Escape Orbit

Hi, you have asked for my source - as I am editing the page using the approved text from the subject, what is the best way to reference this? Also, I realise I was a bit snappy in response to your message, so I'm sorry for that - was a stressful day. The original text is directly translated from German with grammatical errors, and needs to be updated. I'll neutralise the language and resubmit. Cheers.

I literally know him. They had another child a couple months ago. Can you please leave my edit alone. Cite your own damn proof that one of his children magically died. why is the burden of proof on me?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.177.143 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Because that is literally how Wikipedia works. Besides that, anyone can claim to know him, and maybe he doesn't want his children's life on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

You add a source that proves it otherwise... what kind of standard is this? it applied in one direction and not the other?

This is asinine. Why would I randomly try to add a child if i didn't know him or didn't care?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.177.143 (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's quite logical. You want to add this, then you need to prove it. The burden is on you, not me. (You should read about Russell's teapot as an example.) Otherwise I could add a paragraph about him growing a second head, claim I'm his doctor, and demand you can't remove it until you source proof he hasn't, and I'm not. Does that sound like a workable policy?

You'd be surprised what people add to articles as jokes, mistakes or just mindless vandalism. I'm not saying you're wrong, or mistaken, or a vandal. But Stefano Bonfiglio would rightly complain if Wikipedia published incorrect information from random unknown people. That's why we have policies. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why do you have to be so overbearingly pretentious and mind-numbingly pedantic? First you took it upon yourself to remove "what most fans consider to be Rotherhams' greatest league double" then you even disallow the single word "remarkable", leaving the remainder confusing and meaningless. If a lowly team like Rotherham scoring ten goals in two games against mighty Chelsea, including a six-nil thrashing, isn't a remarkable event then i'd like to know what is. This is not personal opinion - it is fact. Further, a survey of mature Millers fans would soon reveal that those games will never be forgotton. I've been a Rotherham supporter for almost all of my 57 years. My maternal Grandfather was Social club steward and catering manager at Millmoor from the early 1950's until his death - at Millmoor, behind the away-end goal as he walked from the players tunnel to the social club in the opposite corner - of a stroke In 1978. I know my club and I know it's fans. I suggest you scour the archives of newspaper "The Rotherham Advertiser" and discover for yourself what fans and professionals alike thought of Rotherhams' demolition and humiliation of Chelsea that season. Don't be petty. "Fantastic" or "Marvellous" would be personal opinion - I re-iterate that "remarkable" is more a fact. Kindly replace it otherwise my mentioning this "remarkable" event is pointless.(Steve Hoyland)2A02:C7D:12B8:5500:880E:4EFA:E34F:34C1 (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not being opinion. Ensuring that articles follow policies and guidelines that are there for good reason.

"I suggest you scour the archives of newspaper "The Rotherham Advertiser" - Why don't you?

"I know my club and I know it's fans." - Anyone can claim to know, or be, anything anything on the internet. Wikipedia can't take anonymous people's word for things, it needs sources.

"This is not personal opinion - it is fact." Personal or not, it's an opinion. Wikipedia does not express opinions. If it is someone notable's opinion then please cite and attribute it.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

hello Escape Orbit, I sincerely think that in this story you are wrong. I'm just asking you to look at what you erase and what you replace it with. The card you put was not on the page 3 days ago.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Escape Orbit: Sorry, that was a bit harsh, I've retracted it. There was another editor going around changing the infobox. I thought you were that editor. Joseph Lister didn't hold any of the prizes and award and honour that highly at all. He never valued them, like other men of his age, perhaps did. There was only one which he considered worth getting and that was some old German society and there is plenty of evidence that shows that. He considered himself, above all else, a medical man and a scientist. That is all the evidence say, so I don't think it worth changing to officeholder. If it needs an office holder, then I think it worth putting a module in. It was a bit crass posting that. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

I was going to create a page about a Russian imageboard named 2ch. This name is also an abbreviation of Japanese 2channel, now known as 5channel or 5ch. You reverted my edits in the redirect page 2ch, and I want to know how should I create the page in such case? If you don't think this name is suitable I'd like to ask you to create a page with proper name so I can fill it with content. Hmm1HmmHmm (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

i’m not quite sure why you keep changing my valid updates on this page. do you live under a rock? google Family Video and you will see my “source” i literally talk to Alex who runs all the social media for the business at Family Video i’ve been a Family Video influencer and insider for years now. i know my sources. please stop changing it. i can ask Alex to try and make it so it won’t be allowed to be changed again if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.210.122 (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I keep reverting them because you don't source them. Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet, that's not how Wikipedia works. And "Alex" doesn't own the article. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've added a source, which states that the company is online only now. So not defunct, despite what your "influencer and insider" information claims. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that revert on Marie Van Brittan Brown, but the article was a mess from earlier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello the reason I changed the image is because the previous image was taken from my website on Edith Granger. On my website, it has always stated below the image of Edith Granger that I had permission from Smith College Archives to use the image and any further use of the image requires their permission. The person who uploaded the image did not actually have permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audramelissa (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reply on Audramelissa's talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Given that you have removed "prolific" as peacocking, despite the fact it's been in the lead for over two years, shouldn't "critically acclaimed" also be removed to be consistent, as "acclaimed" is one of the words highlighted in [[1]] and "prolific" isn't? Rodericksilly (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well it wasn't just 'prolific', it was 'one of the most prolific of his generation'. I wonder why it's been allowed to stand in the lead for so long, as it is clearly peacocking, i.e. talking up the subject without conveying any meaningful information. What counts as 'one of the most prolific'? The top 10? Top 3? Exactly against who are we comparing? What is "his generation"? Where is this all sourced from?

You may have a point about "critically acclaimed", but there is less an issue about it because it's far more factual. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I made a change to where it says residence as it said Kilmarnock, Scotland as she now resides in Las Vegas, Nevada. I believe you took the residence column away completely. So i am I wondering why you decided to make this change.

There is no source that verifies her residence. Either in Kilmarnock or Las Vegas. Wikipedia shouldn't contain information that hasn't already been published in a reliable source, particularly when it's personal info she may not want made public. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Since you previously blocked User:78.33.40.254 two weeks ago, I thought I'd let you know that their vandalism has continued, for which they've continued receiving warnings. I think a longer block is in order. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re: your Carl Benz edit. Nothing wrong with strived, either. It's just a matter of personal preference. I thought strived sounded more elegant in that setting, is all. The matter is trivial.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I realise you reverted my edit because it's unsourced and that's fair enough. However my questions really is about the subjectivity of collective nouns and how they are invented at some point and who has the authority over them? I expect no-one. For example someone had to decide a group of giraffes was a 'tower' probably because they are tall. I just think that a group of meerkats being a periscope is accurate and it should be adopted. However, live science says its a mob, gang or clan and while that fits, clearly that was just whatever was used at the time. https://www.livescience.com/27406-meerkats.html#:~:text=Several%20meerkat%20families%20may%20live,dominant%20female%20leads%20the%20group. If I got live science to add periscope to their article and that was the source, would you also revert that too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.50.187 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

That depends on you persuading Live Science that you are an authority on naming Meercats, doesn't it? Convince them of that and you might get somewhere. Otherwise, you're right, a lot of animal collective nouns are nonsense, made-up, whimsy. But we have to go with what the sources say. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

These changes are not vandalism. I am putting correct songs on the applied artists.

