Help desk
< May 10	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

May 11

Referencing errors on Deira Corniche

Reference help requested.

Thanks, 86.98.24.99 (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you invoke "quote web", "quote book", and "web quote", you're invoking templates that don't exist. Try "cite web" for the first and third of these, and "cite book" for the second. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit to that article, because it broke almost everything on the page. You appear to have put the Italian Wikipedia article it:Corniche Deira through google translate, including all the templates and formatting, which has created a ton of broken mark-up and non-existent template parameters. Please read WP:Translation for instructions on how to translate articles on other projects, including the copyright requirements of Wikipedia's liscence. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Owen Bruner

Please verify this Jayne Owen Bruner sandbox (similar to Jane Asher (swimmer)), thanks Fatt-1 (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fatt-1 If you place the template {{User sandbox}} right at the top of your sandbox, you'll find that it adds a big blue button to allow you to submit the draft for review. That's the best way to proceed so that experienced editors can comment and/or accept the draft. I did notice that at one point you say "His last national record" instead of "Her....". Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Michael D. Turnbullops sorry my bad English... Fatt-1 (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cats

Big cat and samll cat 24.46.17.178 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finding references from old sources

Hi all. I'm trying to expand on the article for Untilted and I am planning on doing some research to work on a Background section for the article. However, seeing as the album was released in 2005 there are a lot of remnants of information that used to exist on the web that are now gone and only accessible via the Internet Archive. One such example is the citation taken from InTheMix. If I was looking for something like that nowadays I don't think I would ever find it. Is there a way to find sources from websites that are most likely defunct or so heavily modified that the original information is now impossible to find or be indexed by search engines? Is there some sort of Internet Archive search engine, or something? I am dead set on finding contemporary information rather than primarily retrospective/modern ones, but if I'm limited to that I think I could deal with it. — theki (hit me up) 12:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently cites a number of sources, but most of these are only cited for the scores they give Untilted. Don't at least some of them say something informative or perceptive and anyway worth summarizing in addition to the scores? -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: There oughta be information on the background of its creation somewhere, and if there isn't then the least it can amount to is additional information in the lead. Of note obviously is the fake versions of the album passed around on P2P sharing networks that coincided with the "promotional leak" (both of which are hardly elaborated on, and which I would like to attempt to elaborate on at some point in the article). I'm relatively confident that at least one of the reviews has some information beyond just what the reviewer thinks of the album itself; Stylus Magazine's briefly touches on the leaks that were being spread around, so I'm hoping there's more like that. — theki (hit me up) 12:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theki Since the duo's name was Autechre, which is a fairly unusual word, you can search the Wayback machine using that directly, as this query and then look in the hitlist for likely pages, going to a suitable date range for the ones that seem useful. That will be a bit tedious but may give something useful. Alternatively, WP:The Wikipedia Library, has a good search box and covers lots of old magazines, newspapers etc.. I'll take a look there and report back. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Autechre + untilted gets 26 hits in the library, most of which are available as full text. You probably don't have enough mainspace edits to qualify for access to the library but I could email the hitlist if you wish for you to select useful-looking titles, or you could do the whole process via a resource request. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: I actually do have access to the library, fortunately! I would appreciate if you emailed me the hitlist regardless. I'll look into the resource request process as well, though; I've never heard of that before. — theki (hit me up) 13:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous removal of ethnic descent info from Albanian biographies

The help desk is not the appropriate venue to solve content disputes or report people for misbehavior. Take this to WP:ANI or WP:DR. --Jayron 32 17:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I often edit about the Aromanians, a small stateless Balkan ethnic group. For years already, there have been people removing information on individuals regarding their Aromanian ethnicity or descent [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. These problems also extend into other ethnic groups in Albania [9]. I took a related matter to ANI once [10].

I need a solution here. I really can't manage so many pages. I also assume this problem will continue into the future even when I will not be editing Wikipedia anymore. I really can't understand how can so much blatant vandalism, almost always involving removal of sources, go completely unnoticed. This is extremely discouraging and incomprehensible to me. I am also not sure if this is the most appropriate place for this. Super Ψ Dro 12:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed ethnical info removal from other pages as well. Which, for me, is bizarre, as I tend to stay away from biographies of living people and heavily edit only what I think should be non-controversial pages, like veggies and food. An example of what I mean: Baba ghanoush ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 13:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the very first example you cite, Aurel Plasari's ethnicity is mentioned in the very next paragraph. It seems at least possible to me that the edit was just removing duplication rather than censoring the information. I haven't checked the others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs)

