactorily by the two expressions, ‘modernization’ and ‘westernization’. "-Tapan Raychaudhuri (Europe Reconsidered. Preface page ix )Oxford University Press, Delhi. SBN 19 562066 6
I will send you the source of the other two assertions you objected, within a week.
Standard histories of literature and art can easily establist that the name of the Bengalis I referred were indeed the leading personalities of their respective fields. I have already named the book in my last post ie. History of Indian Literature by Sisir Kumar Das (published by Sahitya Academy. India Government's Academy of Literature).
I think that Tagore becoming the first Asian to receive the Nobel Prize for literature is proof enough of his leading position in Indian and Asian literature. This is easily verifiable in the Nobel website. I will provide other proofs regarding his influence on Indian literature.
Ramkinkar Baij and Rabindranath- Gaganendranath and Abanindranath Tagore’s leadership in their respective fields is established by the book "Triumph of Modernism" by Partha Mitter(most renowned scholar of modern Indian art). In my next post I will quote the relevant passages.
Regarding Bengali leadership in science recently J.C.Bose was declared to be one of the fathers of wireless technology by a American Association of Science. I will provide you it's name.
And Satyendranath Bose is famous for Bose-Einstein statistics.
The first Asian to win a Nobel Prize in science is India’s C.V.Raman (also connected with Bengal. He worked in Bose institute founded by J.C.Bose) probably in 1937 and after him a Japanese in 1949 for his discovery of Messon in 1934. But before 1934 we don't hear of any Asian big name in science besides the Bengalis J.C.Bose, Satyendranath Bose and Meghnad Saha.
The informations regarding Tagore and J.C.Bose is so universally known to Indians and so easily available in the net that it is really surprising to me that you find it so hard to believe. Lightofdev (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Lightofdev - I refactored your comments again - please would you take a look at WP:THREAD, which gives guidelines for how to keep talkpage discussions easy to follow? It's especially important that you add comments under this section, rather than creating a new section every time - that means I am having to manually move your text here to keep the conversation on track.
Thanks for providing those refs for the first two assertions. They seem to support them, although they are a bit dated (1970 and 1990 respectively). I wouldn't personally challenge them, but you might find that other people do if more up-to-date scholarship says something different. You can insert these using the 'Cite' tool at the top of the editing box - choose 'Template', 'Cite Book' and fill in the details - it's pretty straightforward.
I'm not challenging the mentions of any of the individual people you're discussing - and I certainly don't find any of this hard to believe - rather, I want to ensure that everything is verifiable, which is one of the central pillars that support everything we do here. I look forward to seeing any sources that support the two remaining assertions, which seem to be potentially contentious. GirthSummit (blether) 09:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Really appreciate your quick correction related to articles. Muhammad.naqash.sakhawat.hussain (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Alvinwebster

Hi, Girth Summit! Is the account User:Alvinwebster connected in any way to you? Its User page seems a copy of yours. I suppose it should be explained and eventually fixed, but I think I better ask you first. --CiaPan (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi CiaPan - no, I have no connection with this user, and AFAICR I have never interacted with them. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. GirthSummit (blether) 15:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello again!
I found Alvinwebster because of his contribution at the User talk:Theroadislong, which I'm watching (or stalking, if you prefer). They were discussing Alvin's problems with a draft he was attempting to submit. I stumbled upon an obvious contrast between quite low editing skills (or rather knowledge) of the apparently beginning editor and advanced information at his userpage. Got curious about it and started investigating the userpage links. First of all I got suspicious about the top icons: rollbacker, pending changes reviewer... Huggle & Twinkle user... Well, well.... Wait! And he has problems with submitting a draft?! How old is he...? Oh, dear, the account didn't even existed two months ago!
Meanwhile, one specific userbox has drawn my attention: This user is also mentioned in Dante's Inferno. You know, I simply could not resist. I checked the link and... Kaboom! I found your userpage, almost identical to the one I was checking. Didn't need to think long to find out which one is an original, and which is a copy. But I had no idea why anybody might want to clone someone else's userpage, so I asked the above question.
What concerns the nearest future, I don't suspect User:Alvinwebster is going to cleanup the links, userboxes and topicons which don't actually reflect his contributions, skills and privileges. I'm afraid as a two-month old Wikipedian he doesn't even recognize their importance yet, and just copied your page as a whole because of its fancy look. I suppose you (or Oshwah or maybe some other admin) could offer User:Alvinwebster some help in cleanup, but (based on a lack of any reply to your request at User talk:Alvinwebster) I expect it will end with cleaning false claims from his userpage without any cooperation from him.

