User talk:Actualcpscm/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Outdated box office collection of Ponniyin Selvan : 1 under "list of highest grossing indian films"

Hi, @Actualcpscm, see that you edit with respect to movies under "list of highest grossing indian films" and found that "ponniyin selvan:1" box office figures under "list of highest grossing indian films" is old and referencing to old citations of "450 - 500 crore". Requesting you to please update the same from "450 to 500 crore" to "500+ crores".

Have requested same under the talk section of "list of highest grossing indian films" too.

Please find below for reliable sources where it has grossed more than "500 crores".

https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tamil-cinema/ponniyin-selvan-i-box-office-aishwarya-rai-starrer-crosses-500-crore-worldwide-only-the-second-tamil-film-to-do-so-101668752375767.html

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ponniyin-selvan-2-to-hit-theatres-on-this-date-reveals-udhayanidhi-stalin/articleshow/95443024.cms

https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/tamil/aishwarya-rai-attends-ponniyin-selvan-success-bash-with-aaradhya-and-abhishek-bachchan-rajinikanth-photos-8252336/

https://www.gqindia.com/entertainment/content/ponniyin-selvan-1-to-vikram-6-highest-grossing-tamil-movies-of-2022-so-far-with-rs-100-crore-plus-collection-worldwide

https://www.news18.com/news/movies/from-brahmastra-to-ponniyin-selvan-1-know-the-highest-grossing-movies-in-2022-6361477.html

https://www.news18.com/news/movies/mani-ratnams-ponniyin-selvan-1-enters-rs-500-crore-club-at-worldwide-box-office-6301189.html

https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/end-of-bollywood-re-imagined-history-or-rooted-stories-need-research-and-writing-skills-like-kantara-11588241.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/box-office/ponniyin-selvan-1-box-office-collection-the-epic-historical-film-hits-rs-500-crores/articleshow/95247398.cms

https://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-ponniyin-selvan-1-hindi-ott-release-when-where-to-watch-aishwarya-rai-bachchan-vikram-starrer-historical-epic-3001427

Appreciate your help. @Actualcpscm 116.75.80.37 (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

James Carter Cathcart

I’m not sure if this counts or not, but does this source: https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/the-laughing-dogs, count as a reliable source? Because I showed this twice already and no one hasn’t looked at it. I’m just begging for his years active to be fixed right away, because it’s currently wrong right now. Can you kindly just fix it if that’s ok? Because I really don’t want to make another fourth request again. 2601:188:C500:49E0:A0C2:D0CB:4CBE:EEB1 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The source you provide is not a reliable source as it is considered deprecated. Consult WP:RSP, and if you want this information to be included, provide reliable sources. Re-opening identical requests will not change the outcome here. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Apology

Hey, just so you know if I wasted your time on the James Carter Cathcart article, I’m sorry. Its just that I’ve been trying to get that info fixed for a long time because its wrong and no one hasn’t been fixing it no matter how many times I make a edit request about it. I know asking about making the edit here on a talk page is not the right thing to do, I’ve just been so anxious to have it fixed right away, because the year 1981 is wrong. Again, I sincerely apologize for wasting your time on this whole thing. 2601:188:C500:49E0:A12F:1617:54BC:E8CF (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries, there's no need to feel bad. If you wanna take away a lesson here, I'd make it that making identical requests usually won't get you anywhere. In this case, the source you provide is inadequate, and more requests won't change that. Is there a particular reason you're so anxious to have this edit implemented quickly? Actualcpscm (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait of a reply, its just that I’m not anxious. Its just that I just wanted to make sure every info on Wikipedia is corrected with the proper information shown, but like I said, I won’t make anyone requests about and I’ll just leave it the way it is. Its probably not that big of a deal. 2601:188:C500:49E0:20DE:1551:82DA:231D (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That's alright. I understand the urge to improve the encyclopedia, but that is usually best achieved by following the guidelines and policies on sources :) Actualcpscm (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion Test

Actualcpscm (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Message

Are "reliable" sources doublespeaking ones? I would suggest George Holyoke's Works on what is Secularism and other primary sources from the National Secular Society. The page has an extensive regressive-left bias with where it uses the words "accused" and "criticized". What is the explanation and evidence behind the term "Pseudo-Secular" being "Pejorative"? And why are Mani Shankar Aiyar and Mridula Mukerjee quoted given their own extensive Islamist Bias and history of spreading misinformation? 182.71.17.50 (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You can find the policy on sourcing at WP:RS. If you disagree with large swaths of the article, you should back up your opinions and statements with reliable sources. If you have specific suggestions or ideas for improving the article, you can discuss them on the talk page. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
15,147		Abraham Lincoln (talk)	Add sources
154		Canon EOS 80D (talk)	Add sources
196		Canon EOS 700D (talk)	Add sources
1,437		Boy band (talk)	Add sources
4,303		Israeli–Palestinian conflict (talk)	Add sources
145		Nod (gesture) (talk)	Add sources
21		Metaverse law (talk)	Cleanup
223		Anti-aliasing filter (talk)	Cleanup
169		Cryptocurrency and crime (talk)	Cleanup
267		2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships (talk)	Expand
26,172		2022 FIFA World Cup (talk)	Expand
261		Mirrorless camera (talk)	Expand
2,397		Cross product (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
12		Raisa Bohatyriova (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
650		2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,188		Theosophy (talk)	Merge
3,763		Sikhs (talk)	Merge
1,205		2004 Indian general election (talk)	Merge
151		LGBT rights in Iraq (talk)	Wikify
8,523		Marianne Williamson (talk)	Wikify
512		An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge (talk)	Wikify
2		Ōhikage Tunnel (talk)	Orphan
3		Edward F. Daas (talk)	Orphan
20		Canon EOS-1 (camera series) (talk)	Orphan
31		Canon P (talk)	Stub
21		Canonet (talk)	Stub
11		Canon V-20 (talk)	Stub
70		Canon EOS R3 (talk)	Stub
1,437		Nooa Laine (talk)	Stub
46		Canonet G-III QL17 (talk)	Stub