No you are not. You are adding yourself as producer of a remix you made in your bedroom. Please take your self-promotion somewhere else. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

1. That was not needed 2. I am not CTI 3. Reported.

Of course you're not.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my message in the edit was a bit terse. I wanted to explain a bit further. There was an effort about a year ago to redraft this article with the help of a mediator. It was largely successful and resulted in the current (more or less) text of the page. The Came quote was discussed at length and the group decided to leave it in for two primary reasons. The Telegraph source thought him worthy to quote and, at the time, he was a distinguished (their term) professor of religion at the university which was supposed to host the Craig/Dawkins debate.

Again, sorry for the terse revert, hope this helps clarify. Squatch347 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

How is that not the solution, whereby predestination and "the arrow of time" are being considered synonymous. Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't care if it's the solution. You are adding original research. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am not interested in unbrainwashing you in relation to the information warfare occurring on Wikipedia. Maybe that is what has to happen.

What makes you think that Wiki page is an authority? Have you experienced pain and suffering for refusing to accept its authority? Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

"There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing."

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

OK, so you are harassing me, which is against the ToS... Right? Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you went offline. Take a look at this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#No_primary_sources%3F Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Alright, so there is a bunch of infowar where users are behaving as malicious robots and vandalizing Wikipedia. I do not know if I can resolve this through Wikipedia channels of communication today. The No original research talk page I made was deleted, and admins appear brainwashed, too. My first thought was to just hypercube (https://dennisfrancisblewett.blogspot.com/2021/04/technique-in-discussion-hypercubing.html?m=1) these dudes out and ignore this Wiki issue. So, I might be walking away personally from this. Maybe spacetime will gave me come back.

I do not have to accept your views if how Wikipedia should be managed. There is obviously a Wikipedia user base issue here.

of how* Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, whatever that means. Editor wanted policy on WP:OR changed so they could add more of the above to articles. Blocked. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fast fashion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have expanded the footnotes and reinstated the Private Life section. I don't understand why you deleted it, as such sections are usual in Wikipedia Biographies.

Best,

Michael

Reply on User_talk:Michael291. Unsourced and/or incorrectly sourced personal info. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Because that artist was credited in the drop box I added them to pages. Added by mistake into awards.

You are reverting my edit claiming that I'm replacing "sourced material". Have you checked the "sources"? An article from Univision that doesn't provide any kind of historical guarantee i.e. The recent claim from some hondurans that pupusas are from there are nothing but a big trolling from them, and now, you are participating actively on that trolling. What is your concept of "sourced material"?

Have you read the article? There is an entire section on the dispute over its origins. The lead is supposed to reflect the contents of the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

How about instead of getting me banned from posting for pointing out a massive error how about you put the crack pipe down and find the correct information.

Chur, yaboi Rewbs.

Subway (restaurant) operates on a franchise basis. Those working in the restaurants are not employees of the company.

As for "getting you banned", I've no idea what you're talking about. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious as to why you removed my current #1 edit while the current #1 sentence in the main article of the Billboard Hot 100 chart remains. Marioedit8 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

If something similar is in another article, that should probably be removed too, IMO. Wikipedia shouldn't lead articles with fleeting information that changes every week, is unlikely to by updated every week, and isn't in itself particularly notable to the article subject. Is there something notable about this week's #1 in relation to the chart. Or is it just a number one this week, like any other week? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my edit with the comment "Not Fair Use of copyright image". Please note that I did not upload the image, which has been in Wikipedia for many years with a fair use notice here. Its use on the page Paul is dead should be acceptable under the same justification, wouldn't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehushtan (talk • contribs) 17:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The problem is not that it has been uploaded, but how it is being used once it has been uploaded. "Fair Use" means the image can be used for discussion about the album itself. It can't be used for other things. That means it's fine on the article about the album, but use in other places is questionable.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

But my entry in Paul is dead is part of the discussion of the album itself. The very title of the album is Mr. McCartney's own reference to the hoax/rumor/conspiracy theory discussed on that page. The page includes the image from Abbey Road, with notes related to the "Paul is dead" issue. Why not the image for "Paul is Live"? Nehushtan (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I understand what you're saying. But I'd say that neither should be used, since the article is not about either album, but rather about how some people interpreted what appeared on the album cover. It might be worth seeking other views on the article talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. If please that "Makes no sense", then should the information be allowed to remain on Wiktionary as it has for done considerable time ? Heath St John (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary doesn't say 'lang' is from the Middle English 'syne', that makes no sense. It says 'lang' and 'syne' are from Middle English. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I can't conceive how I came to type what I put on the page, when your reply is what I intended, instead. It can only have been the influence of all the tumbling different thoughts due to recent, continuing, unpleasant events in my life. Thanks very much. I'll type what I intended to, now. Heath St John (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please block Harinath Krishnamurthy from editing Wikipedia , because , he moved my user page தனீஷ் to some unwanted obscene name User:Mother Fucker , you can know by visit and check edit history of my user page , please do block the user. Thank you. தனீஷ் (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I removed sources that did not meet the standards of reliability required by WP:BLP. They were simply not reliable sources. Either find better sources, or review the content. We cannot have biographical information based solely on some wanker running a YouTube channel under a pseudonym, or a mention in some lightweight funny paper. If the information is indeed notable, then it will have been published by a sufficiently reliable source. You are at liberty to seek further input at WP:RSN if you think that any of the sources I removed were appropriate, and I will abide by consensus there. But geez, if you think Crikey.com is good enough for BLP, then you really need to look at wikipolicy and chew over what it says. I will regard any attempt to restore these sources without consensus as vandalism. --Pete (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I have added a source to the interview with the personality that we have conducted exclusively and thus the source contributes to the overall bio page of the personality. You can consider then all interviews and links to them promotional.

Weird that you have removed the links to the unique interview with the prsonality.

Hi, @Portemao:. Do you run, or are employed by, the website cited? All your edits involve adding references to the same affiliated websites, and sometimes don't have anything specifically to do with the content they are citing, other than it being an interview with the article subject. Please read WP:CITESPAM. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since you removed the section from Lynn Anderson's page stating that "Rose Garden" is one of the biggest recordings in country music history by a woman (true statement). Billboard has an article about Anderson having bragging rights for 27 years for having the biggest selling recording in country music. You removed under the guise of "Peacocking." The first few opening statements on the page of TAMMY WYNETTE say essentially the same thing about Wynette's "Stand by your Man." "Stand by Your Man" - while Wynette's signature song - was not nearly as big a hit as Anderson's "Rose Garden" (look at the chart activity in the discography section of each artist. If the "Peacocking" rule applies to Lynn Anderson, it should certainly apply to Tammy Wynette.

