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]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 29 December 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sherlock Holmes Pastiches
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 me 21:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry -- I meant that you were probably right to remove it. It's great that you found a reliable source. Thanks for your work. The JPStalk to me 00:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Sherlock Holmes (Stoll film series)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of The Hound of London
Hello! Your submission of The Hound of London 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! Schwede66 00:25, 26 February 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. TBrandley 21:31, 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 21
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Der Hund von Baskerville (1929 film)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
It isn't a violation of WP:NPOV because there is nothing not neutral about it. 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. The claim is verifiable because numerous articles made the claim. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:59, 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 guess it's time to involve some third party in this dispute otherwhise we will be stuck forever. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. EEng 21:38, 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. EEng 02:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did add other references that say the exact same thing about the book being authorized by the Doyle estate and in the next edit Newblackwhite wrote "The claim is still very problematic" which is isn't. It is a verifiable fact. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 02:08, 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. EEng 02:30, 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, Rosguilltalk 22:16, 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.
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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophical counseling
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]
Having a colleague add your information to Wikipedia on your behalf is still a conflict of interest. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:44, 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]
That happened. Someone did edit and retrieved the cite. You aren't acknowledging it. DreadlockHolmes (talk) 14:14, 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?
If you can't give any proper explanation, I demand you add the book 'A Dive into the Void' in the list of Sherlock Holmes writers. DreadlockHolmes (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
@MrFoxMrFox: The content was referenced and not at all promotional. You are making unreferenced claims by changing the dates. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ThaddeusSholto, I suggest you attempt to visit the links you claim are referenced. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Companies House states the company was founded in 1996. All else is fiction. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they are inaccessible then how can you have "reviewed the citations" as you claimed? If your name is indicative of a conflict of interest then you need to stop editing the article and make suggestions on the talk page. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an avenue for story-telling and marketing it is an informative source of encyclopaedic content.
There is no conflict of interest. On attempting to verify the sources the links were expired and/or unavailable. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you refer to a companies website for marketing not wikipedia. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced has been restored with an archive url. It most definitely does reference the article and there is nothing promotional about it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:45, 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]
Unless you have any evidence of COI, please don't make accusations. It can easily boomerang back and be seen as a personal attack. A type of cabinet (talk) 21:38, 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]
Awesome!
Doing an awesome job hunting down POV/COI/Promo edits! Keep it up! A type of cabinet (talk) 23:11, 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]
Edit of nobel laureates
Why did you included panjabi nobel laureates to indian page 119.73.115.196 (talk) 18:23, 22 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]
At the time of his birth, it was British India. Pakistan did not exist. ...discospinstertalk 18:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indus is on pakistan land all valley belong to the pakistani land have some shame. Stealing our identity our race our culture. 119.73.115.196 (talk) 18:37, 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]
Alright thanks. How am I supposed to approach a situation where there is no article linking to kenjaku? TianHolla (talk) 20:50, 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]
Hi, I think you'll be interested in working on The Misadventures of Sherlock Holmes. I think it's the first ever collection of Holmes pastiches. Strange that Wikipedia didn't have an article on it until now. Jack234567 (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will go through my shelf of references and see what I can add to the draft. Thank you for notifying me. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Icons
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]
Navadurga
Laxmi's Durga form is not referenced with Nine forms and that article is not Navadurga not Goddess Durga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AarushSinha10 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 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]
I don't disagree but references themselves doesn't mention what he is saying. AarushSinha10 (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AarushSinha10: Pintchman's book, Seeking Mahādevī, does appear to make these claims. I haven't had the opportunity to look through the other references. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read page 84 of that book. "Siva weds Durga." This confusion is due to strong similarity between Vaishno Devi and Durga.AarushSinha10 (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep article content discussion in a central place, the article's talk page at Talk:Navadurga. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:05, 4 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.
Large eyes is not an influence of Betty boop or Disney.
This information is not well founded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosshnPs (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because large eyes were already invented before Tezuka JosshnPs (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That content is referenced whether you agree with it or not. Your views have no reference. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't block you. I don't have the ability to block you. @Drmies: blocked you and explained the reason on the talk page of your previous IP.
