Jump to content

User talk:Llll5032: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Vandalism/Warning: new section
r
Line 855: Line 855:


All edits reverted to @[[User:Llll5032|Llll5032]]
All edits reverted to @[[User:Llll5032|Llll5032]]
:Please review [[WP:BESTSOURCES]], and [[WP:ABOUTSELF]],[[WP:ONUS]], and [[WP:EPTALK]] (editing is not warring, but reverts are), and discuss on the [[Talk:Censored.TV|article talk page]] why the disputed content should stay in the article. [[User:Llll5032|Llll5032]] ([[User talk:Llll5032#top|talk]]) 05:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

--

== Continued Vandalism and Warring (User: Llll5032) ==

Request for a temporary ban for user:Llll5032, or a ban from editing ''[[Censored.TV]]''. Multiple instances on talk page of warring and blatant editing biases. The latest example is of page titled ''Censored.TV'', as user is submitting continuous reverts, of which new references and ''edit summary'' do not match given do not match edits.

* {{vandal|Llll5032}} Continuous reverts, of which ''edit summary'' does not match given do not match edits. Wikipedia:Edit warring
[[User:Machiavellian Gaddafi|Machiavellian Gaddafi]] ([[User talk:Machiavellian Gaddafi|talk]]) 05:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:21, 9 December 2022

Llll5032, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Llll5032! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Dathus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
123 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C New Tang Dynasty Television (talk) Add sources
59 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Alay (talk) Add sources
9 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Internal media of China (talk) Add sources
23 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Sound of Hope (talk) Add sources
84 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Shi (kana) (talk) Add sources
58 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Martian language (talk) Add sources
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Zhang Jianhong (talk) Cleanup
76 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Chi (kana) (talk) Cleanup
99 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Capital offences in China (talk) Cleanup
677 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China (talk) Expand
26 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Reference News (talk) Expand
17 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start National Languages Committee (talk) Expand
420 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Human rights in China (talk) Unencyclopaedic
53 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002) (talk) Unencyclopaedic
21 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Miguxês (talk) Unencyclopaedic
62 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Translit (talk) Merge
38 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Volapuk encoding (talk) Merge
31 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Legislative system of China (talk) Merge
60 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Murder for body parts (talk) Wikify
424 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA History of books (talk) Wikify
174 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Dungan language (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Patriot Alliance Association (talk) Orphan
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Fazhengnian (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Bai Wanxiang (talk) Orphan
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Les Presses Chinoises (talk) Stub
14 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub New Tang Dynasty Television (Canada) (talk) Stub
39 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Hi (kana) (talk) Stub
10 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Zhang Baosheng (talk) Stub
54 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Organ theft (talk) Stub
303 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub SNAC (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Times

We need independent sources meeting WP:RS discussing the ET, rather than statements by the ET about itself. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Crowder article appears biased

Hello, 

    I hope your day is going well! Upon reading the newest updates on the Steven Crowder wiki entry, I have come to perceive the article as having a slight bias. I believe that it would be important to link Crowder’s video rebuttal to the Vix allegations. In this video he notes that he has had numerous contacts with YouTube officials regarding his videos, and endorses that Maza routinely uses similar language to Crowder to describe himself, including Maza describing himself as a “Queer” and “Gay wonk”. Grammyman123 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grammyman123, please feel free to edit the Crowder article in the way you consider most fair and Wikipedian

Sonder

Hi Llll5032, I reverted your edit to Sonder because disambiguation pages help distinguish between existing articles. When the article is in main space, it can be added back. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Leschnei -- it's back to existing, and re-added. -- Llll5032

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sonder Corp. (December 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
still reads like an advert.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate the research you did on the WPP article and your enthusiasm. Today I did a number of edit revisions on that article that had been posted by various editors. You can look at the edit changes to review them. Some were yours. I really would like to see you continue your editing, and can possibly save you a little time. I would try to be available to you if you care for some feedback or require any assistance. I would also suggest that you start a User page. You don't have to do anything elaborate or reveal anything that would compromise your identity, but it will remove your edit displays from "red linking." It also would give you the opportunity to receive and/or send mail to or from other WP users if you want to set up an email account that does not disclose your identity. Feel free to decline my suggestions or offer of assistance. I do hope you continue to edit. Activist (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Activist, for your edits and your kind advice. I took your advice on creating a user page — Llll5032

Your submission at Articles for creation: Timothy Shea has been accepted

Timothy Shea, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Theroadislong! —Llll5032