Lastly, when writing numbers, proper grammar etiquette = 10 and below can be written out. Anything above ten is written in numerical form. e.g. "She had 18 Top-10 hits." NOT: She had eighteen top-ten hits. Just a friendly FYI.

If it's a true statement, then please cite it. There's nothing provided anywhere in the article to support this statement. It's also peacocking because it's talking up the subject without providing any meaningful information. What does "one of the biggest" mean? The biggest? Second biggest? 100th biggest?

If there's an issue with Wynette's article, please fix it.

I didn't write or remove anything about her eighteen hits, so I've no idea why you're telling me this.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

While I can provide multiple citations substantiating my claim, that wasn't as much my issue as - why is it ok to remain on one artists' page without being challenged, but not another (e.g. Tammy Wynette) that's not sourced. Please check it out if your mission is to be consistent with rules.

Sorry about that, the script as used uses licencee. Red Jay (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

No problem. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

hey.. iwas looking through the edit history of micheal jackson and i saw that you posted about his death 1 day before it happened. can you explain that please

You are mistaken. This edit was on the 26th, the day after. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Escape. I think you should check sources on the Whitney Houston’s page before remove something. These are reliable sources not biased unlike Mariah Carey page. Most of the sources were taken from CNN, ABC, Rolling Stone and Sony. Thank you so much. Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I just re-edited the Whitney Houston’s page. I read your reviews about my sources. I think some of the chosen words were biased so I changed them. However, you shouldn’t remove all of reliable sources like the CNN, ABC , Rolling Stone and the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Could you re-read the page again? If you see a problem please reply to me before editing. Thanks Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

And about the title “The Voice”, i acknowledged that some people also named The Voice but Whitney Houston is the most famous figure to be named as “The Voice”. Just like the “Queen of Pop”, many people said Whitney, Mariah, Celine, Janet,... were pop queens but the one and only queen of pop is Mrs Madonna. Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

See my comment on the talk page. You haven't given any source that demonstrated she is commonly known as "The Voice", it doesn't belong in the lead and much of the rest of your additions are not neutral.

The sources are not the chief problem, it's that the content does not neutrally reflect what they say and they are being used inappropriately in the lead. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Escape, I just made my explanation on Whitney Houston’s talk page. Could you check my message? Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

just one article translation! --Adriana wiltzman (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

You have created an article that extensively cites an autobiography written on IMDB, which is not a reliable source. None of the other sources even mention his name. So it does not look like he is notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I'm a volunteer archivist helping out at the Dave King Estate (and totally new to wikipedia!) I didn't personally know Dave, I'm not being paid, and I'm attempting to write a neutral and well sourced page for him.

Best!

Thanks very much for your help improving the page and streamlining my edits to adhere to Wikipedia style! Hypoplectrus (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is his official FB account not a source i can cite??? PumpingRudi (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

It 's getting complicated: Is https:// en . mediamass . net/people/pee-wee-ellis/deathhoax.html a reasonable source? PumpingRudi (talk)

Thank you for helping to remove the POV puffery in the Shelby Kutty article. If you wouldn't mind helping to keep an eye on it, I have a sock report filed but a new SPA arrives every day to push more POV statements into the article with either no references or ones that don't actually say what is claimed. It is getting difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I wonder what moved you to template for me a 7 years old policy as a 'courtesy'? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Did you have a question on the content of the notice? --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Did you have any reason to think I would have from you? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Escape Orbit, I'm writing on behalf of Borg & Beck, the brand owned by First Line Ltd, of which i am an employee and have been tasked to correct the Borg & Beck on Wikipedia which currently redirects to BorgWarner, who do not own the brand.

Please advise what you need from us as the information i have tried to publish and reference our Borg & Beck (www.borgandbeck.com) website is correct and already in the public domain. If we need to licence Wikipedia we are happy to do so, please advise us on how to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borg & Beck (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for proofing and editing the Becker page. I can't believe that you get so much hate on here. I feel like it's a pretty obvious necessity to keep at least some degree of continuity of tone, style, and reliability across the platform. Those of us who simply can provide subject-matter expertise and are familiar with the references in certain areas are not always suited for the copyediting half of this project (myself), then there are others who get the hang of it and maybe even manage to master that unfamiliar half of the work. It's pretty fascinating to see the collaboration happen so smoothly, and yet people still find a way to make an argument out of it. Well! I pretty much just wanted to say thanks and leave something for the dipsticks who seem to think their desire to turn the platform into a megaphone trumps the desire of its denizens to keep it reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxnir (talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your accusations of edit warring are one-sided and unjustified. Please read the edit history because it will show that Amaury removed credibly sourced information repeatedly--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

See your talk page. What you are citing does not support what you are adding to the article. It is your responsibility to provide a good source that supports your edit. Not just keep putting it back in. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the assistance here. I am confident that the user in question is abusing multiple accounts/IPs based on the IPs that showed up out of the blue to try to stonewall the user in question's changes. I don't know if the IP adding the categories is part of them, but regardless. What do you think the best course of action here is? Reporting the IPs or requesting semi-protection? Amaury • 17:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

If it continues you might request semi-protection. The best course of action is to try to politely explain what is wrong with what they are doing. Remember, assume good faith. Unless it's obvious vandalism, most people are trying to improve the article, but need help in understanding what is, and isn't, acceptable. Getting annoyed with them doesn't help. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

They just outed themselves with the last IP I reverted here, as one of our WP:LTA sockers that we've been dealing with since 2016! See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen‎. Amaury • 18:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, I want to thank you for helping me to edit the article. Escape Orbit, I would like to ask for your help to see if my most recent edits minutes ago should be reverted or amended? --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I also want to hear out why the first edits I made were being edited out? Could you give me a precise explanation about this, thank you.--NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll comment on this on the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

thank you NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Perhaps was an original thought. Still, how is it different than the existing sentence that princess Diana hadn't had difficulty receiving help for mental health. Seems to be more relevant and noteworthy that the actual subjects of the Oprah interview knew how. I was thinking of deleting the Diana example and putting in the Fab Four example precisely because of closer relevance to the Oprah interview (Diana wasn't in even in the Oprah interview but Harry and Meghan were). And I was being cautious by adding a replacement example before deleting the bad one. Thoughts?Createangelos (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The difference is that reliable sources have drawn a connection between the two events with Diana, and discussed it. If you don't have a source that mentions Oprah, and the 'Every Mind Matters' interview, discussing them together, then you are performing original synthesis by including it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha

I don't know if you're still monitoring this, but it is upsetting me that something is missing from the public's comprehension of the issue of Meghan and Harry. That is, people here in England didn't need to write to remind ourselevs that she'd just been on TV explaining the ways to get help for mental health. So it was just such a shock for her to be on TV in the USA saying the opposite, that she thought she had to go to HR, that no-one helped her, she was lost and had no information where to go for mental health help. A similar situation is with all the things she's done, so people here in the UK say "what on earth, that makes no sense," while people in the USA say "Oh the English people were so negligent towards you." If you remember about that montage, in Oprahs program, it showed Globe, Examiner, Enquirer, Weekly World News and said "Look at the horrible racist ENGLISH tabloids." Having the Archbishop needing to explain he didn't commit a criminal offence, having the Master of the Rolls needing to clarify whether she briefed Omid Scobie, and there, having Chuck Shumer needing to read how she doesn't remember the price of salad bar at Sizzler. It is an irreverence for truth which is not victimless, and intentional perhaps with collaboration of PR agencies. When there actually are important issues of internatinoal trust, environmental issues, which get ignored and trivialized in the process of this celebrity PR strategy. Createangelos (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK I have put a lot of thought about the tabloid reaction here, how they said that her explaining on TV how to get mental health support 'called into question' Harry's claim that she thought you have to go to HR, and that the tabloids themselves referenced BBC noting that the NHS and public_health_britain websites had crashed on launch Monday due to the popularity of the intervention. I think even though it is only the tabloid reaction it is really notable, for the weird reason that it has some legitimacy of context/truth to it. However I am worried about retaliation by PR agencies, perhaps irrationally, so can you watch over this for me for a while? It is 'current' and has not been reverted. I am mainly wanting to protect Wikipedia and as part of that, my incompetent edits if at times they are neutral and not incompetent. Createangelos (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The problem remains that the reaction you are citing here is to a different interview, not Oprah's. So the connection to, and relevance to the article, is your own synthesis. The article is not "Harry & Meghan's disputes with the royal family". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well done, I didn't even notice that it was about Harry's subsequent 'me you can't see' talk. Createangelos (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

You know, I'm going to abandon this quest of mine to highlight how surprising it was for her to claim not to have known how to find support when she had been teaching us how to do it. Maybe the USA claim that she thought she had to go to HR was intended to make people like me publicize her earlier (successful) efforts in the UK. I hate how media is so superficial, but also I wouldn't like to be an unintentional puppet of a PR strategy that has me defending her abilities against her own claims of ineptitude, as in 'Oh doesn't anyone realize how wonderfully effective the interventions she described had been for US?' Truthfully, I'm just confused about how and why someone can be so disrespectful of accuracy when speaking publicly, and I am wanting to diminish superficial media reaction.Createangelos (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I’m not seeing the discussion you mentioned in your revert edit summary on the talk page or archive. Rusted AutoParts 16:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to point out a discussion at Talk:27 Club#Potentially controversial proposal: remove the "Identified members" list that references some statements you made 10 years ago on the subject. — Goffman82 10:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Escape Orbit,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Xx236, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Banna nicole, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Xx236}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not my article. I merely moved it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions. They were indeed helpful, but if you had checked the history you would have noted that the huge expansion is a work in progress in real time with clean ups as it evolves. You could have dropped me a line - articles also have talk pages ;) Sometimes such a long editing session which both expands, corrects a lot of errors and PoV, and researches and improves sources, has to be saved and an overall look taken before continuing. You might wish to sound a little less critical in your edit summaries. I'm also an old dog at Wikipedia but such harsh comment might discourage a newbie. Cheers, and all the best for 2022! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions. They were indeed helpful, but if you had checked the history you would have noted that the huge expansion is a work in progress in real time with clean ups as it evolves. You could have dropped me a line - articles also have talk pages ;) Sometimes such a long editing session which both expands, corrects a lot of errors and PoV, and researches and improves sources, has to be saved and an overall look taken before continuing. You might wish to sound a little less critical in your edit summaries. I'm also an old dog at Wikipedia but such harsh comment might discourage a newbie. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why do you delete them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farasat anees jam (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Because you are uploading and using photographs that do not belong to you, saying you own the copyright. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello and good day,

You seem to have removed my info about William Hale, this is very upsetting and touching my heart strings as they were a very famous hunter in my town that founded the relationships as we know them today in Northern India. My small town deserves this recognition and you are abusing your power on the wikipedia realms. Please resort this back to how it was before.

Thanks very much,

LordBronSugar — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordBronSugar (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could you please cite a source that mentions this person? I don't seem to find anything anywhere about him, which seems odd for someone described as famous. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi -- thanks for your comments. I have made another set of revisions, keeping in mind what you wrote. I also added five references as well. I also improved the wording and the clarity, and I fixed some typographical errors.

Which source was "unreliable" for the voice "Controversy" in Peter Dinklage's article so I can do better? 151.36.124.121 (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wait, is perhaps Daily Mail, is that? Because I saw the list of deprecated sources on English Wikipedia, and I think is that, am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.35.86 (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've read your concern in the Peter Dinklage's talk page and I wrote you a response about the section "Controversy" I want to put in the Peter Dinklage article. I'm still waiting for a response, to know which sources are reliable and which ones must be omitted, so I can make it acceptable and leave it alone without occurring in edit wars and potential blocks. I think the last modified version was perfect in its content, but I want you to tell me which sources are not. Thank you. 151.18.76.171 (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've replied on the talk page. The main problem is not the sources (although there are problems with them), but in the added editorializing, original research and unattributed opinions. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia entries identify people as Scottish if they were born to Scottish parents in Scotland, and likewise with a Welsh person, but some people are listed a "British" when they were born to English parents in England. Escape Orbit takes exception to me amending such entries.

If a person is English, surely it's no more legitimate to label them "British" than it is to do so with the Scottish and Welsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwrightenglish (talk • contribs) 10:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please read guidelines on UK nationalities. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I updated Steve Bronski's page on Wikipedia as I was a personal friend of his and I knew him very well. He WAS born in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, England and moved to Castlmilk, Glasgow when he was 6 months old. I should know I was at his funeral!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runfromlove85 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Runfromlove85:, this might be true. I've modified the article because the sources don't actually say he was born in Glasgow. But we don't have anything to say where he was born, and the word of an anonymous person on the internet is not enough. Can you find a reliable source that says where he was born? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think if you look at the file size, you would have realised that the images don't come from the sources you indicated. They don't qualify for speedy I don't think and may need proper discussions. I suspect they indeed come from the company itself, but perhaps need OTRS. Hzh (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, the deletions were quick. Can I ask that you check the files properly before you start speedy deletion requests? The files are big, some with metadata, suggesting that those were original image files and likely uploaded by the copyright holder, and not something pulled off some random websites. Hzh (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where they came from isn't really the point, if one single person is claiming to be multiple different copyright holders, and providing no evidence that they own copyright. The sources I listed really functioned as proof that the images were owned, and copyrighted, by professional photographers. The company itself, if the editor involved is a representative of them, doesn't necessarily have any right to them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

If they have the original files (when the images have metadata and file size of greater than a few megabytes, then they are likely the original), they likely have the rights to the image, they simply credited the original photographers. It is more than likely they supplied the sources you gave with the images. Ask for OTRS in such cases. Hzh (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The sources I indicated clearly say that they are copyrighted by different individuals. In some cases the meta data on the image said the same. Owning a copy of the original does not mean they own the copyright on the images and are can grant licence to them under CC. One anonymous person can't claim that they are multiple people and own all these copyrights to different photographs taken by different people wihout it appearing dubious.

