:{{reply|USNavelObservatory}} I fixed it. [[User:ThaddeusSholto|ThaddeusSholto]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusSholto#top|talk]]) 16:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{reply|USNavelObservatory}} I fixed it. [[User:ThaddeusSholto|ThaddeusSholto]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusSholto#top|talk]]) 16:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks!! [[User:USNavelObservatory|USNavelObservatory]] ([[User talk:USNavelObservatory|talk]]) 16:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks!! [[User:USNavelObservatory|USNavelObservatory]] ([[User talk:USNavelObservatory|talk]]) 16:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:Junlper (2nd nomination)]] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[:Junlper (2nd nomination)]] is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].
The article will be discussed at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination)]]''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello, ThaddeusSholto! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
In your recent edits to The List of Seven and The Six Messiahs you removed the category "Sherlock Holmes Pastiche" with the comment "no it isn't because he isn't even in it". I'm not sure if you know what the term "pastiche" means, but it's alright that Holmes doesn't appear in a pastiche novel. Look at one of the most famous Holmes pastiches, Sexton Blake; Holmes doesn't appear in the Blake stories, but it is undoubtly a Holmes Pastiche, e.g.
http://www.schoolandholmes.com/charactersbi.htmlDamiantgordon (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blake's authors consciously modeled him on Sherlock Holmes. List of Seven and Six Messiahs use Conan Doyle as a character. He isn't modeled on Sherlock Holmes as he created Sherlock Holmes. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you totally, but I think that the character of Jack Sparks in the two novels is a pastiche of Holmes, he is ascetic, aloof, mentally and physically extraordinary, a violinist. He also uses a magnifying glass, smokes a pipe and play strange music on his violin, characteristics similar to Sherlock Holmes. Damiantgordon (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The description in the article itself makes him seem more like Doc Savage, but if you really think he is a Holmes pastiche then I guess we should probably add it back into that category. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sherlock series 3
This is really annoying because the anonymous user is correct in that Sue Vertue said on Twitter that The Guardian had misquoted Moffat, and series 3 is unlikely to air in 2012 (but will be in production). But, Vertue's account isn't verified, so we technically can't use that source to correct report! I guess we're just doomed to wait until a RS confirms it. The JPStalk to me21:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm TBrandley. Your recent edit to the page Elementary (TV series) appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TBrandley21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elementary (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MBC 4 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Lescroart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book Club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, I don't think your rollback of my edit on the article The House of Silk was a good move. To suggest a 2011 British Sherloch Holmes novel coincides with "the first time the Conan Doyle Estate had authorised a new Sherlock Holmes pastiche" means supporting a fringe claim than ignores thousands of sources documenting thousands of pre-2011 SH pastiches, most of which had the appoval of the estate because they were published before 2000, the year the copyright on the character expired in the United Kingdom. It even means we are telling the reader that the 1954 pastiche collection The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes was not athorized by the Doyle estate, even though it was co-written by Doyle's own son! When it comes to outlandish assertions, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and Wikipedia's guidelines don't put all sources on the same level: there are reliable sources and unreliable sources. The former can be used in Wikipedia articles, the latter cannot be used. It's not always easy to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources, however in this case there is only one source and I'd say this is a textbook example of unreliable source: an article written in a generalist newspaper by a person who is not a SH scholar or expert and obviously has no idea of what she is talking about, and full of nonsense like "Doyle's last 13 stories were published as The Return of Sherlock Holmes in 1905". There has to be a reason why Wikipedia distinguishes between reliable and unreliable sources. What do you think? --Newblackwhite (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is a reliable source as is Publishers Weekly which also said "The hype surrounding what’s being billed as the first pastiche ever officially approved by the Conan Doyle estate..." [1] So is the Financial Times "Now the Doyle estate has, for the first time, officially sanctioned the continuation of the great saga" [2]
Whether you like it or agree the fact is the book was advertised as the first authorized continuation and that was a major part of the promotional campaign. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read your second link since I am not registered, while I can read your first link. Still, if there are multiple sources, it's better to add them in the article so that it is clear the claim was reported by many newspapers and not just in that single article.