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sonder Corp. has been accepted

Sonder Corp., which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Information icon Hi Llll5032! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Robert G. Marbut that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Graywalls, I'll keep that in mind, and thanks for your work in improving the article. Should we delete the dead citation anyway, without marking it as a minor edit? Llll5032(talk)
A link being dead is not a reason to remove especially if it's available on archive.org. However, a link that do not meet reliable sourcing or due weight requirements sometimes merit removal along with the statement the source is supporting. Graywalls (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Marbut

I've reverted your re-insertion of opinions of various pro-homeless groups made in this edit. If you'd like to discuss this matter, please do so on the article's talk page. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support that, now that you've explained. I'd thought that your edit threw the baby out with some of the bathwater — the original citations, which were not mine, had important information on who opposed him. But secondary sources probably have that too. Llll5032 (talk)
Also thanks for being vigilant on that page. In its history, it has had both pro and anti polemics, neither of which are appropriate. Llll5032 (talk)

Important Notice

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 Falun Gong. 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.

Doug Weller talk 17:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Macgregor

Why is Macgregor's comment on Russians in Ukraine in any way notable? What he said is an undisputed fact. He voiced no irredentist statement. The current draft gives the impression that Macgregor is saying something that is false. In my view, this statement is simply not notable because it is true, he says nothing controversial in any way. This will give some readers a false impression and adds nothing to the article. Sbelknap (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sbelknap, you may know that, but can you find a reliable source that says it? Here is a second RS that cites the first: https://thehill.com/latino/510551-report-trump-ambassador-pick-warned-germany-against-benefits-for-unwanted-muslim Llll5032 (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Дністрянський М.С. Етнополітична географія України. Лівів. Літопис, видавництво ЛНУ імені Івана Франка, 2006, page 342 ISBN 966-7007-60-X Sbelknap (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sbelknap, it is probably WP:SYNTH if the source doesn't mention Macgregor. Llll5032 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is whether or not to include this in the Douglas Macgregor book at all. The clear implication of the current text is that Macgregor is making a dubious claim. Instead, he is stating a fact. For this reason, the text is not notable and ought not be included in the article. Sbelknap (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sbelknap, if that is the issue, then WP:VNT: "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." Llll5032 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See: Russians in Ukraine Sbelknap (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sbelknap, these sources [1][2] say he didn't just call them Russians.

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Jeremy Boreing while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 01:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edits to John Ioannidis

Hi Thanks for your recent edits to John Ioannidis on the santa Claus study. The user who removed the study frok Ioannidis's page also did the same on Jay Bhattacharya's page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya

Bhattacharya is also an author of the study so the edit really should be undone as well. I would really appreciate your support in protecting this page from vandalism edits. Best wishes. Gd123lbp (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gd123lbp, and I made some non-Santa Clara edits to the Jay Bhattacharya page. I am refraining from Santa Clara edits while there is a discussion on the Ioannidis talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like WP:CANVASSING in action. Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alexbrn, if your comment was directed toward me, I didn't intend to canvass (although I am not unhappy that we are all talking constructively on the talk page). Regardless of the outcomes, I apologize for not writing previously here that your edits were in good faith, and disagreement ≠ vandalism. Llll5032 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llll5032! no the comments were directed at Gd123lbp who seems to be wanting to recruit you. Considering they have a thread running at ANI, it's a brave move on their part. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alexbrn -- yes I think WP:AGF is a good way of life, not just on Wikipedia! Llll5032 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, so long as one doesn't get into WP:PACT territory. Wikipedia's had its share of bad 'uns over the years. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely right. I aim to be one of the good 'uns -- thanks, and I welcome help if I fall short. Llll5032 (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to recruit, I am just thanking this user. Assume good faith please! Gd123lbp (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gd123lbp. I'm glad to be on good terms with both of you. Llll5032 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