I'm sure they did not mean to hide this fact, they did credit the photographer. But it looks like they didn't appreciate what they were doing by claiming to own them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think you are missing the fact that they likely supplied the files to the sources you indicated (I saw the same images in one source), since they are the same images but only smaller in size in the sources you gave. They can't supply them if they don't own the rights the images. The uploader appears to be from the Heatherwick publicity office, and they probably commissioned or obtained directly the images from the photographers. Like I said, ask for OTRS (alerting them to the rules since many are ignorant of those), if they can't then they likely don't own them. Hzh (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• "They can't supply them if they don't own the rights the images." - Yes they can. They could have been given permission by the copyright holder. That still does not mean own any rights themselves and can grant rights to others through CC.
• they probably commissioned or obtained directly the images from the photographers." - But clearly do not own the copyright.
• They specifically claimed when uploading that the photographs were their own work. That was not true. It's a complicated area, and I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but I'm comfortable that if an image is uploaded with clearly a false declaration, it should be removed. Whoever deleted them seems to have agreed. If they editor does have any kind of rights or permission, they can start by revealing their possible COI and/or paid editing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please stop leaving false information relating to supertramp. They are a British band (two member parents were Scottish).

You will be reported if you keep making simply incorrect edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5181:A701:B51D:9238:38A1:F6B7 (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The biographies of the individual members say differently. One member, who joined after they were formed, was Scottish, the rest were English and the band was formed in England. I don't know if that makes them British, but I suggest you put your case on the talk page, instead of edit warring over multiple articles as you have been doing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Map of Europe and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 22#Map of Europe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 72.83.57.117 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I really appreciate you for your humane comments about my edits style. I promise you that the corrections are taken. Thank.

The version of Kohinoor Group you tried to improve was a COI recreation of the article previously deleted following discussion. I have WP:G4 deleted the article and reinstated the redirect to Saigol Group. Cabayi (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Why did you undo my edit on the Open Championship page? It had 4 citations. Olso1912 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see, you're saying I'm adding original research. The linked description of what that entails clearly is not speaking about my edit. Furthermore, your reversion results in a less accurate page. What I was saying was not untrue in any way.

Olso1912 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message Olso1912. I'm afraid it is Original Synthesis, in that it involves you researching, and citing, a few newspapers with content that, when combined, presents an argument that none of the cited sources say. You added "British newspapers have continued to occasionally use British Open", when all each source shows is that one journalist once wrote this. None of them say anything about British newspapers in general, or how they refer to The Open, and it is only once you combine the sources is your claim verified. Wikipeida considers that Original Synthesis and it is not permitted. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply. I understand the need for the research/synthesis policy above. I do not believe this particular instance is the intent of the rule. The problem is, that the name section on The Open page is horribly biased to the idea that no one in Britain ever called it the "British Open". Which is clearly not true. The only citation to support this is from the R&A, even though there is literally video evidence of the term "British Open" being used while presenting the Claret Jug.

There must be a way to make this section more factual. Olso1912 (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/nick-faldo-has-a-funny-idea-to-end-this-whole-open-championship-or-british-open-debate

Does this pass muster, here is a discussion of a TV commentator who is clearly British and a past champion using the term, in an article specifically about the name. Also below are more examples of the term "British Open" being used. I know the below links are not specifically about what the name of the event is, however, it seems pretty obvious that they are covering they are calling it "British Open".

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/golf/the-british-open-20-years-of-champions-2026395.html

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/incoming/gallery/pictures-looking-back-british-open-7408206

https://www.scotsman.com/news/obituary-peter-thomson-australian-golfer-who-won-british-open-five-times-1428415 Olso1912 (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Escape Orbit, hope you are well. Please look through this IP address: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:800:C100:1120:2879:CC96:42C1:3738 They seem to be vandalizing Wikipedia by deliberately introducing false information. I caught them introducing a wrong birthdate to Carrie Underwood's page. Cheers MarkieC07 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

If the things I added about Barry Keoghan's child has been removed, why do I still see the sentence talking about the announcement of the birth of Keoghan's child without a source to back it up as it has been there before I added more info about Barry Keoghan? Commander Tam Kenoby (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Because that source does indeed verify that he had a child. It does not tell you how many children he has. But I had missed that you had also cited the announcement lower down. I've fixed that. Thanks, @Commander Tam Kenoby:. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The ckunbwere liquidated in 2012. Fact.

Please stop reverting edits to those put in place by their fans who seek to deny it. This is vandalism of the truth.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deevlash (talk • contribs) 08:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources consider it to be the same club. Fact. Your interpretation on the matter is not notable and has been discussed and discounted repeatedly . Stop edit warring. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Courtesy reminder: Rangers F.C. is subject to discretionary sanctions and is under a 1RR restriction. Deevlash has also been advised of this and would be sanctioned on a go-forward basis. —C.Fred (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

It would seem you're doing the exact same thing. Stop changing facts please, its irresponsible.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deevlash (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

See reply above. Continuing to edit war on the basis you're right, everyone else is wrong, won't get you far. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello I was starting a section on this page for the streetwear culture in the UK and to help people trying to start getting into it in the UK. Why did you remove it is there a standard needed or something just trying to add more info on the topic? :( 2A00:23C6:B101:7D01:19A5:64E9:4FED:FC13 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You need some reliable sources discussing the topic and to reflect what they say. Linking to providers of streetwear, and offering an opinion of how amazing/successful/popular they are isn't encyclopaedic. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do these sources need to be from within Wikipedia itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:B101:7D01:19A5:64E9:4FED:FC13 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, they should not be from Wikipedia, but from a reliable source. That means a third party that people can trust to be accurate and objective. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I added a note "In the street scenes, one shop is titled "Micklewhite's Candie Shoppe", Micklewhite being Michael Caine's birth surname." You reverted this with the comment "Cite please", which are grounds I do not understand. This is fact, not my opinion or original research - the film itself is the citation, which can be verified by viewing it, unless you're saying a specific frame number or timing is required? Or are you challenging Michael Caine's birth name, which is cited in his biographical article? Masato.harada (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your interpretation of what is on the film, and the connection it has to Caine, through its relationship with his birth surname, is Original Synthesis, unless you can find a source that makes this connection already? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi orbit, I would like to change and edit some wrong information in the Fatim-Zahra Ammor english version. Can you please assist me? thank you dear Henoudsamya (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have discussed your complaint about citation on the talk page. Pali citation is notoriously difficult. So much disagreement. But one thing everyone agrees on, is the old system of using Pali Text Society page numbers, particularly Bhikkhu Bodhi, the worlds foremost translator. He incorporates those numbers in all his major translations. Computers work best with Pali Text Society page numbers, too. Including the Vipassana Research Institute. Any other system is complicated because Thailand, Sri Lanka canons divide things up differently. It's a headache. So, having fixed the thing as best as I know how, I request permission to remove the template message. Sukusala (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