Anyway, I think you are missing the point when you write "The Guardian is a reliable source". A newspaper is not necessary always 100% reliable or always 100% unreliable as a source: many of them are regarded as reliable for everyday subjects but unreliable for specialized subjects if not written by people who are experts on the subject itself. And I serously don't see how you can call reliable an article saying Doyle's last Holmes collection was published in 1905. If we don't remove the claim, we should at least replace the source, maybe using the Publishers Weekly article you linked above.
At any rate, I think it is a violation of WP:NPOV to simply register the claim that it was the first pastiche approved by the Doyle estate without also informing the reader that the claim is false accoring to countless reliable sources. --Newblackwhite (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are running in circles... if you are seriously convinced that an article saying Doyle published his last SH story in 1905 is a reliable source just because it was published by The Guardian, then I guess nothing I could say can convince you of the opposite. Which is sad, because I think these kind of misunderstandings between editors are one of the reasons that are driving many Wikipedia contributors away these days.
Also, why do you say that "there is nothing not neutral about it"? It is fair to say the claim was made as part of the promotion of the book, but it is not neutral to imply the claim may be true, because we have reliable sources saying it's not. Again, I don't see why we should have a disagreement over such a simple fact.
I won't do complex edits for the time being to avoid an edit war, so I'll start by simply replacing the Guardian source with the Publishers Weekly source you mentioned. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "The book was promoted with the claim..." so Wikipedia is not making any claims of truth about the claim and therefore it is perfectly neutral. The Guardian article is one of the first that appears on google when searching review for the book and it is a reliable source so it belongs in the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I will follow the rule that we must assume good faith, but if it weren't for that rule I would almost think that you are trolling. You reverted my edit while writing in the summary that "The Guardian is a reliable source". I have asked you before, and I'll ask you again, since you never answered: how can an article claiming Doyle stopped writing Holmes stories in 1905 be regarded as a reliable source? Hopefully I'll get a real answer this time. You obviously are an expert on Sherlock Holmes, so you know that Doyle wrote 19 SH short stories and one SH novel between 1908 and 1927, as certified by millions of sources. Just because the Guardian published the article it doesn't mean what's written in it is reliable.
But the most puzzling thing is that for some reason it seems to be of vital importance to you that the Guardian article keeps staying in the page, even now that you have found other articles that say the same thing without inflicting readers with that Doyle stopped in 1905 nonsense.
"Wikipedia is not making any claims of truth about the claim and therefore it is perfectly neutral": on the surface, it seems that Wikipedia neither supports nor rejects the claim. However, the fact that the claim is not rejected will lead many people to assume that it is true, even though it is shown by reliable sources to be wrong. What's the point of confusing people if we can avoid that? Plus, it is not neutral to give undue weight to the claim made during the promotion of the book while totally ignoring the overwhelming consensus among the reliable sources that the claim is wrong.