primary source tags

Hello: You recently tagged some citations for non-primary source needed. These tags are unnecessary. WP:PRIMARY allows for the citation of works written by people, even in articles about the people themselves. This is done hundreds of thousands of times in WP. For example, see Norman Mailer bibliography and the articles about his books. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing, S. Rich. In the two articles I tagged recently, one citation was partly to a deprecated source[3], and another to an ideologically contentious one[4]. So, WP:PRIMARY may not bar primary sourcing, but I think a secondary independent source should help establish the context. What do you think? Llll5032 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epoch Times (ET) is not WP:RS for material which we might add to WP – but that does not mean we cannot say Elder writes stuff in ET. That is, ET might publish something by Elder that says "the earth is round". We wouldn't cite Elder's ET article in the WP Round Earth article. BUT, in Elder's WP article, we could say "Elder supports the view that the Earth is round" – and we could use his ET article to show this. With Bhattacharya, there is contention between "ideo-logical" and "science-logical" views. Scientific controversy encourages debate as part of scientific method. Bhattacharya's defense of the Great Barrington Declaration is part of that debate. We don't "censor" WP because his argument is contentious – ideologically or otherwise. – S. Rich (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC
Thanks for your reply, S. Rich -- I appreciate your editing experience and that you are taking the time here to explain. I wasn't arguing for censorship, and made no deletions. I used the tag because "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care" per WP:PRIMARY. Would WP:SECONDARY context improve these citations? If not, is the "non-primary source needed" tag [5] only to be used when there is WP:SYNTH, or are there other times the tag should be used? Llll5032 (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thanks

Llll, I just wanted to say thanks for disagreeing in a respectful way. A lot of these topics can get heated. An editor who stays respectful even after an extended disagreement is something to be acknowledged. Springee (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC) The above was typed out before your post here [[6]] and still stands after Springee (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks, Springee. I often like your ideas, and I appreciate our respectful discussions too. Llll5032 (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This may come across as odd since I just reverted one of your edits but yesterday I was thinking I wanted to reiterate my message above. I find that even if I don't agree with the edits, I feel that I can have good faith that your edits are generally a positive and if I disagree in any particular case it's probably a difference not big enough to worry about. So again, kudo's to you. Springee (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course and same to you, Springee — I just tried some compromise language in the article that may work for you. We may have occasional differences in interpreting WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, but we can work these out. Llll5032 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, even with our recent article level disagreement, I want to reiterate what I said above. It is still completely true. Springee (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recall you writing somewhere that good-faith disagreements lead to a better encyclopedia -- I fully agree, and also appreciate your thoughts on the article talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Steven S. Biss (May 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
References are mostly passing mentions in articles about his clients.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Greenman (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China Uncensored

Hello, you recently undid my edit to the China Uncensored page, with the comment "needs attribution" Could you elaborate? In my edit, I only added more information from the same source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToasterSchnitzel (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ToasterSchnitzel and thank you for the explanation. Most information should be from WP:SECONDARY sources, not from the subject of the article itself, per WP:PSTS and WP:SELFSOURCE ('Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources"). The question is whether this information can meet the five WP:SELFSOURCE requirements. Usually this discussion, if you want to pursue it, takes place on the article talk page so other editors can also have a say. Llll5032 (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Just as an fyi, the content in the article Jair Bolsonaro was not deleted, it was moved to another article. Be that as it may, i raised awareness to the size of the article a few times, even created a topic in the talk page over a year ago, but it was ignored.So since, over all this time, nobody talked about it one way or the other, the content was just transferred to another article, not deleted, as the main one was getting excessively big, mostly with WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Coltsfan (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, Coltsfan. The transfer is a better edit summary. I think it may still be a good idea to announce the move on the talk page per WP:EPTALK. Llll5032 (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Coltsfan (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

You have been named in a dispute resolution request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rebekah_Jones

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute in a meaningful way when you can