Best regards,
CiaPan (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi CiaPan - they appear to edit sporadically - no edits since the 3rd of March - so I'm not too worried about the lack of response so far. If they continue editing without changing the page I'll see what sort of action can be taken.
The Dante's Inferno infobox was a bit cheeky of me. I know we're supposed to WP:DENY, but I couldn't help myself - nobody had ever called me a giant, terrifying beast before! A bit of pushback comes with the territory when dealing with vandals, but that one tickled me... GirthSummit (blether) 09:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Metaltex

Hi, after long researches I found some sources for the draft, however they are old journal articles not available online that I managed to convert into .pdf files. Is there any guideline about some recommended space/website/archive to upload those sources and then use them in the page? Otherwise the draft will be stuck in this form. Thanks. FSosio (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi FSosio, thanks for reaching out. Sources don't have to be available online - what's important is that they are published in sources that can be checked. If you cite the publications, dates, page numbers etc. that would be sufficient. However, I have to say that I'm a bit concerned that the only sources you can find for an article about a company are old journal articles - have you read through WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH? The sources have to discuss the company itself in depth - not just give passing mentions to it. Do you think your sources are doing that? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Helpful

Thanks for sticking your nose in. I, too, was wondering how you can be part of a PR team and not be paid. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Monitoring Ranges

This is indeed a very useful tool for monitoring and combating vandalism. (This used to be possible only with the Wikimedia Edit Counter tool, but range contribs became viewable in 2015 or 2016). There is no easy way of explaining the process, but the more you do it, the more you'll get used to it. You should start by picking an IP with a known (or suspected) history of IP-hopping, block evasion, and the like. (If it is an IPv4 address, start at the /24 subnet. If it is an IPv6 address, start at the /64 subnet). Then, select a subnet number where you believe the vandal is operating on, clear out the last digits of the IP to a "0", and add a slash and the subnet number after it (such as 66.87.64.0/18, which has been repeatedly abused by multiple LTAs and vandals over the years). (For IPv6 addresses, set the last 4 sets of digits to 0 instead, such as 2A02:C7F:8E64:5F00:0:0:0:0/64 - another vandal range.) Each time you decrease the subnet number by 1, you are doubling the number of IPs in the range (this multiplier applies to IPv4 ranges. I'm not sure if the amount of IPs in an IPv6 range increases at the same rate). If the contributions/activity you see lead you to believe that the vandal may actually be operating on a larger range, decrease the subnet number once again. When you've finally reached the range that the vandal or LTA is operating on, you'll get a good idea of their behavioral patterns and editing history (at least during the period when they were abusing the range). If you know that a certain range had been abused by a prolific vandal, you can start with that range, and explore larger ranges from there, instead of smaller ranges (such as the /24 and /64 ranges). If you find a range that is rife with vandalism, once you enter in its correct numerical "name" (or base value), you can explore the block log to see if the range has been blocked before. If that range has a blocking history (especially an extensive one), you've probably found the vandal's range, or at least one of his ranges, and that place would be a good spot from where to expand a range sweep. The Range Contribs have a limit, though, and you can't view contributions collectively for ranges larger than /16 for IPv4 addresses (such as /14), and for IPv6 addresses, the number is /32. In most cases, admins and CUs will never block a range larger than that size (with the exception of a few Open Proxy networks), since doing so may involve rangeblocking multiple network providers. When hunting down a vandal, I would suggest looking at the WHOIS info for the IP to determine the range (ranges that are ridiculously large aren't going to help you much, though). If the range listed there is much too large, just start out small and work your way up (by decreasing the subnet number) until you reach a range where the vandal is probably contained. If you're feeling lazy, you can just set the last set of digits to 0, and enter the slash ( / ) and the subnet number - you will still be able to see the range contribs, but you won't have the "correct" name of that range (which will be necessary for rangeblocks). I know that this is a lot, and I'm sorry if I ended up confusing you, but this is a really great tool for anti-vandalism work. Feel free to ask me or another admin familiar with this kind of work if you have any questions. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't know where to start (you have little experience dealing with the said vandal or IP network), and you have trouble finding the "limits" of the range, you can use a range calculator, such as the ones I've listed below. Just enter in the IPs from the range with the lowest and highest values (make sure that they are from the same range!). For the IPv6 Addresses, I don't remember finding a free, reliable range calculator, so I just start with the /64 subnet (or a larger value) and move upward, usually in this order: /64 to /48 to /44 to /36 to /32. The StalkToy in Luxotool is also quite helpful (by including an IP in the {{Luxotool|Example IP}} template). (Unfortunately, the Luxotool StalkToy crashed at the end of last month, due to a Meta Data error. The issue needs to be fixed before the template will work again.) This will let you explore the IP's cross-wiki contribs (particularly useful when dealing with cross-wiki LTAs), and it will also display all active blocks on the said range on all wikis. For that tool, I suggest using the smallest range possible that encompasses all of the blocks/edits related to the vandal in question. It's going to be a challenge at first if this is new for you, but experience will definitely make things easier. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi LightandDark2000, thank you so much for taking the time to write this out - I really appreciate it. I'll read up on the links and give this a try next time I come across something similar - great to learn a new trick. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments on my article on Gizzen Briggs. I've tried to get the references right and will resubmit now. I'd be grateful for any further comments and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaingrayAngus (talk • contribs) 21:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