I will reply but then any further comments from you will be deleted because you just seem to want to argue your own point of view. The Guardian is a reliable source as it meets all the criteria at WP:RS regardless of whether or not you think the author is enough of an expert. Wikipedia is about verifiablility and not truth. Please read that last sentence once again: Wikipedia is about verifiablility and not truth. The Guardian article is not being used as a reference to support the claim that Doyle's last Holmes collection was published in 1905 so it doesn't matter whether or not that one aspect of the Guardian article is untrue. It is being used to support the true and verifiable claim that The House of Silk was advertised as the first non-Doyle work to be officially authorized by the Doyle estate. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thaddeus, I haven't examined the sources in detail but there's validity to what Nbw says. Sources are not 100% reliable or unreliable, but have to be evaluated for their reliability on individual points, in context. The Independent is certainly reliable in general, but on a specialized topic of literary history like this, it may not be so, and that's especially true when the same article contains such a glaring error (1905 etc.). You're right, TS, that WP is about V and not T, but the V relies on evaluation of sources in context, like I said; the 1905 error pretty much disqualifies that author as not having first idea what he or she is talking about. Anyway, surely by now there is scholarly commentary on the work itself that can be used in place of either 2011 source. EEng21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is one error in a source that doesn't disqualify the source otherwise any book with a typo would be thrown out. It isn't being used as a source for any claim about the dates of Doyle publications so that error is not relevant to what it is being used to reference which it is accurate about. Newblackwhite initially tried to throw out the whole thing because they don't agree that House of Silk should be seen as an authorized sequel which you can see from this edit they made with an edit summary that makes no note of that removal. Now they are trying to impugn the source for a different reason which is still a workaround to eliminate the claim that the book was advertised as an officially recognized work by the Doyle estate. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TS, anyone who calls himself Thaddeus Sholto is OK in my book, and I'm looking forward to working with you on Saga-related stuff for a long time to come, but your approach to source evaluation is oversimplified. I don't know the history of the specific content dispute, so I can't take a position on just what the article should say, but I suggest you take it from me as an experienced editor: a source that says Henry VIII enjoyed Shakespeare, or that the last Holmes stories were published in 1905, is pretty much out of the running as anything but a source on itself. Now please, both of you, there must be authoritative sources on this that will avoid this problem altogether. EEng02:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the statement that the book is promoted as the first authorized etc etc belongs in the article, and from what I've seen it looks like it really is authorized. Whether it's the first seems to be the sticking point. I can't get into this right now, though. EEng02:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, ThaddeusSholto. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Kia Ora Thaddeus.
You seem like a sensible Wikipedia. I'm just wondering why when I put in when the film was released in New Zealand, you reverted it? Makes very little sense. If it was put in the wrong part of the article can't you have just moved it? Please please remember to do that in future, it's so annoying if you just delete the whole thing. Okay? Thanks man. Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your great work on Sherlock Holmes related stuff! I'm really happy to see you that you are using From Holmes to Sherlock as a source. If you ever need help finding a reliable source on any Holmes or Conan Doyle related matter, feel free to contact me (even if I have noticed that you seem to have a good knowledge about these things yourself). You can email me at mattias221b@gmail.com. And I hope that you or someone else in the WikiProject can create a Wikipedia page on Edith Meiser. She certainly deserves it. Best regards, Mattias Boström MattiasB (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I join Mattias in thanking you for your fine work with regard to the world of Sherlock Holmes. I have another suggestion: a page for I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere[3]], the first podcast dedicated to Sherlock Holmes, which has been in existence since 2007 (the site since 2005, when it began as The Baker Street Blog). Happy to take questions if you have any. Scottmonty (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliments of my work. I have thought of authoring an article for IHOSE but I have thus far been unable to corral enough secondary sources to begin. It is on my every growing list of things to attend to though so when I see reference material which meets the criteria it squirrel it away for later use. I'm certain it will happen someday even if it is not me who begins the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (The Whole Art of Detection) has been reviewed!
@Rosguill: Wouldn't reviews require actually quoting their content? I have replaced some of the quotes but I worry that interpreting someone else's words isn't as reliable as simply quoting them. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of an art than a science, and you can definitely use quotes, but avoid scenarios where the entire section just reads "Critic X said "quote", Critic Y said "quote"". Generally, I try to summarize the key points of the review (whether it's positive or negative, other overarching themes), and then include a quotation if there's any particularly noteworthy turn of phrase that is worth including but that would be inappropriate in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. Crit McCriticson recommended the book, praising its "breathtaking descriptive imagery", while also criticizing the character development as "unrealistic" and "lacking depth".). signed, Rosguilltalk22:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actresses who have played Irene Adler until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In 2021, a movement related to philosophical counseling began in Bangladesh. This is a critical point of the development of philosophical practice in the mentioned country.
Philosophical counseling is a new field and everyone from their place should come forward and contribute to expand the field.
I am objecting and demanding a proper explanation on your editing the article of philosophical counseling. You have removed a critical information and part of the history of the related field based on assumption with no concrete proof. Would you be kind enough to give a proper explanation on why you did that? There was no false information given.
No no. You are misuderstanding me. I had another account beside this but I forgot the password. It was not me who added the information in philosophical counseling. It was my colleage who edited it. However, it's an important part of development of philosophical practice and history of philosophical counseling and it should be added in the history of philosophical counseling. Bangladesh is developing country in all sector including philosophy. DreadlockHolmes (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you keep forgetting the password. You have only edited here to promote yourself. At least three accounts have added information about "Morsalin Islam Shouradip" and nothing else. You aren't exactly a neutral source about whether or not your own practice is important. WP:COI would apply here. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't edit from three accounts. In that case the person who had edited before I did from this account didn't have conflict of interest. In that case, your editing doesn't fall under WP:COI. DreadlockHolmes (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, someone before me edited the content and we don't know the person. I am not Morsalin Islam Shouradip but I work with him. Okay, you can say this edit fall under WP:COI.
Let me ask you something. Why don't you add the information as you see it suits? That will not fall under WP:COI. It will expand the history of philosophical counseling and help many others to work in this field.
You can add this you know? Because it's not a false information. It is also an important information. I don't know if you noticed but the paragraph about India cited a link to a particular syllabus of a particular university. Morsalin Islam Shouradip has researched and wrote three books on philosophical counseling. It is an important beginning of philosophical practice in our country as well as in philosophical counseling. DreadlockHolmes (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't happen to believe it suits. The reference isn't a valid reference and it doesn't say what you want it to say. A librarything page listing the titles of self published books isn't enough. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a relatively new field you know? There's not much references out there. That's why there are references of university's syllabus. Reconsider your decision that's my urge. It is important because it helps expand the area of philosophical practice. You can 'not mention' the name you know? I don't have objection about that. I feel it's important to add that philosophical counseling started in Bangladesh, too. DreadlockHolmes (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is too new to have references then it is too new to be included. In time, if it is notable enough, the references will exist and it can be added by someone without a conflict of interest. At this point it is just pretty blatant promotion for yourself and your self published books. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to mention the name 'Morsalin Islam Shouradip'. I just think it's important to add that philosophical counseling has started in Bangladesh too. Will you reconsider this? DreadlockHolmes (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references for philosophical counseling in Bangladesh. The librarything page isn't a valid reference as it is just a page you started for yourself and it doesn't say anything at all about philosophical counseling in Bangladesh. Please stop asking me to reconsider helping you promote yourself. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Tell me what'd be a valid reference? The librarything page was an approved author page by the librarything approval committee. Pray, enlighten me on the valid references. A syllabus of an university, an article in a journal - those would be valid references? DreadlockHolmes (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources (WP:RS) should be "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." They also need to be from a neutral point of view which your own librarything page would not be (WP:RSSELF and WP:UGC) Meaning no disrespect but if your work was as important as you are making it out to be then someone else would have added it already with numerous references. As it stands that hasn't happened. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "cite" is not a valid reference. The "someone else" was either you using an alt account (WP:SOCK) or a friend you engaged to do it for you (WP:MEAT). I'm tired of talking circles about the same thing again and again. I provided a host of links to relevant guidelines so please spend some portion of today reading them. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I shall read it. I understood you. However, I deny your accusation. I am tired too. I just told you the fact and the importance. Nothing else.
Removing a novelette from the list of authors of Sherlock Holmes
In 2021, a novelette named 'A Dive into the Void' had been published in Smashwords and Amazon. It features Sherlock Holmes and a consulting philosopher who finds himself in Dr. Watson's body. It's a psychological adventure of Sherlock Holmes and A consulting philosopher. However you removed it over mere assumption of 'likely self promotion'.
There are many short stories there which has no page or article or no other mention anywhere except the book or site or magazine where they were published. How 'A Dive into the Void' is any different from them?
Moreover, Sherlock Holmes is an open topic now. Which means anyone can write story of Sherlock Holmes, and they will all be, if nothing, author of new Sherlock Holmes stories.
It is unexpected of this kind of behaviour from an experience user like you. Therefore, I demand a proper explanation why you removed the novelette 'A Dive into the Void' from the list of new Sherlock Holmes author? Did you find any false information? Did you find that there's no such book under that name? Do you question the ability of the author? Or do you rather put only the names 'you' prefer yourself rather than the truth? Is the Wikipedia anymore people's encyclopedia or it has already became corrupted and became a site of personal preferences?
The reply to the previous section covers this, too. You were just self promoting your own self published book. The articles aren't for every novel or short story ever written but for notable examples by authors with existing articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I accept your explanation on this one. However, it was my pure intention, not self promoting, to add a Sherlock adventure there. I didn't realize it was only for notable examples.
Nonetheless, I don't agree with your explanation on your editing of philosophical counseling and I urge you to consider that again.
@ThaddeusSholto I have reviewed the citations and they do not support the extraordinary marketing claims. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising it is an encyclopaedia and must be written as one. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have a conflict of interest here as Companies House confirms the company was founded in 1996. What is said in an interview by an owner of a company cannot be used as a qualitative source. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no conflict of interest. Wikipedia requires reliable sources that are independent from the subject which the reference you continue to remove is. I have taken this up with the edit warring noticeboard so please take your replies there and stop sending me alerts every three minutes with accusations and insults. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can find thousand of sources to prove my point, the guardian never said it wasn't a Jamaican dish but that it is enjoyed across the Caribbean. I have also included proofs that the observer, a Caribbean news paper company stated that its Jamaican while news sources from other countries call their just a stew. The dish is authentically a Jamaican dish and im sure you can find this information online along with what i have sited so what is your problem? Thinkerbell22 (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I warned you that you were violating 3RR and I explained that you continually added information that wasn't actually in the references. Now I will report you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A type of cabinet: Thank you. I have a little spare time today so I decided to explore some other articles and the recent changes link but usually I am just a gnome who sticks to Sherlock Holmes and other mystery articles. I probably won't continue looking at recent changes beyond today. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@119.73.115.196: You have used at least two IPs to delete this information and been reverted both times. Open a discussion on the talk page if you feel the information is incorrect or doesn't belong in the article. As it stands, the information is referenced and has been in the article for quite some time. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me why are you so arrogant and illogical at the same time?? If someone born at the pakistani soil why the hell you included them in indian diaspora?? 119.73.115.196 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted some more info on how that external link was inappropriate. I linked to another wiki site because wikipedia didnt seem to have a article on Kenjaku TianHolla (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't attempting discussion. You are hopping IPs to post calls to arms on talk pages because your unreferenced changes that go against consensus are being removed. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit of "List of Federal Political Scandals ..."
Under the entry for Senator Brewster, there are several factual errors that I have tried to correct. Senator Brewster did not plead no contest to any crime in 1973, was originally sentenced to two to six years in prison (which was overturned), and wasn't fined $10,000 until his final nolo contendere plea in 1975 to a single count of "accepting an unlawful gratuity without corrupt intent", which is legally distinct from "accepting bribes", a crime of which he was never convicted, including in cases where convictions were overturned.
My attempt to edit Senator Brewster's entry in the List of Federal Political Scandals article is an effort to correct a plethora of factual inaccuracies, not to attempt to remove any information. Am happy to provide context for any further discussion about this, but as it was reverted, his entry is wholly incorrect. EstateGLB (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice my changes keep getting reversed. I am green when it comes to Wiki editing, but please could you tell me why they keep getting reverted? How can i best go about getting the changes made that comply with the guidelines? Are you just not allowed to add information to your own page? I understand that some of the information I have added isn't cited with an article but many many pages don't have sources, including for example the other notable people on the page of my former secondary school. I'm not completely clear on why they are allowed to be there uncited but all the information I provide does. I do apologise if I'm creating an annoyance for you so if I can just know how best to get this through I'd happily stop bothering you with having to reverse it all. ScarlettHarlett (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScarlettHarlett: I tried to explain on your talk page with the conflict of interest notice and I did in every single edit summary. Biographies of living people require references. You are either adding large amounts of text without references or adding references that don't state what you claim they do like this edit which doesn't even mention George Green's School in the reference. You really should not be editing your own article but instead make suggestions on the talk page of the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand what you're saying. What I'd like to know is how I am able to get around this when all the articles written about me out there and worth citing don't make reference to me as Harry but my persona as Scarlett and my career. If it's the case that I can just cite my instagram page or social media or what not to prove what I'e written is true then I would be more than happy to go back and cite everything I can, but I get the feeling that isn't a legitimate means of proof? ScarlettHarlett (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScarlettHarlett: That does pose a bit of a problem but WP:BLPSELFPUB appears to allow for self-published sources by the subject about the subject within certain parameters. Balance must be maintained so the article isn't primarily primary self-published sources. I'm currently trying to do some searching for references to beef up the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other "notable alumni" entries on George Green's School are either referenced there or have references on their own articles about having attended George Green's School. Things must be verifiable around here or people will just write whatever they want and it becomes impossible to know what's true. I realize it can seem like a high hurdle at first but it really is for everyone's benefit. Especially the subject of articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I just tried to add in only an image that I own as well as correcting the date of birth but even that was rejected. I feel I'm getting it all wrong here but I thought at the very least as those were in the box on the right (forgive me for not knowing the actual terms) that it would be okay! I daren't spend any more time trying to add things in correctly as I fear I don't know the rules well enough. I do apologise! ScarlettHarlett (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScarlettHarlett: I restored the image but the birthdate isn't referenced. We come up against WP:BLP again with that one. If you can find a reference with your birthdate or at least birth year, please put it up on the article talk page and I will incorporate it as soon as I can. That foes for any other referenced material you can find, of course. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScarlettHarlett Birthdate is one of the things where we may allow a self-published source. It can be challenged, but usually we'll allow a birthdate from a (verified) social media site or official website, unless there are contradictory dates in other reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How to do properly
ScarlettHarlett In general, editors with a COI can request edits on the *Talk* page of the article. You can use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/COI and enter what you think will change. This will generate a request on the talk page of the article and someone will take a look. Some of the editors who have the page Scarlett Harlett on their watchlist are *very* experienced with articles about Drag Queens who have been part of the Drag Race Franchise. And feel free to include in your requests anything referenced that is similar to one of the UK Queens. Requests that come in through the Edit Request Wizard won't cause problems. We do appreciate your efforts and thank you for having the conversation so that the article can be improved.Naraht (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are some citations now there and I am not sure why you are returning the banner for no citations. The new articles I have just linked contain dozens of citations which you can add if you like. The banner you have added looks unneeded at this time since multiple articles are now linked. HenryRoan (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References in other articles don't cross over. They could be deleted from those other articles at any time so this article needs to be referenced itself for the claims made. I changed the banner to refimprove instead because there is still a whole paragraph unreferenced. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AarushSinha10: Everything in the section you blanked was referenced. If you take issue with the reliability of the references please use the article talk page to explain your concerns. Wholesale deleting sections simply because you disagree with them isn't how consensus editing works. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and a little more help on Ammon Bundy please?
Thank you for help on the formatting of my addition. Can you assist with one more thing? There is one word in the list of restrictions that keeps not passing the editing filter. You removed my notation that I forgot to remove but didn't fix the word itself to be accurate for the quote? Can you do that or do we need to wait for the report on the edit filter failure to get addressed by someone else? USNavelObservatory (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello! Your submission of Sherlock Holmes (Stoll film series) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm TBrandley. Your recent edit to the page Elementary (TV series) appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TBrandley 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
_(14752756965).jpg)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sherlock Holmes (1965 TV series) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