He is absconding from India after cheating crores of rupees from investors.it is there in news including suntv.please check YouTube..it's must to get included so that more people will not get suffered. Renganathan krishnappan (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

YouTube is not a reliable source and this does not go into Wikipedia without a reliable source. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dear Escape Orbit: I have linked the notes not only to the appropriate Wiki page, but also to the SuttaCentral reference page. Therefore, the Template Message is now unjustified: "This article has an unclear citation style. The reason given is: cites used are non-standard and unclear." Could it please be now removed. As I have explained, the Pali Text Society page nummbers are used, by the very best publishers, including Sutta Central, Margaret Cone, and Bhikkhu Bodhi. To say this is non-standard is simply wrong. Sukusala (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I saw that you removed my edit, citing ‘well known by who’ and ‘to which day’, I think you made an error- My thoughts were that the former of your statement is answered by the BBC source attached to it, and the latter is not in literal sense of date (but rather in terms of its well known nature, the attached source to it, explains it very well. What I added in was very well sourced, and very much informative- so maybe, if you think these words don’t follow on, we should change the wording to it, then? Brucewane01 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

All I did was restore a page that was an accepted page by Wikipedia before ARMcgrath completely removed all text for Kurt James in 2018 with his edit of the already accepted page. (ARMcgrath EXTENDED CONFIRMED USERS 7,159 )This user has a high vandalism rating, yet has the ability to go into existing accounts and delete from them at will. I looked at some of this user’s edit history and I see that the user goes into high profile musician’s pages and just deletes whatever they want. This user’s profile needs to be looked at for vandalism of existing accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cincygal (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The page was an entirely unsourced biography of a living person. It didn't show notability and nothing it said was supported by reliable sources. This simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia, and the fact that it had escaped attention for some while doesn't change this. This doesn't suggest that he is a "high profile musician". If you can find sources to support what the article said, then please do readd the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I saw you reversed my edits regarding Kristo's arrest. I didn't missummarise the source, I cleaned up the wording (e.g. active voice). If the summary was wrong, that wasn't my fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.114.117 (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you have reverted my edits to those said articles in which I added two categories on the Fleetwood Mac article and removing the Member of section on the infobox of the articles of the band’s members.

I think it’s true Fleetwood Mac have disbanded as Mick Fleetwood said at the Grammys that they wouldn’t perform again following the death of Christine McVie last November. Benfskye1 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Fleetwood Mac article doesn't say this. It says "I'd say we're done, but then we've all said that before". I'd wait until an actual official statement. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello friend, Thank you for your edits. I'm a bit confused as to why you removed the two list. The 24 pointers were important as it was the Memorandum of reforms submitted.

The present official lists are present in all other Church in Malankara. Why was these reverted. Randomscholar1996 (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my edit of Mariah Carey being an author? She has written a biographical memoir based on her life, and two holiday themed children's book. I even added the cited source pointing to such said information. Not to mention it is also stated on her page under the written works category. IslandScholar (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please read MOS:ROLEBIO, specifically; "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." I think that "author" is not what makes Carey notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I noticed my contents adding was reverted by you based on copy and paste from this day which i stated as source before the information.

As a new wiki editor,is there a policy against copy and paste of tangible information? And what are wikipedia policy for editors? James Maye (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The message that I left on your talk page explains everything. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Escape Orbit. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Latifa Nalukenge, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R3: sources suggest this is a valid alternative name. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Just wondering why you removed my edit about the closure and fundraising effort?

Thanks. Ashford39 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my mistake. I misread what the edit summary was showing me. I've reverted my edit. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Thanks for letting me know. Ashford39 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can't revert another user's edit for not citing a source. I've added a source but please remember this. WiiPlayer1 (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can. Particularly when the source you then provided does not say what you claim it does. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Explain how my source doesn't say OceanGate ceased operations. WiiPlayer1 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

"“OceanGate has suspended all exploration and commercial operations,” the message says." That does not say "ceased" is says "suspended". And neither make the company "defunct", which is the parameter you added to the company info box. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I mean, you are right in that the company is almost certainly finished. But Wikipedia can't be the one to declare it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

OceanGate's website and multiple news agencies have confirmed it's defunct. WiiPlayer1 (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm literally quoting their website. "OceanGate has suspended all exploration and commercial operations". That does not say the company is defunct. What multiple news agencies says it is? If you have one that says the company is no more then perhaps it can be added. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was having so much trouble figuring out getting the disclosure to work. Thank you for helping! Publiccorrections234 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, me again. I somehow forgot about the Skaka edits so here I am back. I appreciate you trying to fix the article, but all the information that the person who edits it the most are over-promotional and not really relevant. The “Man of the year” award is not relevant and does little to represent his term as mayor. The only things relevant are probably the Trebević cable car and organizing EYOF 2019. The Islamic leader in Bosnia and Herzegovina giving his support to Skaka, as well as the Young Muslims organization are also not so relevant and are purely objectively just biased. Irregularities in the arrest process were not found, just the date of him being in prison until a proper court hearing expired. And the fact that the editor used Hayat, Istraga and Stav as sources is also just biased reporting. The shortest way I can explain you is that they are all extremely biased media (Stav especially), whose sources are almost never used due to this fact. And once again, the editor is a clear sockpuppet, so keeping their edits on the article doesn't even make any sense. If we are sticking to proper guidelines, objectivity and neutrality on Wikipedia, then Skaka's article is everything but that. I hope you understand. Bakir123 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This was not really a good revert [2]. If you actually read the Act of Proscription and its embedded Dress Act, you find that the editor was entirely correct on this (their edit just needed formatting cleanup). The article has since been revised to have the correct information in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The edit was malformed and contradicted what the article had said previously, and what the linked article said, without adding any new source to support what was now being claimed. So I'm happy to stand by the revert. The revert should have a comment on it though, that sometimes happens by mistake. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

On the Danger Rangers article, I added all that information because I thought the article was lacking much plot and character information. Character information, I understand getting removed (such as my speculation that Sully has a crush on Kitty, because it's really only hinted at and not developed, in the episode "Mission 407: Safety Rules!", where it's just used as a joke, but what did I do wrong about the plot, aside from saying "you" or other nouns? Sorry if that's a bit confused. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I have undone your undo. Zalán Hári (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. I think the issue was the word "known", which brings unspecified people into the situation who are doing the "knowing". It could also be taken as speculating that there are "unknown" structural isomers. Better to just say there is a structural isomer. I've modified it slightly. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the correction. Zalán Hári (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

for updating the name Thomas Robb the KKK Leader as I am a new person on this website Ismail100111 (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because Wikipedia needs more people cleaning out non-independent promotional links out of articles. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:5048:5974:CE1D:3EEB (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think your revision on the Marriage in the Catholic Church topic wasn't necessary; there didn't seem to be any problem with it. The same applies to the Poaching (cooking) article. WikiEdits9999 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@WikiEdits9999 You cannot change direct quotes from sources, just because you do not like how the source has phrased things. It's not permissible to change what the source says, and not up to you to decide it can be said better. Your changes to the poaching article also changed the meaning of what it said, making some of it meaningless. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