RE: Rejected South Peninsula Area Republican Coalition (SPARC) Wikipedia Article Submission

Dear Girth,

I'm President of the California Congress of Republicans ("CCR") and Former President of the South Peninsula Congress of Republicans ("SPARC"). I shared the submission with the present President of SPARC as well. You can reference both organizations (www.sparcgop.org) and (www.ccr-gop.org). CCR has a wikipedia page. Please review and allow for submission.

Sincerely,

Peter Verbica President California Congress of Republicans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:C900:258E:C0A:54E3:4CA7:D256 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. Before responding, can I check whether you are the author of the article - is User:Peter verbica your account? Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 16:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Experienced eyes needed

Hi Girth Summit, would you be so kind to cast an eyeball to this diff: Special:Diff/887394040. It seems a promotional link but I've not been able to open it (don't know why, possibly blocked by firewall?). The username that made it is also quite ambiguous and can refer to an activity. Thanks a lot in advance. Horst Hof (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi [[Horst Hof - I agree with you that it looks dubious. Crypto currencies are an area where spamming crops up a lot; coinpedia itself sounds as though it's WP:UGC, which would be inherently unreliable, although to be honest the source that the assertion is currently cited to looks like a blog which would also be unreliable.
The best thing to do might be to post the diff at WP:RSN, and note that you're not an expert in crypto currencies but this looked like WP:REFSPAM - that will get a subject matter expert onto it pretty quickly I expect. Hopefully they'll take a look at some of the other refs and give the article a tidy up at the same time. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank's GS, I was about to report the issue at WP:RSN but in the meantime another user removed the link. Cheers, Horst Hof (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Horst Hof Talk page watcher here. I've done some work in the crypto area and I will tell you that there is no way Coinpedia is RS. Removing it and the material it's referencing is the right move, imo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conspiracy theory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conspiracy theory. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 14:26:47, 14 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Fiebelk


Thank you very much for your review. I copied most of the references from the German wiki article. Now I guess it is ok.


Fiebelk (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fiebelk, thanks for adding those references, and for reaching out here. Personally, I have to say that I would still decline the draft, because the references aren't cited in-line - we don't yet know what source supports which assertion, we're leaving it to the reader to do the digging. The ideal situation would be for you to go through the sources, and attribute individual assertions to them, using the 'Cite' tool just above the editing window. However, I'll leave it for another reviewer to look at so that you have a second opinion. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Girth_Summit/Archive_1&oldid=1091509979"