That IP continued doing edits. In one of them the second mention of his ethnic background was removed. Super Ψ Dro 14:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look around after reading this thread. Some are well-sourced (an Albanian government site dedicated to minorities). Gazeta Dielli on the other hand should be used with extra care. The issue is that SD is misrepresenting sources. They say that those people have Vlach origin, not that they have Vlach ethnicity or "ethnic Vlach origin". Aurel Plasari is well-known for writing about Albanian history and the Albanian national hero, and the source says that he is of Vlach ancestry. But SD wrote in the article "Plasari has Vlach ethnicity". The source says that Eli Fara has Aromanian ancestry, but SD wrote that "Eli Fara is an ethnic Aromanian". And many other such cases. Having Vlach/Aromanian ancestry and having Vlach/Aromanian ethnicity (i.e. identity) are two different things. Vlachs (Aromanians are just a Vlach subgroup). in Albania and Greece very rarely have a non-Albanian or non-Greek identity, especially the famous and well-integrated ones. Many people of Vlach ancestry call themselves "Vlach" while self-identifying with an Albanian or Greek ethnicity, because Vlachs are seen by them as part of an wider Albanian or Greek ethnic group. SD should be careful to not confuse what reliable sources say with Romanian nationalist narratives about Vlachs throughout the Balkans. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the Albanian government site also claims that Theodoros Kolokotronis was a Vlach or had Vlach origin, which obviously is not in line with the reliable academic sources that say he was of Greek origin and identity. Hence extra care should be used in such cases. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity and identity are two different things. That someone is an ethnic Aromanian does not imply they identify as such. Info on identification is virtually irrelevant and not considered in biography articles or in their categorization. Descent and origin are different too as they imply their ethnicity is only partial.

I find Ktrimi991's stance here dishonest. We have a case of systematic removal of sourced information yet they decide to focus on my apparently incorrect behaviour (which they consider as such due to their own interpretation of certain words of similar meaning) and call my edits damaging. I also ask Ktrimi991 not to bring Balkan nationalist disputes here. I will cease all discussion on ethnicity and identity right now and I ask them to do the same. I will not allow this thread to become a petty ethnonationalist fighting ground.

While I obviously know my own actions when bringing something up to attention can be scrutinized (WP:BOOMERANG), I find it very easy to notice the real problem going on here. If there is a problem with the sources, the solution here is to discuss them. Not to systematically remove them. Super Ψ Dro 14:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktrimi991 Having Vlach/Aromanian ancestry and having Vlach/Aromanian ethnicity (i.e. identity) are two different thing. and @ User:Super Dromaeosaurus Ethnicity and identity are two different things. You both are absolutely correct in this respect. I shouldn't have implied that removal of a country (i.e. Israel) from a food type page is ethnical info removal. My bad. Poor choice of words on my part. I bow out, as this conversation is going into fields outside my purview. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 14:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SD:my apparently incorrect behaviour (which they consider as such due to their own interpretation of certain words of similar meaning) They are not "words of similar meaning". The sources clearly say "Vlach origin", not "Vlach ethnicity". If you are not able to cite the sources properly, then stay away from using them. While I obviously know my own actions when bringing something up to attention can be scrutinized (WP:BOOMERANG), I find it very easy to notice the real problem going on here The "real problem" is that someone is removing sources, and you are misinterpreting what the sources say. Both you are part of the problem, not only one of you. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proposal for a solution? Super Ψ Dro 14:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is very obvious. The articles can say "X person had Aromanian ancestry". Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it keeps getting removed by someone. Super Ψ Dro 16:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The help desk is not really the best place to get help in resolving a dispute. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for some better guidance on how to bring in more voices and help resolve this kind of problem. --Jayron 32 16:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, though as far as I know the dispute resolution board is for disagreement between two users. There is no disagreement here, just vandalism. Super Ψ Dro 16:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus, this isn't vandalism (as Wikipedia defines it), but disruptive editing. All you can do is take individual disruptive accounts to ANI (after attempting discussion) and/or request protection of targeted articles if the disruption is extensive. If there were a simple solution to ethnic/national/etc. bickering, there would be many fewer problems in the world. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and invoke CT remedies, if they apply. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apportation. What does CT mean here? WP:CT redirects to something I think is not related. Super Ψ Dro 16:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus, CT = contentious topics, the rebranded version of discretionary sanctions: WP:Contentious topics. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, many thanks. I will consider this venue. Super Ψ Dro 17:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "someone did something I disagree with" is not the definition of vandalism. Even if you really disagree with it. Like, a whole lot. As long as the other person believes earnestly that what they are doing is the right thing, then it is never vandalism. That doesn't mean they are right, but vandalism is only reserved for things like replacing article text with gibberish or things like that. The other side of this dispute isn't trying to ruin Wikipedia, they have a different perspective on what the truth is in this case. They may be wrong (or you may be wrong. I make no judgement on that) but as long as they are earnestly trying to make Wikipedia better, it isn't vandalism. It may be editwarring, it may be tendentious editing, it may be any of a number of other kinds of disruption, or it may just be that two people have very strong beliefs, and won't budge on each other's perspectives. Regardless, the help desk is still not the correct venue. And this is still not vandalism. --Jayron 32 16:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to why would you consider the mass removal of sources from biographical articles (some BLP) an improvement of Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 16:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I ever said such a thing. --Jayron 32 16:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think the diffs I showed are indicative that they are earnestly trying to make Wikipedia better. Super Ψ Dro 16:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they are trying to improve Wikipedia. They are doing so by removing sources they think are unreliable. In some cases they are wrong, in others they are right. Some of those sources are acceptable, some others do not fit with the WP:RS criteria. Read WP:RS to understand that a website post without an author, bibliography and academic peer-review process is not a source which you should use to claim that Rita Marko was an "ethnic Aromanian politician". Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You think this is trying to improve anything [11]? Removing sourced content while deliberately including a misleading edit summary? I've understood very well your true intentions here with this comment. Super Ψ Dro 17:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. The help desk was not the place for this and is still not the place for this. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nutritional value table