For future reference, when tagging for copyright violations, WP:F9 is used for speedy deletion of files, and WP:G12 is for everything else. Yes, it's a bit confusing, but that's how it is. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind going to the PSN account creation page in the PlayStation website by clicking on Sign in, then clicking on Create new account, then clicking on Create, and then counting the countries inside the list of countries, please?
Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Bhuyquang1 I'm going by the cited page, and the number of countries there. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Calling vindaloo a Goan dish is a norm and widely accepted belief but it is also a dish which forms part of the east indian community. There might be historic evidences which are yet to be proven but that will occur with time I suppose. Meanwhile, Pls provide evidence for your sentences and kindly enlighten me. Brunold85 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am not commenting on your sources, but your edits have broken wikilinks ("East-Indian" is not an article) and are not grammatically sound. Please preview your edits before publishing them so you ensure that you are not destroying encyclopedic functionality. (Please say "please" and not "Pls"; we have plenty of room here and it is disrespectful to use text abbreviations.) Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Brunold85 Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You want to change the article, you must therefore produce adequately sourced evidence. All your source says is that vindaloo is cooked by East Indians and has been for some while. That doesn't change any aspect of the lead crediting its origins elewhere, and does not merit it being injected into the lead. The phrasing is also confusing. "Thought" by who? Is this saying those who think this, whoever they are, are wrong? Says who? It may be that East Indian vindaloo could be added to the article, but unless you have good sources that demonstrate what the article says is incorrect, there is no reason to change it. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! I hope you are doing well.

I wanted to talk to you about the recent reversion of my additions to the references. While I understand that you may have thought that I was hijacking the page, I would like to clarify that the website I used has more information than the actual Wikipedia page. Moreover, the reference you added back in the first sentence is not a valid resource because the information on it is incorrect. As someone who is deeply knowledgeable about this series, I was trying to be helpful by not pasting all the information I had written. It's also worth noting that there is no tangible information on these cards as the website itself is no longer available.

You have reverted the page back to only having three references, and I can see that the only one which is as reliable as the (Battlesintime.co.uk) website is the Millennium FX one, which can also be dubbed as a fan site.

I understand that you may have had reasons for your decision, but I have been trying to add more references to the page because there was a box above it that said it needs more references. Before your revisions, I was planning to use Millennium FX's information on the games section and add the information I have accumulated.

I appreciate your help in maintaining the accuracy and reliability of the page, and I would be happy to discuss any further changes with you. JanKingshott (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@JanKingshott I don't doubt your knowledge and good intentions for this page, but its comes down to four issues.

Firstly, as you'll understand, any fan can create a website about anything. But there is no guarantee about the accuracy of the information on that website. So you really need to demonstrate that the website is more than just one fan's ideas and opinions, and has some kind of recognised authority behind it. You can read about how Wikipedia defines reliable sources here. If you can demonstrate this, the best thing is to present your case on the article talk page, for all to see.

Secondly, Wikipedia cannot accept original research, no matter what expertise the contributor claims to have. As an encyclopedia, it can only reflect what has already been published elsewhere on a reliable source. If the only place it has been published is a fansite, then sorry, it should remain there.

Thirdly, editors on Wikipedia are largely anonymous and their expertise on any subject is impossible or impractical to verify. So, whatever expertise you may have unfortunately counts for nothing, and does not give your contributions any weight. This is what makes the use of good sources so important. It is those that can be verified.

Lastly, if you are using your own website, or one that you have a personal connection with, you should declare this possible conflict of interest on your user page, and take great care that your contributions are about improving the article, and not about attracting readers to the website.

This all means that saying "this source is wrong, because I say so, and trust me, I know", is not adequate reason for removing it. And writing on the article "if you want to know more about this, here's a link to a great website" is not acceptable. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

No problem, thank you for your response. I will leave the editing then. Sadly the page is missing a lot of information but this is something that will have to be left.

The last part you mentioned which I believe is in response to myself saying there are inaccuracies on the first reference can be correlated with the original Battles in Time website. However again, I will refrain from changing anything now as a lot of work went in and its been changed (NOT DISPUTING I JUST DIDNT REALISE IT WAS WRONG).

Thank you again for your time, and have a great day. JanKingshott (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for the comment on the edit I made to The LaFontaines page. I'm keen to understand better how to notate the source when I am the source. I don't really have anything to source except the fact I was there.

Please help me understand how I can notate this as I believe it's still important information for the band's fans. ThorasaurusRex (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, you cannot. Wikipedia simply could not work if it just allowed anonymous people on the internet to vouch "I know, I was there." People make mistakes, have different interpretations of events, sometimes just lie and are not verifiable. If you want to add this, you need to find a reliable source that reports it. Then you can cite that source. Does the band have a website? Or even a facebook post? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's fair. I'll wait until they announce it elsewhere and update from there. I guess that's the very nature of any encylopedia, always one step behind the news :)

Thanks for your input. ThorasaurusRex (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

While some of your changes to the page are very good, you did too much in a single edit. Especially problematic are the deletions.

So, please, be more considerate with deletions. Do them a bit more slowly, in multiple edits, so that it is easier to see what you did.

Now you have created quite a mess, it's hard to see whether there was some important information that you have deleted.

Please, just a bit more considerate with deletions. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

What should I do now? I simply can't untagle the mess. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no mess. I cleanly removed two sentences and one paragraph. Which part do you think should have remained? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added back the parts that I think should have remained.

You removed 3 whole paragraphs, in a single edit, without asking anyone.

Nut, doesn't matter, it is OK now. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You didn't word this one carefully enough, but I don't know how to fix it:

"Relevance inline|If similar to other computers, why discuss the one it's not similar to?"