You should be making these suggestions on the article talk page for full transparency. Hopping IPs to evade the block isn't a good idea. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Hello! I've seen, that you removed the External links. Sorry! But this party is got a Facebook, and i just writed the External links thing, and the Facebook link. But you're clever, for not removing the Political parties in Hungary. :) Good job! That's all, have nice day. KovZXad1970 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KovZXad1970: I was reordering the bottom to make sure the references didn't come after categories and the political party box. I must have lost the facebook link. Sorry. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusSholto That's okay, it's not problem. :) Listen, Gábor Vona anounced, that his party is only runs to the 2024 European Parliament Election, except for the 2024 Local elections in Hungary, like Péter Márki-Zay's party, Everybody's Hungary People's Party (Mindenki Magyarországa Néppárt), which is also only runs to the 2024 EU Parliament Election. But László Toroczkai's Our Homeland Movement (Mi Hazánk Mozgalom) runs on the 2024 EU Parliament Election, and the 2024 Local elections in Hungary. The Our Homeland Movement is got their own Budapest Mayor, who runs in the Budapest Mayoral Election, like Gergely Karácsony, who is supported by the Left-wing politicans and parties in Budapest. The Fidesz and the KDNP is still looking for their mayor, who is running to Budapest Mayoral Election, which is will be a male or female, who are they will be supported by the Fidesz-KDNP political alliance. Péter Márki-Zay and the Everybody's Hungary People's Party is asking Donald Tusk, who is the leader of the European People's Party Group in the European Parliament, which Márki-Zay's party is want to be the member of the EPP Group. The Fidesz is left from the EPP, since 2021, but the KDNP is still a member of this group. The Fidesz will finding the new European group, which is Right-Wing, and they hates the Illegal Migrants, and the European Federalism ideology, and they also hate Soros György (George Soros). KovZXad1970 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also on The Hundred-Light Year Diary
Hello! I've just seen that you removed two lines in the "See also" section for the article "The Hundred-Year Diary" I've created today. At first I was wondering, why the two most closely related ones were removed while the other two loosely connected could stay, but then (together with your comment) I realized that both of these pages don't exist yet and their link was red. I intend to change that and create both in the future (in fact "The Arrows of Time" is the third part of a trilogy, whose first part "The Clockwork Rocket" I've just created moments before; it was my first page created in the english Wikipedia, although I have already been active in the german Wikipedia) and that's why I already linked them. I just want to make sure, that there is no misunderstanding here: If those pages are created, will it be okay to come back and this time properly link them in the "See also" section? Of course I would also do it the other way around and for example link "The Hundred-Light-Year Diary" under "The Arrows of Time" with the remark, that the author already prepared the same premise there. Thanks for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel Adrian Antz: You can and absolutely should add them to the "see also" once the articles are created. I removed them for now because there was currently no article to "see" there. I added a stub tag and a category on my next edit to try and get the article connected to others. If you need any help, please feel free to ask. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now also removed them in the german translation and will come back for both when the articles are done! Thank you for your help, I'll write you if I have another question. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the above article, it would appear that you are correct about WP:NCRIVER. I quoted it because someone else did in justification of the lower case 'river', which it definitely does not support, though I had failed to spot that it was specifically about article titles. However, correct English usage (both British and US English) is to capitalise the descriptive noun when used as part of the name, whether the actual name includes the word 'River' or not. The manual of style completely supports this concept for geographical names in general but mentions several specific and similar examples at manual of style though does not specifically mention rivers. However: Wikipedia demands consistent usage throughout articles and rivers should be treated the same as cities, towns, mountains etc. 2A00:23C8:9883:2601:C1B3:AB16:610B:C8F9 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing the film in question is not original research. WP:NOR states "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, [...] an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."
Moreover, MOS:WAF states, "Primary information is gathered from primary sources about the fictional universe, such as the original work of fiction or an affiliated work (e.g., another episode of the same TV series). Even articles with the strictest adherence to a real-world perspective still source the original work."
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise has multiple continuities (which you even acknowledged in one of your edits) and Drayton's relation to Leatherface changes depending on the continuity. In The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, he's described as his brother while in Texas Chainsaw 3D, he's explicitly stated to be his father. Anyone with access to these films can confirm this information, and per Wikipedia policies, the works in question are verifiable and are not original research. 2600:1700:7558:1890:A4B6:9989:5623:1950 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:1700:7558:1890:A4B6:9989:5623:1950:MOS:WAF says "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" Claiming there are different family relations with different continuity requires a reference. Further, the change you keep trying to make IS WP:OR as at no point in Texas Chainsaw 3D is Drayton directly named as the father of the family.
Saying "go see the movie" isn't a reference. Comparing one films' events to another without a secondary reference doing the same is WP:SYNTH. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. In Texas Chainsaw 3D, Drayton is directly named as Leatherface's father TWICE. In the opening of the film, Sheriff Hooper says, "Drayton! You know why I'm here! Come out and bring your son Jed. Hands high above your heads." Later on when the lynch mob shows up, Sheriff Hooper says, "I've got control of this, he's bringing his son out here."
And your argument that when writing about what's in a movie, we can't cite the movie in question is complete nonsense. By that logic, any plot summary of a fictional work would be original research. Saying random blogs that can easily make false statements about a movie are more reliable than the actual content of the movie is completely backwards. If an article says the sky is blue and uses a picture of the sky as a source, would you delete that and cite a webpage claiming the sky isn't blue? Because that's the kind of logic you're using. 162.224.166.63 (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use "random blogs" as references. I used reliable sources. You cannot use the film to reference the film. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop IP hopping. It's difficult to know if I am talking to one person or multiple people. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:WAF says otherwise. Citing descriptive statements from the film is not "interpreting".
Also, I am not IP hopping, I am using the exact same computer every time. Whenever I edit, Wikipedia keeps changing my IP address. I have no idea why it does that, but it's out of my control. 162.224.166.63 (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon
Please read MOS:SAMESURNAME, which clearly states to refer to people with the same surname "by their given names for clarity and brevity". If you still want to contest this, please do not reply here and instead start a discussion on the talk page of the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RedWarn is my current tool, & it allows for specifying the article & allows one to add further text to explain the problem. I sometimes continue to use Twinkle, which has similar capabilities & also has welcoming templates.
It is important to note at least one article in your warning so that other editors can see the relevant history. Peaceray (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray: Thank you for this information. I will look into these and see which best suits me. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Sholto, you might have an opinion on the disagreement in Lot No. 249 (film) about whether "The Friend" should be described as implied to be Holmes? Masato.harada (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masato.harada: I agree with you that the character is never stated to be Holmes but it appears that it has already been removed from the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the Premise, and referenced in the Cast. Masato.harada (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, why
I'd posted something similar on an article talk pg someone reverted me there stating this very reason, so i decided that this wud be a more apt place. Now, here too?! U make me saad 😩
Also the NOTFORUM notice seems a li'l pejorative, since (correct me if I'm worng) I've seen it mostly apply on outright peddling of fake news and lies/disinformation sometimes or many a time accompanied with trolling rhetoric, which is certainly not what I was up to. hh 2402:E280:3D1D:5B0:8992:B002:E06E:55C5 (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NOTFORUM notice is not pejorative. Talk pages are for suggestions and discussions for improving articles not a place for you to vent your views. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't add it into the article directly i understand but talk pages are meant for discussion to improve right
Can u please tell me precisely what was so unconstructive/
wrong/fake/lie/pejorative/inflammatory (the normal kind of stuff that I've seen being responded to by such a "not the place to vent ur views" comment)
about what I said , before going n reverting it
If u got it wrong, I was simply trying to get the statement within. A 'no' to inclusion in the article is fine, but this.. 2402:E280:3D1D:5B0:8992:B002:E06E:55C5 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus please do read n answer my first part of the question
The reverted section was just an improvement suggestion
and I even rectified the place I put it in
I thought it was outright lies n inflammatory fake news n incivil trolling n all (that we see in the name of 'truth' on soc. media) that should/would be reverted with a WP:NOTFORUM tag not just a suggestion
Why do I feel like I'm in some 'first day of college' being 'traditionally corrected' by professors/seniors
Pls do ignore the last 'college' bit if u want but also please don't bite newbies in editing/suggesting improvements/changes 2402:E280:3D1D:5B0:8992:B002:E06E:55C5 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By rules if I revert back to my own I'll be branded as 'edit warring' or 'vandalism'
So I'm patiently waiting..
(for an answer) (or, hopefully, action out of understanding)
Hi, the article was protected in the right version--can you explain why you reverted the nickname again to an erroneous version, when this source was noted in an edit summary [4]? Thank you, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I caught it. I didn't see that the version I reverted to had vandalized the infobox. I will fix that. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - after some comments and additional research by another editor recommending removal of the "authorship controversy" section you and I were discussing on Undue Weight grounds, I removed that section (see the Talk page for further details). I wanted to flag it for you since we debated the "original research" point and since you had mentioned a potential Undue Weight issue with that section yourself.
Cheers to a good and edifying discussion a few months ago, and Happy New Year to you. Eldanger25 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)