Thank you for your contribution to the Wikipedia article on Phil Valentine. You rightfully pointed out that a person's website should not be a primary source. In this case, the language referencing three novels Valentine authored needed proper sources that were not his website. However, a simple Google of the books' titles reveals many sources for that information. While it is good that you brought to the attention of editors the need for proper sources, it is much more helpful if instead of adding banners you would make an effort to find and add the sources needed. When information is offered in an article, all of Wikipedia benefits, and we all need to shoulder equal responsibility in ensuring articles adhere to Wikipedia standards. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing, MarydaleEd, and for your work on the article. The information is being added mostly by a new editor, so I have been marking citations needed for their benefit, in hopes of encouraging good habits. Llll5032 (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Your work is greatly appreciated. However, we leave banners only as a last resort. They create a nightmarish backlog for active editors. We do need to nurture new editors; however, it would be better to communicate with the editor either through Talk or through Wikipedia email instead of placing banners. Again, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarydaleEd, thanks again for writing. I agree with your concerns, and I do not mean to WP:TAGBOMB. I'm communicating with the editor on their talk page, and perhaps I should add this to the article talk page. Most of these additions will probably need to be deleted, but I tag as a warning before deleting. Llll5032 (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted on that editor's Talk page, as well. You provided excellent information. Many edits he or she is making in the Phil Valentine article are going to have to be adjusted, so I want to be encouraging. Everyone has to start somewhere. I am going to stop editing the Valentine article tonight because I simply cannot keep up. I will jump back in tomorrow. All these editors have to sleep sometime! God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your own contributions and encouragement, MarydaleEd, and I look forward to editing with you more. Llll5032 (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llll5032, I just popped back over to the Valentine article and saw all of the new information that has been added to which you questioned "self-published?" If you will be patient with me, I will devote my attention to the article after 1 p.m. on Monday, August 30, 2021 ET and either rewrite or remove the information, retaining only the information that is properly sourced. Valentine's website and his obituary are not proper sources, but I am certain sufficient sources can be found allowing as much information as possible to remain. Thank you very much for collaborating on this. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarydaleEd, I think you're right that a lot of this information may be sourced to secondary RS. Many thanks. Llll5032 (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llll5032, I received a notice of changes you made and a great deal of copy that you have removed. Could I prevail upon you to please put that information back. I don’t want to have to revert your edits. That information needs to go back. I will discuss it with you tomorrow, but it is almost 3 o’clock in the morning now and I need to go to bed. I’ll reach out to you tomorrow to explain, but please, put all the info you took out back in its original place. Thank you so much. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarydaleEd, questionable WP:SELFSOURCE needs to be deleted immediately from an article, especially a WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Llll5032 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’m happy to help but I’m not sure what you’re talking about. What article are you referencing and what self source are we discussing? MarydaleEd (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MarydaleEd. The show page currently referenced in the whole radio career section is PR, likely written by the subject, so it is WP:ABOUTSELF and not a RS. Llll5032 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is not the best source, but it is the only source available for the background information. I was confused as to your meaning because you quoted requirements of a WP:BLP. The subject of this article is not a living person. I believe we must keep our standard of proof high regardless, but I wanted to point that out. The source in question was the subject's employer. I think since it is the only published background information on this subject that it is sufficient. If a better source can be located I would wholeheartedly support replacing it. Until then, I think it should stand. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am really enjoying working with you on this collaboration. You are an excellent editor! God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same, MarydaleEd! I am hopeful that an independent WP:RS has more information on his career. WP:BLP also adds "in some cases, recently deceased", and other non-BLP guidelines also warn against using self-promotional content. I agree that per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:SELFSOURCE, basic information can be used, as long as it "does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)" and is not "unduly self-serving". And "Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis." We may not know if the subject wrote the promotional article on his show website, but it is not an independent RS, and WP:PROMO should apply: "Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." So I think that means we must omit awards and anecdotes from this source, and give any remaining information from it more inline attribution than we give a RS. Llll5032 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded on the Valentine article's Talk page. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the encouragement

Hello! I just happen to be editing when my alert popped up. I want to thank you for the thank you! I have been feeling as if I am shouting in the dark on that article. It's good to know someone was actually listening. I am concerned about a conflict of interest, which is what I am working on. I have stumbled upon a small group of people called "FOP," or "Friends of Phil," which raises alerts about FOP2021. Apparently, Mr. Valentine had fans. I want to be charitable, but my patience is surely being tested. I'm glad you are watching and helping on that article. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, MarydaleEd, and thanks again for the fine editing. I think the article is improving despite some of the disagreements, thanks in large part to your work. I agree that everyone should try to be WP:HERE! Llll5032 (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this removed?

Hello. On September 24 you removed the sentence it received positive reviews from Paul E. Marik. I had added that sentence a few days before, and sourced it with this:

"Handbook of Evidence-Based Critical Care" (PDF). Respiratory Care. 48 (6). June 2003.

If you follow the url you'll see that it directs to the book review section of the journal "Respiratory Care", in which a book reviewer formally reviews the book. The reviewer said

Overall, this is an excellent introduction to the concept of evidence-based medicine. It will be most helpful for students and junior staff members during their first rotation in intensive care. Since it is a true white-coat-pocket book, students can carry it on bedside rounds for easy reference. Nursing and respiratory care professionals will also find this book “a must” to introduce them to the broad-based field of critical care medicine. The writing is clear, logical, and highly organized, which makes for fast and enjoyable reading. I believe this book will get daily use in most intensive care units, by a wide range of readers

Which I summed as "the book received positive reviews". Your edit summary said "rm unsourced reviews", but as I explained above the review is perfectly sourced to a Reliable Source. Can you please look it up again and comment on what happened? I hope it was just a mistake.Forich (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing, Forich. I erred in writing "unsourced reviews" in my summary, and apologize. I should have written that the assessment "the book received positive reviews" is missing a WP:SECONDARY source ("Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source"). Is it accurate to write, citing a single review, that it received "reviews", and imply they were positive overall? Doesn't that claim require more sources, specifically a WP:SECONDARY source that analyzes the reviews? Llll5032 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, no need to apologize, since this entry is a BLP it does require us to remove contentious material that is a synthesis of sources (I just read that on WP:ROWN, so I concede you were right in being bold and removing the source). I tried a new edit that illustrated better the reviews received, please check it out. Forich (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Forich. I made a few more edits as well. Book reviews are usually considered opinion, not fact, so if the quotes are kept, the reviewers should be identified clearly inline per WP:OPINION: "Each POV should be clearly labeled and described". Llll5032 (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Steven S. Biss

Information icon Hello, Llll5032. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Steven S. Biss, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to primary source

Hi, can't figure out how to actually append my comment to your note on the talk space, so adding it here.

Understood on the intention of using primary sources, but A) I included a non primary source in IMDB, and B) are we expecting that MSNBC or ABC is running stories on the daily Fox and Friends lineup? How would we actually get a reliable secondary source on his appearance on these shows? Additionally, there are no secondary sources available regarding his personal life, but to my understanding it is okay to use a primary source if it is related to the subjects own viewpoints / personal life, unless there is some reason to believe he is lying about it. For instance, if Matt Walsh were to say "I am a republican", we can cite that statement to prove he is a republican, unless there is some reason to believe he isn't being truthful about that, correct? Or if he says "I have 4 kids", he can be considred the authority on that, correct? No secondary source has run an article on his family life recently, so if we want the information in there we need to rely on the primary source.

Basically, the primary sources I am using in the article are only to establish objective facts about his life (he worked at the Blaze, or appeared on Fox, or he is a Catholic, married, and has children). I don't see why we need a Washington Post feature on his family life to establish that he has 4 children.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point, but I don't understand the request for secondary sources on these aspects of his life.

Corgidad101 (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Corgidad101, Wikipedia depends on secondary sources to establish notoriety. If no WP:SECONDARY source mentions a fact, other editors may delete it for not being WP:DUE or in WP:PROPORTION, or add a [non-primary source needed] tag. A secondary source is always preferred although not always required. The WP:PRIMARY entry has a 6-part test about what information is usable from primary sources. The WP:SELFSOURCE entry has a 5-part test. Llll5032 (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Llll5032. You've been warned for edit warring due to a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert again at Martin Kulldorff without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"neutral language per WP:NPOV"

I'm not going to revert your deletion here. The reason your deletion was proper is not because of the reason in your edit summary, but because "propagandist" is not in the article at all.

NPOV does not demand "neutral" language or sources. It demands that editors remain neutral in their editing, so they should not neuter biased words like "propagandist", if such words are properly sourced. That word, while an accurate description of Hannity, was not sourced. You might consider using that as an edit summary next time. You may find my essay on how NPOV applies to biased sources an interesting read: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point about my edit summary wording, although using such a pejorative word in the article would require that the balance of reliable secondary sources agree about it. Llll5032 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. -- Valjean (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll use WP:V or WP:RS the next time, or describe the distinction as your essay does. Thanks. Llll5032 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the question 'Is Kulldorff an epidemiologist?'. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Martin_Kulldorff".The discussion is about the topic Martin Kulldorff.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Information icon I see you've recently made a (very minor) edit to the article Martin Kulldorff. You probably weren't aware that moderated discussion is now open for the DRN topic Martin Kulldorff and the rules include (among others):
  • Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed.
  • It would be better not to discuss the article on the article talk page or on user talk pages while moderated discussion is in progress, because discussion elsewhere than at DRN may be overlooked or ignored.
Please have a look at the full list of ground rules.
I look forward to your participation in the moderated discussion!
Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notices

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

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.

—PaleoNeonate – 01:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Information icon Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Talk:Tucker Carlson—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wtmitchell, I meant to be constructive by asking what the tag is for. I hope the tone wasn't wrong. Do you know what problem needs to be fixed? That is what I wanted to talk about at the article page. Llll5032 (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. That revert appears to have been an error on my part. Thanks for your efforts and my apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wtmitchell, I am relieved it was just an error. Thanks for your efforts too. Llll5032 (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for your comment, and for introducing some clarity, sanity, and peace, into the conversation over at Vinay Prasad. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 22:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Pendell.