The Spectrum is neither more nor less similar to Commodore 64 then to other mocro's. C-64 is simply the most sold micro, so it is a common reference point for comparison, since many people have experience with it. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think I have managed to fix it back. I like your improved paragraph in the leading section. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the improvements on the ZX Spectrum graphics mode pages. Z80Spectrum (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Escape Orbit, hope you are well. Please look through this IP address: 106.221.226.144, 2409:40D0:101E:C7D2:F9CC:9633:2E64:692C. They seem to be vandalizing Wikipedia by deliberately introducing false information on Janata Party page. Janata Party New president is Navneet Chaturvedi. All references and citations are added in page and even available on google. But old president people are adding his own name again and again to vandalize the page old president had been removed from the party because of some scam involvement. I have requested for page protection. As you are senior editor so i thought discussing this with you. DavidThomas22 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't edited a page in years and saw there was a double word ("name name") but shortly after I edited and published, the whole "in other media" section was gone -- I'm assuming that was you and I didn't accidentally remove it! Sophontologist (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello Escape Orbit!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PenmanWarrior (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

OP blocked and talk page access removed. Meters (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

In much the same way that Talking Heads and Fleetwood Mac are both mixed-gender. The Guardian even says Today’s seven-piece touring lineup includes three women. “And no mullets,” Kerr says, laughing, although he points out that Simple Minds had a female vocalist, Robin Clark, in the 80s. which would support what I'm saying. Are you happy for me to reinstate the category as it seems unusual to exclude Simple Minds from this category but include pretty much every other prominent mixed-gender band? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Spiderone See WP:DEFINE. I do not believe it is a defining characteristic of the band. I also think it's unlikely to be a defining characteristic of most of the other bands in the category, and is a junk category. What other categories are there for collections of people of more than one gender? Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it's a fairly trivial category for most bands listed. I'm very surprised that it survived a deletion discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Saying he's a central figure isn't peacocking. He's tied with JayZ for winning the most amount of grammys as a rapper. Neanderthal4914 (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's an interesting fact. Why not say that instead of an imprecise estimation that the reader can't verify? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

If the MOS advises against using this font size, alright then, I won't. However, information about the year of a player's last match is sometimes added to the infobox when an official retirement announcement came years later (e.g. Alexandr Dolgopolov or Jelena Janković). TVShowFan122 (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TVShowFan122 Well it's very poor practice, munging two different items of info into one infobox field. Why stop there? Why not add a note about why they retired, and what they went onto do? Infobox fields should only contain exactly what they're labelled to contain. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

"To retire" means "to stop working", doesn't it? The fact that someone only announced it a few years later doesn't mean we shouldn't mention the year when they actually retired. And in cases where there hasn't been any retirement announcement (like Lindsay Davenport or Anastasia Myskina), would you just leave that field empty? TVShowFan122 (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have reverted all your changes to the Durrell family. They are wrong, pointless or nonsensical. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have, however, fixed "lost to" Alzheimer's, which I now see (thank you) is ambiguous. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Utilisateur19911: - Your objections are noted, but not exactly helpful. What was "wrong, pointless or nonsensical" about my edit? The article has a number of problems that should be addressed. I've outlined them in the article talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

please see my comment Pedesterra (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why are you reverting my edits to the Callan "See Also" section, including using twinkle? Codename was a rival BBC show to ITV's Callan at the time, The Equalizer was a US series starring Edward Woodward nearly 2 decades later with a lot of similarities to Callan, and The Fixer in 2008 was done with a lot of similiarites to Callan (Mercer as Callan, McKenzie as Lonely, and Douglas as Hunter). 89.242.122.202 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@89.242.122.202 If there are similarities that sources discuss, then perhaps you could include it as content in the article. Otherwise the similarities are just your opinion, and the shows have no real connection with each other. All of Woodward's work shares a connection, of course, but we don't list on each article his others shows. His personal article has a list. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I explained the criticism on the talk page: Talk:Ukrainian_Wikipedia#Vaguely_attributed_criticism_and_claim_sourced_to_facebook

So if you don't mind I will restore the section with additional explanation. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added an answer. I'm talking not about restoring my edition, but about improving it with additional information. Thank you for understanding. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have already added the Twitter blog of Ukrainian Wikipedia and the Facebook blog of Ukrainian Wikipedia. Thank you for understanding. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

if we are talking about Ukrainian Wikipedia, its social media could be a reliable source. Thank you for understanding. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

what about Valentyna Kodola? Thank you for understanding. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear User:Escape Orbit, I think, you should take into account all the provided information, and discuss proposed editions: Talk:Ukrainian_Wikipedia#Criticism:_the_Polivanov_system Talk:Ukrainian_Wikipedia#Criticism:_Putinists'_fifth_column. Thank you for understanding. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for the interest in the page about my father. How would you like me to prove that I am his son and am only putting in correct information?

Many thanks, SCA. Heysford (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whether you can prove who you are or not doesn't matter. You can only prove you are providing correct information by citing an reliable source, exactly like anyone else must. Please also read the message I placed on your talk page regarding editing articles about people you are connected to. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

I noticed that definitions of systems by various systems gurus were removed. Could you please let me know what additional information or context is needed to effectively illustrate the different understandings of systems that have evolved in systems thinking? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! SystemsModeler (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your disregard of Wikipedia policies. The thread is Reporting a violation of Wikipedia's edit policy.... The discussion is about the topic Men's interest channel. Thank you. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

You may consider the discussion at the Noticeboard closed, as I have withdrawn my comments & dropped my objections to your edits. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Bicycle_Users_in_France. May I ask why you removed the entry for its president? See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_fran%C3%A7aise_des_usagers_de_la_bicyclette as a source. --Traut (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Traut: - it was simply because there is no "president" field on the infobox template I replaced it with. Maybe there's another field that would work, just named differently? Or maybe there's another template that would be more suitable that has it? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

ah, thanks - I did not know which template that had been at all. So I just used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Cycling_Federation as a template. You would have to remove everyhing from infoboxes which are not part of the template's definition? --Traut (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You don't have to remove them, but they'll keep showing up as bold red warnings to everyone editing the page, and wouldn't ever be visible on the page to readers. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand. The display of the page looked perfectly fine to me, as does the other on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Cycling_Federation - everything visible, nothing bold or red. --Traut (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but the original template was for "sport governing body". Unless I'm mistaken, the FUB has no status as a governing body for any sport. The FFC does. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I begin to understand - so it's because of Infobox nonprofit, which does not know an President entry, right? --Traut (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

So instead of President it would have been Leader_name? --Traut (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

C'est correct. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dropping 24 [citation needed] tags on this page is entirely unnecessary. I'm not going to bother undoing it because your removals were justified and it's more trouble than it's worth, but please avoid tagbombing in the future. mftp dan ^oops 23:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a fully mature biography of 18 years, and so far has only one single source, which does little but confirm he was a notable drummer. All other detail is unsourced and over hundreds of edits to the article, most editors seemed to have been unconcerned about this. Much of the article obviously started out as a personal recollection, which admittedly has been improved upon by removal, but what's left (from place of birth to "reportedly" cause of death) could be fiction for all the reader can tell. I may have over-done it, but I don't think it's unfair to draw greater attention to the issue before removing it all.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Norm Augustinus Carnegie Medal is mentioned In this Jewish News Article (Norm is Jewish), and it also talks about his best-selling books: https://www.thejewishnews.com/archives/crossing-the-line-fence-encroaches-on-jewish-graves-in-chesterfield/article_9cd3f1bb-9d95-5ce7-9359-2ed5ee7bb912.html Audreyanngreen (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately that website is not available to readers from Europe, so I have no way of seeing what it says. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply