User talk:EPEAviator

West Stow Hall moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, West Stow Hall, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: West Stow Hall has been accepted

West Stow Hall, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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!

Bkissin (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation page edits “Identified as test/vandalism”

you reverted my edit to the Azov disambiguation page because it was identified by AI as “test/vandalism”. it is neither - i heard of a neo-Nazi group named Azov and when i searched wikipedia, it took me to the sea of the same name instead of what i was looking for. the disambiguation page is supposed to help people in such situations as mine, so that’s why i edited it. thanks, 2603:8000:7F03:865A:7129:2572:7B86:CCD2 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia is a neutral site, and so there is a responsibility to source calling something Neo-Nazi, and further to this the short description of Azov is probably better that it is just a Ukrainian military unit or similar. Sorry that it identified it as potential vandalism, this is due to the use of the word "Nazi" and your editing anonymously, I expect. However, neo-Nazi is not what a neutral body would describe it as in such a short area. It is elaborated on further in the article (from which it is clear Azov is certainly at least far-right, imho), but for the disambiguation page it is not worth or neutral to say that it is neo-Nazi. EPEAviator (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is best to write neo-Nazi-associated or similar, for the neutrality, if you can source it, rather than just neo-Nazi. EPEAviator (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have set it to the short description of the actual page. I have not been following the neutrality talks for this Amazon battalion, but I expect there is a general reluctance to (even if by Western sources potentially accurate) play into the Russian narrative of Nazis. So I think it is best to leave it at what the page itself is briefly described as, for which I would believe there has been more discussion. EPEAviator (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion EPEAviator (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit to Adam Weitsmans page even though I removed the issue. After removing the issue of his philanthropy section I took down the banner as it was no longer necessary. Why did you do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwals1022 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwals1022: Hi, sorry that it says it could be potential vandalism, I thought I had removed that part. It is not vandalism. I understand why you might have removed what you did, however I do not think it violates NPOV, and this section is a common part of Public figures' (especially businesspersons') Wikipedia Pages. Whilst it might be worth removing some of them, removing them in entirety is not fair, and some of his comments, as per their sourcing, are probably notable. EPEAviator (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you suggest I remove the banner entirely? Dwals1022 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dwals1022 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwals1022: I will give it a bash without removing the banner but in essence remove the smaller donations, probably migrate it over to career. EPEAviator (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconcerned with the why the banner is there. I want to remove the banner from the page entirely and will do whatever necessary to get it removed. I believe all pages should be free of an advertising and want to work to remove it from any page. So I just want to know what I need to do to remove the banner. Thank you. Dwals1022 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwals1022: If we edit the page and both agree there is no longer advertisement going on, then we can remove the banner, thus I am editing it currently and then you choose once I have done so. EPEAviator (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. Thank you for the assistance on this matter. I appreciate the discourse we have been able to have over this and once you are done I will review. Again, thank you. Dwals1022 (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your changes to the page and agree with them. I think taking away the more minimal donations makes it more credible however I think that we should also remove the final sentence: In 2021, Weitsman offered to pay $1,000,000 to local charities, following the win of the basketball team, Boeheim's Army. I think that even though there is a credible news source it isn't necessary note worthy because he just "offered" to do it. I think once we remove then it will be appropriate to remove the banner completely. Thanks. Dwals1022 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]