Hello. You recently truncated my addition to the article on sociologist and eugenicist Elmer Pendell. You wrote that, following Wikipedia guidelines, I should "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". I, personally, don't consider it out of place to link Pendell's eugenic theory, via the work 'The Next Civilization' reviewed by Dr. Revilo Oliver, to the larger constellations of philosophies of history that Oliver write Pendell, in part, confuted: those of Brooks Adams, Oswald Spengler, Arnold J. Toynbee, et.al. If I want my blurb to stay, should I have elaborated on every single one of Pendell's books to make that addition of mine congruent to the rest of the length of the piece or is my addition extraneous right-off-the-bat or, what, exactly? I, of course, ask you this in good faith.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing, SpicyMemes123. Because Oliver is a questionable source (see WP:QUESTIONABLE for the definition), not a reliable source (see WP:SOURCETYPES for types of reliable sources), a Wikipedia article's description of his review should not be longer than descriptions cited to reliable sources (per WP:WEIGHT); rather, it should be minimized or omitted. His review can be described more if it is cited to an independent reliable source (see WP:INDY), and described how the independent source describes it. I shortened the description instead of deleting it because of WP:PRESERVE, which encourages editors to reach some consensus within guidelines. I hope this helps. Llll5032 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will get back to after I've read and reviewed everything you cited. Tentatively, I want to give you a big thanks for responding to my good-faith query. Personally, I'm looking to add substance - meritorious NOT meretricious - to articles and people and ideas I find interesting. But, from my month on Wikipedia, I'm discovering that good-faith (as opposed to spurious) editing is nuanced; it is serious; it is important. And it has rules.
So, once again, thank you for helping me become a more serious editor. I'll look at everything you sent; and, I'll make emendations to that article that comport with guidelines. I think it's more safe to say that I'd be better off picking up a copy of Pendell's book and citing his (purported or ostensible) confutations directly from the source, no? I mean, add blockquotes and such. Or better yet, create a new article detailing the book. But that's beyond the scope of this rejoinder.
Thank you, once again, for helping a newbie like me out! SpicyMemes123 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, SpicyMemes123. WP:BESTSOURCES encourages paraphrasing or quoting from the best available third-party sources to summarize a subject, such as academic journals, textbooks, or other well researched books. But summarizing a primary source ourselves (like Pendell's book) is often considered "original research" (WP:OR) and is discouraged in Wikipedia articles, especially about subjects involving fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) and some other categories. The policy requiring independent reliable sources is WP:PSTS: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Llll5032 (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that kind of throws a spanner in the works. I don't know how much time you can devote to me and my queries; but, at the moment, I'm in the process of drafting an article about William Graham Summer's textbook Folkways (which doesn't have a Wikipedia article). I'm not interested in charting my own course on a website that literally isn't owned by me. Wikipedia is not my personal blog. I have no delusions of grandeur; I'm a humble editor with no privileges or special accomodations. I have to follow the law as laid out.
As I write this missive, it becomes clear to me to integrate as much secondary and tertiary material as possible. But what would you make of, say, the article on Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy. Specifically, the outline of Book II which cites no sources for the thirty three chapters analyzed?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Livy
Again, I have sources I can use for the overarching tenor of my piece. But I can't source every single sentence I aim to type out. To be sure, Sumner isn't fringe: he taught sociology at Yale.
I'll read everything you sent. I'll do my best; worse comes to worst, that article I'm drafting gets removed or gutted to its foundations and, concomitantly, I learn a lot about my subject matter and what are the parameters of acceptable writing.
I appreciate you. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by source is have a secondary source for every sentence written. I have the primary source at my disposal. I'm learning how to block quote! SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. In my opinion, portions of the Discourses on Livy article could benefit from more secondary references, but I don't know if any facts are in dispute. I haven't edited many articles that include book summaries. You are likely to find more experienced advice at one of the message boards, especially the books project (WT:BOOKS), the original research board (WP:NORN), or from editors at the Teahouse (WP:TEA). Llll5032 (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Looking at the message boards, I saw that summarizing can be done for some notable books. The considerations probably differ for books by fringe sources, so read WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:FRINGE for Pendell. Llll5032 (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S.: Another policy to read is WP:NOTABILITY. Llll5032 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
I appreciate you for guiding me to be a better editor! SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Steven S. Biss