Where can I find the template for the nutritional value tables, as it appears, for example on the carrot page? I don't want to modify it; I just want to copy the code so I can make an identical layout for a Wikipedia in a different language. Thanks! ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 12:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiUser70176: The template is Template:Infobox nutritional value. You can see and copy the code in the edit window of the source editor. Deor (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the target language, there might not be an equivalent template, although I do see 76 language links on the template's page and that's where you should start. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 13:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review my article

Draft:Exim Bank of India DilipSpatel (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, requesting a review directly here, as a means to jump the queue, isn't usually a great idea. Please be patient, it will be dealt with in due time. --Jayron 32 14:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guiding notability

Draft:Astral (company) what improvements needed to make it to main ims? pace 150.129.164.105 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Todorov

Hello! Sorry for my English. My question is: are the subj page an article or a disambiguation page? — Jim Hokins (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a List page. It's a list of people with the same name. --Jayron 32 16:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are the next steps to get this page up?

Hi, trying to get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VoxPop_Games up but last submission was rejected. When I put in a new draft it doesnt seem like it's being reviewed? So what do I do now? HiDot94 (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually nothing you can do to make a subject notable. It has nothing to do with your writing. A subject's suitability for inclusion as the topic of a Wikipedia article is solely based on things that you, as the article writer, have no control over. What has to be true is that the subject has to be the subject of significant writing in independent, reliable sources. Insofar as that doesn't appear to be so, the subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else here at Wikipedia can do anything about that. What has to happen is that the company in question needs to do things that get it noticed enough by the rest of the world that people start writing books, magazine articles, newspaper articles, etc. about it. Unless and until that happens, it won't be a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. --Jayron 32 16:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an essay Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability which may help explain your problem - Arjayay (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the new sources in my draft fairly notable though? Not trying to argue with you, genuinely just asking because in the gaming world I thought game informer and others on that list are pretty good. Does it need to be like certain outlet specifically? HiDot94 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here are the sources in the article: a reprinted press release (not independent), an interview at a tiny website run by two people and little indication it is a widely respecte source, routine reporting on the change of leadership about the company, again in a small website that reads like mostly a reprinted press release, a review of one of their games, an online newsletter, another interview with another website that is run by two people and little evidence of widespread reputation as a reliable source, a short biographical sketch of the founder by the university he went to (not independent), brief synopsis of recent hires and business strategy on an independent website, another article about roughly the same, article about a game they released. A few of these are marginal, but there's nothing here I would consider "significant" coverage in highly reliable sources. I'm not sure there is enough here to hang an entire article on. Most of this is just routine press releases, slighly rewritten press releases, and its mostly coverage from very small providers, mostly websites run by a couple of people and not much else. --Jayron 32 16:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward, if new sources pop up, should the old page be edited? or is it best to delete it and start fresh in the future? HiDot94 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It hurts nothing to remain as a draft. It can stay as it is; old drafts are deleted as a housekeeping measure after like 6 months, but per WP:REFUND, they can be easily undeleted if you wish to work on them again. --Jayron 32 17:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that old drafts are deleted after like 6 months if they haven't been edited for that long. Every time you edit, the clock resets. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article was copied from draft space into main space

Can someone connect the history of Corban Addison and Draft:Corban Addison? The mainspace article was created by copying the draft. I don’t believe notability is met anyway and the mainspace article should be redirected to draft. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a prod to the article. We have no mechanism to speedy delete that article once it is in the mainspace, so we've got to go through normal channels. --Jayron 32 18:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics

how to determine the rule used in the following diagram Makhubil2 (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which diagram, @Makhubil2? Have you considered asking at WP:Reference desk/Mathematics? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia trolls

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia. As I edit pages, I see that many are littered with unnecessary adverts. I remember the early days of Facebook when it was tolerable, then trolls began to take over, and it became intolerable. I believe that Wikipedia is suffering from trolls as well. As I am editing pages, I see many unnecessary adverts by editors who are trolling pages they don't like based on biased views. The process for creating an advert needs to change to becoming much more difficult. It also diminishes the visual aesthetic of pages that I read. You wouldn’t see anything like that in the encyclopedia Britannica. This is terrible for the quality of Wikipedia. Orlando Davis (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlando Davis Can you give an example of a page with adverts, please? — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one I edited today.

Sergio Oliva Orlando Davis (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlando Davis: Please quote text from the advert. I wonder whether you refer to Wikipedia articles with content which sounds like adverts, or you are seeing actual adverts which are not in the real Wikipedia page. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Readers#Why do I see advertisements in Wikipedia? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the advert on Sergio Oliva's page.

This article has multiple issues.

Please help

improve it

or discuss these issues on the

talk page

.

(Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2012)

This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (March 2015)

This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (November 2016) Orlando Davis (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are maintenance templates which discuss the issues that the article has. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, those are not Advertisements. Those are clean up tags. They are there for 2 purposes:

To warn readers that there are problems with the article.
To encourage editors to fix the problems with the article.

The are the equivalent of the sign at right. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are talking about Maintenance templates, which are placed by editors who believe that an article does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Any editor may remove them, if they believe that the problem described no longer applies to the article; but removing them when the problem is still there would be regarded as disruptive.

It is important for readers to know that the article is below standard. Ideally, editors would fix the problems rather than slapping a message on; but editors are all volunteers, and spend their time on what they choose.

These are not "adverts", which are commercial. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance templates also place the article in hidden categories like Category:Articles needing additional references from November 2012. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what is or isn't subjective tone is subjective, which is not a good enough criteria. I don't think that the posting meets my view of a good visual aesthetic. It makes it less readable. It also implies without proof that Oliva is less notable than he is, which is unfair to him, or others that disagree. I don't think there should be an in between. An article should either meet Wikipedia's criteria, or be taken down. Orlando Davis (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it may diminish reader confidence in Wikipedia's reliability with so many pages with such postings. Orlando Davis (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technically they may actually be advertisements (see usage #2).

@Orlando Davis, an article must meet certain basic standards or it will get taken down (as long as someone notices and takes the appropriate steps). However, there's a large range between "completely unacceptable" and "perfect". The solution Wikipedia has adopted to try and move articles along the road from "marginally acceptable" toward "perfect" is the use of these maintenance templates. If you disagree with the presence of specific templates on a specific article, you can either challenge them or fix the problem, but attempting to forbid the use of templates at all is going to be a hopeless battle. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Things are not better because they have always been done that way. Change is good. I am sure that Wikipedia will continue to evolve over time because change is necessary to maintain quality. Orlando Davis (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia will certainly continue to evolve over time, as it has from its inception. If you actually want to attempt to change our policies around maintenance templates, the place to do it is one of the Village pumps. Good luck. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Orlando Davis: I can understand where you're coming from, but perhaps this would be something better off discussing at one of the various Village Pumps. It's unlikely your concerns can be resolved through discussions here at the Help Desk because its scope is limited to just offering general advice and suggestions; it's not really set up as a venue to discuss major changes to the project. FWIW, maintenance templates have been around for a very long time. While they're not always used correctly, the Wikipedia Community must still feel, at least of the most part, they still serve a valuable role. This doesn't mean their application can't be improved, but discussing such things is probably better off done somewhere else. Anyway, as you rightly point that there can be quite a bit of subjectivity involved in determine whether to add a maintenance template; there can, however, also be quite a bit of subjectivity involved as to when to remove such a template. This is why the addition or removal of such templates can always be discussed on article talk pages to see whether a WP:CONSENSUS can be established either way when there's a disagreement. You can also WP:BOLDly add or remove a template if you think either is necessary. If another editor reverts you, you should then try and resolve things per WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Finally, I don't believe titling this discussion thread "Wikipedia trolls" was appropriate. There's nothing trollish at all about adding a maintenance template. You state in your first post that you're new to Wikipedia and yet you feel it's appropriate to subjectively categorize a large part of the Wikipedia community as such without really understanding what was being done and why it was done. Generally, the Wikipedia community asks us to try and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH with respect to other users, at least until they give us some pretty strong guideline or policy based reasons not to do so. So, it's best to discuss issues as neutrally and civilly as possible by sticking to discussing the actual content of edits and avoid discussing what might be the motivation for those edits. There are times when the latter is unavoidable for sure, but there really needs to be, once again, a strong policy or guideline based reason to do so, and it's almost better to do so at one of the administrator noticeboards where behavior issues are discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my error. I will make sure that I don't communicate with that tone. I did not mean every editor that posts a a maintenance template has bad intentions, but I am sure that some do. I appreciate the information you gave me. I will use it. Orlando Davis (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]