Hello, Llll5032. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Steven S. Biss".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. You flew a little too close to the Black Sun on this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this, Firefangledfeathers. I agree it was too close to the original source's wording. Llll5032 (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nicest response I've ever gotten for this template! I see there was another tidbit in the body. Could you help go through the Black Sun citations and review for any other copied language? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Firefangledfeathers -- I recall this edit, not by me, which copied a sentence from Black Sun word for word ("Following Spengler ..."), and most of a sentence from Maibaum too. I can look more closely later today. Llll5032 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Diannaa cleaned that up after a few days. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She deleted the refquotes but not the article wording (I edited some words, but parts remain). Llll5032 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean "birth, growth, maturity, fulfillment and death", then I think it's ok. I'm not confident, but I don't think there are many other ways to phrase Yockey's proposed pattern. Anyway, it's really language coming from Imperium itself and not Black Sun, and it's clear we're presenting Yockey's ideas. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right -- I believe that copyvios of Black Sun are now gone from the article. Llll5032 (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antony C. Sutton

Hello,

I noticed the the primary source tags you’ve been adding and the text removals from the Antony C. Sutton page. You cited WP:SPS but made no mention of WP:ABOUTSELF, so I’m curious why you don’t believe the text and sources you removed don’t meet the criteria for inclusion.

Thanks for your time.

Neighborhood Review (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neighborhood Review, thanks for writing. I want to talk through the inclusions with you and other editors at the article talk page. I'll start a discussion there. Llll5032 (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again Llll5032, thanks for writing back. I appreciate your critical review of the page and I want to acknowledge the discussion you started on the talk page, but unfortunately I haven’t had the time since then to offer an appropriate reply. I hope to have that opportunity in the next week or so, I just wanted to let you know in the meantime that I saw your post. Neighborhood Review (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual activity

Hello,

You have reverted my recent edit on Cultural Marxism page, just few hours after I made it, even though you did not seem to have history of editing on that page. Having noticed similar pattern on other pages (namely on The Enemy of Europe, where you also removed my edits only few hours after I have created the page), I think it is not unreasonable for me to assume that you might be stalking me. If that is correct, I would gladly ask you to stop.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for Llll5032, but I am certainly going to be following your edits, ArsenalAtletico2017, until you alleviate my concerns by editing appropriately for a solid chunk of time. It is indeed unreasonable for you to refer to such behavior as "stalking" because our policy on harassment makes clear that Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. Your recent behavior has made clear that problems related to Francis Parker Yockey are something which the community should be on the lookout for, and following your editing history is a totally legitimate way to do so. The best solution is simply to bring any potentially controversial edits to the relevant talk pages before editing, and to engage there in good-faith dialogue with those who might disagree with you. Or even just to leave off editing controversial topics altogether for a while. Generalrelative (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I will have to move to new account.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ArsenalAtletico2017: Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is called sockpuppetry and it will very likely result in all your accounts being indefinitely blocked. That is not a legitimate option for you. Generalrelative (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following my edits? Possible WP:HARASS concerns.

Hey Llll5032, for the past few weeks I noticed that you have been following a lot of my edits on various articles. For example, the moment I stated that I was the creator of the Joshua Katz article on my personal page, you began editing that article. You did the same with Dixie where you offered relatively unhelpful suggestions. It's beginning to be quite irritating, not to mention hounding (WP:HARASS). I hope that you are only doing this for constructive purposes rather than to discourage me from editing. Your tracking of my edits began after I discussed the Daily Wire article with Valjean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardianH (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing, GuardianH. I don't want to discourage you from editing. Until Katz today, I don't recall editing any of your work except for the DW and my "citation needed" tag at Dixie two weeks ago. I am sorry you did not think my templated suggestions on your talk page then were helpful. Llll5032 (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited another article you worked on, but not to discourage you from editing. Llll5032 (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it is worth noting you have also followed my edits on the Hoover Institution, John Yoo, and Thomas J. Katz (a page linked with Joshua Katz) in addition to my edits on Thomas Sowell, Dixie, and Joshua Katz — all pages which, by a cursory check of the edit log, you have not visited previously before I edited them. I would consider most of them constructive, if not for the fact that it seems that you are only editing these pages primarily focusing on overturning my edits in particular, and not other issues further down in the articles written by others. For example, you re-arranged much of my edits on John Yoo, but seemed to have missed a very obvious abridgment of WP:OVERCITE that was further down in the article.
I'm not going to accuse you for the nature of the neutrality of your editing, but I would like to make it clear that I think you are deliberately following my edits and primarily changing specifically my edits on pages, which makes me uncomfortable. If you are going to follow my edits, I think it would be better that you do more of expanding the article's material (like you did here ) rather than re-arranging or deleting mine.
If I am mistaken in thinking you are deliberately following my edits, please address them here. GuardianH (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the recent edits, you edit some pages that I watch, including Yoo, which I have edited since 2020, and I didn't follow your edit for the linked Thomas Katz article either, where our edits appear to be separated by two months and I didn't change your edit. I have noticed some patterns in your editing, which I have aimed to be constructive in addressing. We all must be careful about reliance on WP:PRIMARY or WP:QUESTIONABLE sources, interpret WP:BESTSOURCES carefully, try for WP:CONSENSUS, check our own biases, and follow guidelines like MOS:LEADREL and WP:LEADBIO carefully. I don't wish to inhibit any of your enjoyment of editing (per WP:HOUND), and I don't change your edits outside policy. I also ask you not to try to cause me discomfort about editing any articles, including the articles you edit. We are welcome to edit, constructively, any article on Wikipedia. Thank you. Llll5032 (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not try to turn the tables on this issue. I have never attempted to cause you discomfort in your edits, but rather you have caused me discomfort for the aforementioned reason of deliberately following my edits. The article Thomas J. Katz is, as I have mentioned, linked with Joshua Katz which is a page I created and authored...do you mean to say you stumbled across the the page for Thomas J. Katz randomly? Of course not, you did so because it was linked with Joshua Katz.
As I have previously stated, my problem is not necessarily that your edits are not constructive, but rather you follow and specifically target my edits on pages—sometimes unconstructively, i.e. re-arranging the sentence structure after I edited it like you did in John Yoo—and often ignore other problems in a page which weren't edited by me. Because you deliberately follow and sometimes unconstructively edit pages I've written in, your consistently overriding edits come into a collision course with getting into an Edit war, which I dislike.
Your claim that you've edited the page for John Yoo since in 2000 cannot be true, because the page was only made in 2005 and you have only started editing since 2020...did you mean to say 2020? (Future note: It has been edited to be the correct date)
Once again, I ask that if you are dead-set on stalking my edits, at least expand the article's material (like you did here ) rather than overriding or re-arranging my own edits. Thanks. GuardianH (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "turning the tables". Thank you for recognizing my constructive edits; I recognize yours. When you think edits by me or another editor are contrary to either reliably sourced facts or WP:PAGS, then please correct them or discuss on the article talk page per WP:EPTALK. This includes "correcting related problems on multiple articles", which in some situations is encouraged. Please also read WP:HA#NOT in full. If you think your version of a disputed edit should be included, then you have recourses including achieving a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page or asking for more opinions at a topic noticeboard like WP:BLPN. Llll5032 (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, yes, I meant to write "2020" in the earlier reply. I think I fixed it before you replied. And you are correct that the Thomas Katz article was linked from the Joshua article. Llll5032 (talk)
Adding: Until recently, I was not aware that the WP:HA#NOT section addresses your questions about this dispute so clearly. Have you read it? I'm not interested in most of your edits. I think you can understand from my summaries and talk page discussions (in the several articles where we have interacted) that I have tried to address some related policy, sourcing and factual questions about specific edits -- especially the rewriting of the tops of articles and the introduction of some unclearly sourced claims. Those require more scrutiny than other editing does. Llll5032 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for American Accountability Foundation

On 7 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article American Accountability Foundation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the dark-money American Accountability Foundation aims to "take a big handful of sand and throw it in the gears of the Biden administration"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American Accountability Foundation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, American Accountability Foundation), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

notification

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I mentioned you in an existing edit warring complaint, for your violation of this Arbcom ruling.

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evola

Thank you for your excellent edits on the Julius Evola page. The article is in much better shape because of you. Schenkstroop (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note Schenkstroop, and for your excellent edits in the article too. More soon. Llll5032 (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 16:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism/Warning

@Llll5032

Reported with this and examples including, but not limited to, past violations/warnings from other accounts. (e.g. edit warring, biased vandalism).

All edits reverted to @Llll5032

Please review WP:BESTSOURCES, and WP:ABOUTSELF,WP:ONUS, and WP:EPTALK (editing is not warring, but reverts are), and discuss on the article talk page why the disputed content should stay in the article. Llll5032 (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Llll5032&oldid=1126409909"