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Quimby

Thanks for you note; however I merely moved a paragraph about aviation to the Aviation section where it made chronological sense. 46.208.88.36 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears you did so in separate edits, which made it look like you had removed content without further explanation. You can disregard the warning, I apologize for the confusion. To avoid such situations in the future, I would suggest using descriptive edit summaries (e.g. "moving content to different section"), or including related changes in a single edit. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Request at Cevdet Caner

Hi Actualcpscm - thanks for your advice on my edit request at Talk:Cevdet Caner. In this case it won't help to contact previous editors for a consensus as you suggest. The only 2 who have made deeper changes than swapping the ethnicity back and forth and updating technical things like migrating references/vandalism reverting are a blocked sockpuppet and the page creator who has been offline since 2011. As these 2 would not work, would you mind please reviewing the quick bullet points at the end of my request? If not I'll submit a new request so another volunteer can take a look. The article is currently in really poor state for a BLP. Nestorado (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll look into this soon, thanks for letting me know. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nestorado Having gone over your request, the major issue is a lack of sourcing. Some claims are well-supported, but a lot of the information on his personal life (like his date of birth) and his studies seems to lack any kind of source. Sourcing requirements are especially strict for BLPs, so I would suggest rewriting to ensure compliance with that. I understand that it's not easy to take a step back from a COI, but remember that the correct way to write for Wikipedia involves starting from the reliable sources, not writing content and then trying to find sources to accommodate. That also applies when you know from some personal connection that what you're trying to add is factually correct.

I also have some NPOV concerns, specifically with regards to the fact that the 2009 reposession of his home was widely reported but is omitted entirely by your suggestion. The article in the Independent even implies that the notability of this event is derived from the reposession, not so much from Caner himself. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again and thank you for your comments and advice. At first I was not sure what you meant by lacking any source, but I have looked at the proposed article text a few times and have now removed anything I could not find directly in the reference. I have removed some other material too, and included the reposession as you suggested. Could you kindly take a look and let me know if any bad sources remain? Thank you again for your help so far Nestorado (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Nestorado The new draft looks much better. You can go ahead and implement the edit in the article. Make sure to mention your COI in your edit summary, and ideally a revision ID of this reply to show that you received a go-ahead from an uninvolved editor. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I have done this and I hope I have noted the revision ID properly. You have been really patient and polite, thank you for all of your help making the article better! Nestorado (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Tamika Scott

Hello, I'm Actualcpscm. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Tamika Scott, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! Actualcpscm (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You did not give me a chance to add the citation ! 2601:152:C00:67B0:94B4:30D6:79B7:C1F1 (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm glad you have a source for this addition, and I'm sorry if you feel that I misinterpreted your intentions. When editing BLPs, it's very important that you support every claim with a reliable source, and lots of people add unverifiable content to BLPs.

To avoid confusion in the future, I would recommend that you add your citations directly with the content, i.e., within a single edit. If you separate them, like you did here, there's a good chance someone doing RCP will see the edit where you add unsourced content and revert it quite quickly. That's what happened here, too! There are usually at least a handful of editors carefully monitoring changes to BLPs, and unsourced content is commonly removed within seconds or minutes. Especially if you're new to the editing interface, that might be faster than you can start and finish another edit with your sources.

Feel free to re-add the content in question to the article on Tamika Scott, and remember to add your source in the same edit :) Cheers! Actualcpscm (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Kyle Duncan

The sources provided in this section were partisan, unreliable, and unattributed. I left the specific sources when they were attributed. Since this entirely explained the edits I made there must have been some sort of mistake. I'll restore my prior edit. Thanks! 128.194.2.183 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

What makes you say they are unreliable? Do you have some sort of argument to support that belief? I also don't understand what you mean by "unattributed". Please elaborate. I'd like to clear this up before making further edits, let's avoid an editwar. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

JBP

Interesting to note that you consider largely suggestive, combative and unsubstantiated news articles that interpret Peterson's views to be more "reliable", than his own words regarding his personal views, available in public domain.

"Neutral editing" is impossible when many sources deemed "reliable" have been accused of political bias, unless a diversity of conflicting sources, or "opposing perspectives" are mentioned whenever applicable in a neutral and balanced way.

Language is a curious and powerful method of shaping thought. Inaccurate descriptors, however minor, can connote major implications that colour the tone of the editing, turning it into a narrative. For example, my edit has "not been removed"; you personally have exercised your power to remove it, without leaving any concrete reason.

The editors of Wikipedia ought to bear in mind that political bias exists in journalism, and simply assuming their reporting to be abstractly "reliable" without attempting to portray a complete picture can undermine the credibility of an encyclopaedia, regardless of its innumerable rules that, in this case, have been implemented in the service of a particular point of view.

I humbly suggest you to critically go through the Wikipedia article on J.K. Rowling and observe how neutral editing from "opposing sources and perspectives" have been balanced, not merely to "reflect" the popular sentiment and media reporting, but accurately represent the facts of the matter, to which both of these are a response, and of which, both of these are a part. An encyclopaedia more interested in reflecting the (un) reliable reporting of facts on contentious issues, over the facts themselves available in public domain, ceases to be a "reliable" one - devolving into a subtle mouthpiece for the dominant discourse.

If you think this was a mistake, feel free to ignore it and continue with your day. If you have any comments or questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Deus Ex Wikia (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Deus Ex Wikia, thanks for reaching out.

Firstly, it's clear that you take issue with the wording of the message I left on your talk page. It's a standardised warning called uw-npov1; the main part of it was not engineered to specifically undermine your individual sense of fairness, nor otherwise directly address you in particular. The italics below it are a comment I actually wrote myself.

I think the issue here is that you believe that a neutrally edited article cannot contain "a narrative", something you might call an ideological undertone. In saying that, you fail to identify that 1. your editing philosophy also promotes a "narrative", just a different one, and 2. your argument is just as ideological as that of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

You say that Wikipedia should "not merely reflect [...] media reporting, but accurately represent the facts of the matter"; that raises the essential question to ask yourself: Where do you suggest we find verifiable facts of the matter, if not in reporting by reliable sources? Of course Wikipedia should state facts clearly, and of course it should present opinions as opinions and attribute them where appropriate. However, if different sources are conflicting on the facts of a matter, the sourcing policy is clear that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources ([[WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR), and it should be quite obvious that statements from involved parties might be tainted by a conflict of interest more directly than those of outside reporting institutions.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "facts available in public domain", but I'm assuming you mean statements made publicly by JBP (or JKR in the context of that specific sentences).

On a related note, if you believe in good faith that Wikipedia is misrepresenting a matter in violation of WP:NPOV, you should fully flesh out your argument for that belief in the talk page of the article in question. Remember: 1. Adherence to the sourcing policy is not a violation of NPOV, and editing that adheres to all relevant policies and guidelines will not always produce content that is completely "balanced" and "symmetrical" between versions or interpretations of an event, because it is not meant to do that (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). 2. If you want to argue that a source or set of sources is reporting inaccurately on a certain matter, you will have to provide actual reasoning beyond simply calling them unreliable. There being a conflict in reporting on a certain matter does not mean all sources involved are unreliable, especially if the conflict is between different types of sources (primary vs. secondary).

What you have said so far has been well-worded and not particularly hostile, which I appreciate. However, if you want to actually convince anyone, you'll have to get more concrete.

Thanks, and happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of links from “Tod Lippy”

As I wrote in field before publishing edits, I deleted 2 links to personal websites of the subject of the page, which, as I understand it, is counter to Wikipedia rules. Let me know if I’m missing something here. Teljr (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that per WP:ELYES, the link to the website hosting some of his music is appropriate and has some encyclopedic value. However, it's not a completely clear-cut case, so if you have been working on this article and believe it shouldn't be there, feel free to remove it; I won't undo it again :) Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will ponder! Teljr (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Revision of "Marrianne Bronner"

Hi Actualcpscm,

You asked me about some changes I made on the Marrianne Bronner page. Thank you so much for your interest.

The most substantive change was to the sentence:

"In 2001 Bronner was able to become the Chair of the Faculty at Caltech and was the first woman ever to hold that position."

This was the sentence that I logged in to edit. I wanted to revise "was able to become" which is poorly worded. I could be read as indicating something that is not correct. The phrase "was able to become" suggests that in 2001, Dr. Bronner became able to become the Chair of the faculty. However, this is not true, she was eligible(able) to become the chair of the faculty upon receiving tenure at CalTech.

Therefore I made the change to make this entry more accurate by changing the phase "was able to become" to "became". It is accurate that she became the Chair of the faculty in 2001.

I also added a common to this sentence after the date which is also grammatically correct.

The revised sentence should read:

"In 2001, Bronner became the Chair of the faculty..."

In another location I changed "Marianne Bronner has been directing a laboratory at Caltech since she first arrived at the university." to "Marianne Bronner has directed a laboratory at Caltech since she first arrived at the university." This edit was to make the phrasing less passive, while both phrasing are accurate the phrase "has been directing" is passive phrasing, uses unnecessary words, and thus is best to be avoided.

Was my indication that the edits were to correct grammar not enough information? If so thank you for bringing this to my attention and will include more detail about why certain phrases are grammatically incorrect or inaccurate in future edits.

Best.

GS GardenSci (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi GardenSci! Thanks for reaching out.

Firstly, I'd like to make clear that copyediting is always appreciated, and accordingly, so is copyediting by you.

However, as you can see in this diff, you did a lot more than correct some grammar. For example, you removed multiple sentences in the section entitled The Bronner Laboratory, and you removed a perfectly suitable image of the subject from the infobox, to name a few things. If this was an accident, don't worry - it takes some time to get used to the editing interface.

If you intended to remove this content, you should provide an explanation as to why. You can either explain it directly in the edit summary (preferred for short stuff), or you can discuss it on the talk page and write an edit summary along the lines of "Removed content per talk page discussion" or "Detailed explanation on talk page".

Your edit summary was perfectly suitable for the edits you mentioned here. "Grammar", "copyedit", "wording", or "I elected to compose a linguistically superior alternative to the grammatically challenged content"^[hyperbole] are all suitable edit summaries for edits that just improve grammar. In this case, I reverted your edit because you did a lot more than just that, and much of it was unexplained.

Feel free to ask if I can help you further with this or anything else. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

James Carter Cathcart (Reply)

Hey just so you know I think I found only one reliable source to confirm the start of his career, according to The Laughing Dogs website here of their bio:https://www.thelaughingdogs.com/cbgbreview.html, it says they got their start in 1975 in New York, that also confirm when he start his career in the 70s. But if this doesn’t count as a reliable source just let me know. Because I’ve been requesting this on the talk page countless times, but no one responded. 2601:188:C500:49E0:878:5AEB:AAC6:86CC (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a basically a personal blog, which also happens to be published by a band member (see WP:SPS). Since this is not exactly controversial or potentially libelous information, I don't think the source needs to meet the high standard of being considered an independent source. If you add the information with this source, it might be fine, but I wouldn't be surprised if it got removed again.

Also, please be aware that you should not delete talk page discussions. It can be fine to delete your own comments or sections, but never those of other editors (unless you have legitimate grounds to do so, like in cases of doxing). For the full policy, see WP:TP. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If I may ask again, is there any particular reason you're so concerned with this specific article? It's unusual for editors to stick by a single issue for so long, but nothing wrong with that of course :) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I know I’m sorry, I’ve been looking everywhere to find a correct reliable source to confirm this, but nothing. I think it’s best for me to not push this any further. I should probably just leave the article the way it is. 2601:188:C500:49E0:E596:FA98:3FD1:F8BF (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a connection to the subject of the article? Some personal or professional relationship? Actualcpscm (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No, absolutely 100% no. Not sure why you asked that, but as I mentioned before, just wanted to make sure at information is correct with the right reliable sources to confirm it. There’s times where I don’t know which is a reliable slice and which one is not. 2601:188:C500:49E0:D169:DD60:E420:8084 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Because it seemed to me that you do, given your tenacious commitment to this article. But what you say raises an important issue: why are you looking for reliable sources "to confirm" information; where are you getting the information that you haven't found a source on yet? Also, if you're unsure about the quality of your source, check out WP:RS for the full guideline. WP:RSVETTING and WP:APPLYRS are helpful essays, and you can find a long list of sources with their classifications at WP:RSPSS. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Well on the talk page of the article, you told me to provide a reliable source for it like you said. But it’s ok, it doesn’t matter anymore, starting today I won’t bug you about this ever again. 2601:188:C500:49E0:50CA:40B3:2E78:45D7 (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey, you're not bugging me. Contributions and suggestions are appreciated, and I think it's important to help newcomers understand why their suggestions might have been rejected. The sourcing policy on Wikipedia is very complicated, and it's natural to struggle with it. Feel free to keep making suggestions and asking questions, especially here on my talk page! Actualcpscm (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

John Simmons (actor)

Just letting you know that I was in the process of trying to build John Simmons (actor) back up after tearing it down when you proposed it for deletion. I did manage to find a couple of old sources and threw them in the article, but it's still a tough road to hoe to prove notability. If you'd like to look at it and see what you think you can; I'm not removing your proposal, just letting you know. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, DrOrinScrivello, sorry about that. I think that the fact he's mentioned by some secondary sources makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so I have removed the template. No clue if this counts as the one proposed deletion that's allowed per article, since it was basically a misunderstanding. Thanks for letting me know, and happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Progressive Youth Organization

Hello Actualcpscm, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Progressive Youth Organization, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I'm actually on random page patrol :)

Regarding the article in question, I'm not sure what the credible claim of significance is. The article basically just states that the organization existed, but it doesn't seem to mention any activities. In fact, the article explicitly says that the existence of the organization was not publicly known until well after its dissolution, and its history seems to end with that. I understand that WP:CCS is a very low threshold, but what exactly is the claim here?

Of course, Speedy Deletion should be completely uncontroversial, so the fact that we're even having this discussion means I won't re-tag the article. Still, I don't understand why it doesn't qualify. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The claim of significance (IMO) is that it asserts to be a national-level political organization. The fact that they hid their existence doesn't really affect the claim - revolutionary political organizations don't often publicize themselves to the governments they're trying to overthrow. I'm not sure the single passing mention in the provided source shows this topic merits a separate article and you'd probably have an easy time with deletion at AFD, but you're right that the CSD are supposed to be used only in the clearest cases. The article has been around since 2008, so speedy deletion would probably not be uncontroversial in this case, either. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I would disagree that the claim as you formulate it is even made in the article, but I see what you mean. I highlighted the fact that they were unknown at the time because they also apparently received no attention after their dissolution. As you mention, the PYO is only ever mentioned in passing in the source, so I might start an AfD process for this. Thanks, and happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

No you're right, the claim isn't mentioned directly in the article, but the article has the {{Political parties in Afghanistan}} template and PYO is included as a sub-group there. That's what I interpreted as the claim. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that makes more sense to me. Thanks for taking the time to explain :) Meanwhile, I've opened an AfD discussion here (or rather, Twinkle did all the hard work for me, as usual). Actualcpscm (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Question from Blitzfan51 (13:38, 25 April 2023)

How do i reference the same source twice in an article. I know there is a correct way to do it i just can't quite understand it. --Blitzfan51 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

When you open the "Cite" module to insert a citation, you can choose between "Automatic", "Manual", and "Re-use". Whatever you choose, the inline citation will then be inserted right where you were writing. The best way to cite a previously added source is to select "Re-use" and then pick the source you want to insert. If you're using the source editor, see WP:REFNAME. You can find more information at WP:REFB (for beginners), and a full technical guide at H:FOOT. Let me know if this resolves your issue. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blitzfan51 Pinging you here to make sure you see the response, I'm not certain how the mentorship thing works on your end. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Diligent Corporation

Hi Actualcpscm, it has been two weeks since we last spoke about my request on the Diligent Corporation Talk page. Since no one else has provided feedback, I wanted to ask if you would consider implementing the changes I requested. I appreciate your attention to this. Thank you. MSDiligent (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MSDiligent, sorry for the long wait, I lost track of this request. Is this still up to date? Actualcpscm (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Blitz's response

I would love to be claimed as your mentee. Thank you for reaching out. Blitzfan51 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Great, done! Feel free to ask away any time. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Updates to British American Tobacco article

Hi Actualcpscm.

Kevin from BAT here. Thanks very much for your feedback re the British American Tobacco article.

Fully take on board your point re the trademarked strategy and have removed this proposed line: 'In March 2020 BAT announced its new strategy to build A Better TomorrowTM by reducing the health impact of its business.'

I've subsequently tweaked the copy as per the below and added in the underlined text, including an edit to avoid too many paragraphs starting with 'BAT'.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Many thanks, Kevin

UPDATED TEXT: British American Tobacco plc (BAT) is a British multinational company that manufactures and sells cigarettes, tobacco and other nicotine products. The company, established in 1902, is headquartered in London, England. As of 2021[K1] , it is the largest tobacco company in the world based on net sales.

BAT has operations in around 180 countries, and its cigarette brands include Dunhill, Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall and Rothmans.

BAT has expanded its portfolio to include vapour products, tobacco heating devices and nicotine pouches. Its brands in this area include Vuse, glo and Velo [CITATION[K2] ].

BATThe company has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. It has a secondary listing on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. BAT plc ordinary shares are also listed on the New York Stock Exchange in the form of American Depositary Shares.

BAT’s Chief Executive is Jack Bowles[KO3] , who has been in the role since April 2019.[KO4]

---

[K1]Change as agreed

[K2]BAT first-half sales top estimates buoyed by cigarette alternatives | Reuters

[KO3]Link to his Wikipedia page: Jack Bowles (businessman) - Wikipedia

[KO4]Addition as agreed Kevin at BAT (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kevin at BAT, sorry for the long wait, I lost track of this request. Is this still up to date? Actualcpscm (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

It's my 200th edit! thank you for your help so far. Blitzfan51 (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Blitzfan51Of course, I'm glad you're enjoying it! Actualcpscm (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Barbiavuyile (11:00, 8 May 2023)

What happened when you don't sleep --Barbiavuyile (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barbiavuyile, welcome to Wikipedia! Usually, the mentoring tools are meant for asking questions about Wikipedia and editing practices. If you need help with specific factual questions or research, check out the reference desk at WP:RD.

To briefly answer your question, nothing good. Sleep is very important, and most people should aim to get around 8 hours of undisturbed sleep every night. Getting less than that or even no sleep at all in an isolated instance is not dangerous per se, but it does impair focus and reflexes. I wouldn't recommend driving a fast car if someone didn't sleep the night before. In the long run, sleep deficits are associated with a lot of health risks. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to ask for medical advice, nor will anyone here provide such advice. Accordingly, this is just a general answer, and you shouldn't interpret it as any kind of specific medical advice. If you have a medical concern, see a doctor or other healthcare professional as soon as possible. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Blitzfan51 (19:54, 9 May 2023)

can you link me to the guidelines for merging articles please? --Blitzfan51 (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Blitzfan51 WP:MERGE gives a good idea. There is no specific guideline or policy on merging, but as a general rule, common sense matters most. Different aspects of the same individual topic should be in the same article. Standalone articles are only warranted if both topics or subjects independently meet the relevant notability requirements and common sense dictates a split. If you‘re unsure, you can always ask and discuss on the article talk pages. If you have a specific case in mind, feel free to ask me for specific feedback about that too. I understand that „common sense“ isn‘t always very helpful, so the best thing to do when you‘re unsure is to open a discussion. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

COI Requests for Paul Andrew (Designer)

Hi there! On March 19, you asked me to clarify my COI requests for Paul Andrew. I responded on March 21. Might I trouble you to take a look? Many thanks for your consideration. Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry about that, I must have missed it. I'll take a look as soon as I can. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Sounds good. Thanks in advance. All the best, BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

BlueRoses13 Done! Actualcpscm (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you!! Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

System approved destructive edits.

My edit was a response to the removal of all the actual useful information on several wikipedia pages. The differences between the different years on the different motorcycles, in this case the CBR1100XX, is being removed because it is "fanboy cruft" all that is left is what is common knowledge and available from any source.

This is a worrying development since it will make wikipedia totally useless. I remember the first time I saw this, it was on pages about battleships, the majority of information was removed since it only interested "people that was interested in warships". What good is an encyclopedia that does not cater to the ppl that are interested in reading it?

My interest in the CBR1100XX was which year they moved from carburetors to fuel injection. Fortunately the history pages still retain the pages with some actually important information on them. If you will not allow real useful data on the pages they might just as well say "A motorcycle made by Honda". I will be surprised if some one reads this, wikipedia is getting less and less useful by the day. Great job!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.128.229.250 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

COI Request on Convoy of Hope Page

Hi there! On 29 April 2023 you asked for some additional information/citation for my COI request on the Convoy of Hope Page. I responded on 2 May 2023. Could I trouble you to take a look? Thanks so much for your consideration and let me know if I need to do something else to help the changes you approve take effect. Signed, Generalmills2002 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Generalmills2002! I must have missed that reply, apologies. I hope to get to this soon, but in the meantime, you can go ahead and re-open the edit request in case another editor is working throught the COIREQ backlog. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Automation

do you use any sort of automated script such as twinkle or ultraviolet? If so, would you be willing to teach me some good settings to use? If you don't use any, can you direct me to someone who does? Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 14:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Blitzfan51! I primarily use Redwarn (anti-vandalism) and Twinkle (other stuff). With both of them, the default settings are completely fine. If you need any further help with using them, just let me know :)

Remember that you are responsible for all edits you make, even when using scripts or similar automation tools. I would recommend sticking to stuff you‘ve extensively done manually, automation can quickly get you „lost in the flow“ of working, which might decrease your attention to detail. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I just installed ultraviolet that's why i asked. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 15:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Onvoit (17:36, 20 May 2023)

Hello, I would like to add to the article on Peter Oborne to mention his appearance in the Al Jazeera 4 part documentary on the Labour Files : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elp18OvnNV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DTMF0MSXng https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/labour-files/ My addition could be as below : Peter Oborne appears in several of the four-parts of the Al Jazeera documentary The Labour Files involving investigations based on a leak of thousands of emails, documents, social media messages emanating from Labour party staff members. These give indications of how Jeremy Corbyn was undermined by his staff. How party members sympathetic to the left were purged, Revelations about the antisemitism crisis in the Labour party, and how Labour Party leaders spied on their members to have them expelled. --Onvoit (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onvoit! If the article is not protected, you can edit it yourself. If there is article protection that is preventing you from doing so, you can open an edit request on the article's talk page with the appropriate template: {{edit semi-protected}} or {{edit extended-protected}}.

I have some comments regarding your proposed addition, though. First, it's not quite clear why this article should include a summary of the documentary. It might be more appropriate to mention what the documentary actually attributes to him, and then just source it to the documentary. If I understand correctly, he appears as a character or interviewee in the documentary(?), so I'd suggest "He has expressed [a belief]" or "He has advocated for [something]", with an attribution to this source.

It is not common practice on Wikipedia to mention sources directly in the text, nor are they usually described in article text. There are some exceptions, like when an opinion needs clear attribution, but this is not such a case.

Additionally, this documentary should not be sourced to YouTube, as that platform falls under WP:UGC. If the content sourced to this is uncontroversial, it might be alright, but biographies of living persons have a high standard for appropriate sourcing. Perhaps you could find the documentary on the Al Jazeera website?

If you have any further questions or need help in some other form, just let me know here :) Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angela Merkel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carnegie. 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) 06:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed

I have achieved extended confirmed! Thank you for all of your help and support so far. I have also enrolled in the CVUA and requested rollback rights. I see you got rollback rights recently. Good job. Illusion Flame is my teacher for my CVUA and he's very good at it. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 16:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Blitzfan51! That's great, I'm really glad that you've stuck around, and I'm happy that I was able to help you out when you were learning the ropes. CUVA is also good place to learn about vandalism. If that's an area of interest to you, you could contribute at this ongoing discussion at MediaWiki.

It might be a little early for rollback; with 215 article namespace edits (of which 130 are non-automated), there's a good chance you will be rejected. Is there are particular reason you're interested in the tool? It's better not to think of user rights as achievements. It's not against the rules or anything, but it might end up as a frustrating experience. As mentioned in the "Rollback granted" message above, it's not particularly momentous to be granted additional editing tools. A lot of people get caught up WP:HATCOLLECTING, and that's an unhelpful and often unrewarding approach to editing. The reasoning behind the restriction of certain tools is administrative, it's not intended as a reward structure for editing.

However, as an extended-confirmed editor, you can do what really got me into editing here in the first place: answering (almost) all edit requests! User:AnomieBOT/EPERTable lists the currently open extended-protected edit requests. Terasail developed an amazing tool for answering these requests. You can find it at User:Terasail/Edit_Request_Tool. As always, feel free to come here with any questions or concerns. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason I want rollback is so I can use Huggle. I do not consider myself a hat collector. More like a weapon collector. The more weapons I can have to fight vandalism the better. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 20:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

That's great, just making sure. Enjoy fighting the vandals :) Actualcpscm (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Help with Fabrizio Freda edits

Actualcpscm, I want to thank you for your patience. This is my first time making a COI edit request, and I am doing my best to follow all the rules. I mistakenly deleted your comment and understand that it was bad practice, I apologize. I have formatted a new edit request which takes all of your feedback into account. I hope you will take a look and implement these edits. Sophie-esteelauder (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries! The set of applicable policies and guidelines is immense, and getting stuff wrong happens to everyone on occasion. No harm done! :) I'll take a look at your new request soon. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal experience

since you are an experienced editor, would you be willing to provide me a diff of a time when a user in good faith asked why you reverted their edit? Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 13:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Blitzfan51 I just recently had this conversation with a new editor after I had reverted their edit and left a warning on their talk page. The replies are ordered a bit weirdly, so I suggest going through the edit history to really follow the conversation. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that I also removed a lot of additional unsourced content from the article in question in the time between the revert and our conversation, I think Kodakblues refers to that at some point. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

thanks Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 15:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit Assistance

Hi @Actualcpscm!

I'm reaching out as I see you're a very experienced editor, particularly with reviewing the CIO edit request page (it's my first time here!). I currently have a pending CIO edit request for The Peninsula Hotels, but the queue doesn't seem to be moving at all and it seems edit requests aren't necessarily done in chronological order?

I was wondering if there was any way you could kindly have a look at my request and (hopefully) assist in editing? I did my best to be super straight forward with the changes.

Let me know if you have any further questions or need more info. Thank you! The Peninsula Wiki (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @The Peninsula Wiki!

I understand that it can be frustrating to have to wait a long time to get these requests reviewed, but unfortunately, there are not that many editors working on them these days. The situation is still better than a few months ago, when the queue was over twice as long, so we're getting there.

In general, reaching out to specific editors to "skip the queue" is not good practice.

On a related note, just fyi, urgent matters don't need edit requests: For example, COI editors are allowed to make uncontroversial edits, such as reverting vandalism or removing unsourced contentious information about living persons (see WP:BLP). Egregious cases of defamatory content, breaches of privacy, and some other matters are handled by oversight, which can also be requested by any editor. My point with this is that there can't really be strictly urgent COI edit requests.

I'll take a look at your request now, but in the future, try not to involve specific editors directly, be it by pinging them, leaving messages, etc. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Actualcpscm!

Thank you very much for the prompt response and feedback. My sincerest apologies for trying to 'skip the queue' by reaching out, noted this isn't good practice and noted the shortage of editors. I've read through your feedback, and will edit the page only to include points I can support with secondary sources.

I seriously cannot thank you enough. Please reach out to me anytime. Thank you!! The Peninsula Wiki (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@The Peninsula Wiki No worries, now you know better :)

Remember that you still shouldn't edit the article directly; the right way to proceed would be to create a new request with the feedback in mind, and then wait for an editor to review it. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Andrea Wicklein

Hi, can I ask why you started Andrea Wicklein by copying from Draft:Andrea Wicklein, written by User:Waterbottle333, rather than publishing the draft? I saw the blue link at Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles. If this was an error, presumably the histories should be merged. TSventon (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be an error, mostly in my thought process (rather than technical). I remember having some kind of reason, but now that I look at it again, I really can‘t say what that was. Apologies for that, a history merge seems to be in order. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I noticed that you had previously published several drafts in the normal way. I have requested a history merge, hopefully correctly as I haven't used the template before. TSventon (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Johnparadies (03:22, 12 June 2023)

Hi, I have a picture of breakfast creek bridge, in the 1800 hundreds. I am not certain and would like to have it confirmed. --Johnparadies (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Johnparadies! I’m not quite sure what you mean by confirmed; could you elaborate? I‘d be happy to help any way I can. Actualcpscm (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

if the picture is actually of the breakfast creek bridge 118.208.30.154 (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I might not be able to help with this, I don't know much about the history of Australian infrastructure. I will do my best to assist you, though. Could you point me to the image in question with a URL?

I would also suggest that you ask at the Reference Desk, where volunteers help with factual questions and research. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

https://lens.google.com/search?ep=gisbubb&hl=en-AU&re=df&p=ATHekxcxgeKDBTIYvgwFNgyz8ZbYTN4KZoqEMYWk-oVvd7Dh2cqYxkRVWuC2jBbnLCJrOZN4d5vsQ8DtV6xf65qeXNX9SRKbK2a8JtF_oLTeyFhlhTPi86_ibJR3GAHXLGO_HmQ5bQhgcwxkTO9TcYTFEUPXhVrJUwUbfWQq2iZx8fn5SeSvDE1EE7HN1myjenkzfkoy7dut7Df4DHlel6i6k0UkqTn8KQPmJ2C8lXZQNfu3_7vex7nBSEae6Q1eYb045qzFfq9NUBBgObwqam9CQbXHBjolKPDlc8t4MAd8X94%3D#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsIkVrY0tKRFl3TURGa1lUVTNMVFV3TnpFdE5HSmlZaTA0TW1WaUxUUmhNelkzWkdJMFpqTTFaUklmZDNwWFNUbHdNblF4UlRSaFdVeHVaVFo2U1ROWFNGQkdObFpWVkdsNFp3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsbnVsbCxbW10sbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsOF0sbnVsbF0= Johnparadies (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This image (or a very similar one) is available on Wikimedia Commons and is labelled there as showing Breakfast Creek. It looks very similar to Breakfast Creek today, so I would say that this is an image of Breakfast Creek Bridge. As I mentioned, I'm not an expert, though. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

thank you 118.208.30.154 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer and Pending Change Reviewer rights granted

Hi Actualcpscm. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" and pending change reviewer user groups. These user groups allow you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer rights do not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want these user rights, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, these rights may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. Lourdes 08:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunate update on car search

Hey! I just wanted to update you on the car-image search—unfortunately, no bueno. I searched quite a few free-use image archives, but the only things that came up were both (1) not specific by year and (2) weirdly ... glamorous? I realize that second issue seems bizarre, but a lot of them were from Hyundai and had what I could only describe as a car-magazine-advertisement sheen. (If I had found a 2011, I might've gotten it anyway, but just something I noticed.)

Thank you once again for taking the time to do the review and improving the article!--Jerome Frank Disciple 11:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It is what it is, thanks for the effort! Actualcpscm (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Assistance with updates to Institute for Justice page?

Good morning!

Just wanted to follow up and see if I can work with you to resolve the necessary edits to this page.

I've added the various COI information to my user page to ensure I'm being perfectly transparent about any conflicts.

I'd like to now start offering specific (FACTUAL) edits to update the Institute for Justice's page to fix what is either inaccurate, very out of date or incomplete. I have a Word doc with many pages of such edits that need to be made, all with independent sources to verify what I'm suggesting, and everything is written in a neutral/encyclopedic manner, as required by Wikipedia. Where needed, I've also spelled out why this change makes sense.

May I start sharing these specific suggested edits with you? If you're aren't able or don't have the time to assist with this, I'll certainly understand. If that's the case, please let me know and I'll continue looking for an editor who can help move this forward.

Thank you for your consideration. It is very much appreciated. Lyrical42 (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lyrical42! In general, best practice is to draft your suggestion and then open an edit request. It might take a while for someone to see your suggestions that way, but that's in the nature of maintenance backlogs here on Wikipedia :)

Right now, the request you have open at that article's talk page just lists "example" suggestions. For someone to review your proposed edits, I would suggest that you list them all, either on that talk page or in your userspace (for example in your sandbox).

If you have specific questions about policies or guidelines, I'd be happy to help you with those at any time. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Very much appreciated! Lyrical42 (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Raimondo Inconis

I see that you have nominated Raimondo Inconis for speedy deletion for a second time. Since the original creator of the article just re-created it again after the last speedy deletion, it seems likely that they will just go on doing so again, in which case repeated speedy deletions will be pointless. I suggest that taking the article to WP:AFD is a better approach at this stage. JBW (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@JBW Hm, I see what you mean. Thanks for letting me know :)

I have a question about this, though: since the article in its current form is (as far as I can remember) substantially identical to the previously deleted version, what is the necessity of an AfD? I'm not sure I'm phrasing my question well; if the article meets a criterion for speedy-deletion, what is the added value of an AfD discussion? To establish with certainty that the article subject isn't notable? Actualcpscm (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The advantage is that policy forbids re-creating a page in defiance of consensus at a deletion discussion, so administrators can easily justify taking action if necessary. On the other hand, re-creating a page after it has been speedily deleted is just disagreeing with the person who nominated it for deletion and the administrator who deleted it, which is not in itself forbidden; it's just a different opinion. If that happens persistently, and in ways which may reasonably be regarded as disruptive, then administrative action can eventually be taken, but it's not so straightforward, and is unlikely to happen without persistence over a fairly long period. JBW (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for taking the time to explain! Happy editing :) Actualcpscm (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Angela Merkel

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Angela Merkel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from MisfitsMusic (09:53, 20 June 2023)

Hi! How do I start my own page? --MisfitsMusic (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi MisfitsMusic, and welcome to Wikipedia! In general, editors are discouraged from writing about themselves, their friends, or groups that they are a part of. You can read more about conflicts of interest here, and about writing autobiographical articles here. Independently of that, creating new articles is one of the most difficult things to get right on Wikipedia; I would recommend that you start by editing in other areas.

Since you're new to editing Wikipedia, I would suggest the tutorial for newcomers or the Wikipedia Adventure, both of which provide great introductions to how editors work on Wikipedia. I'd be happy to help you get started; if you have any questions, feel free to ask them by replying to this message here. You can also ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

Hi, a quick question: How can i use this website's crucial information for character(arts) without violating copyright laws? i made a mistake once and i intend not to do it again. Adrianxastron (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Adrianxastron! There‘s a very general answer to this, and it‘s that the copyright policy at WP:C does not allow editors to copy content directly from any external source. There are some exceptions, such as attributed quotations when they are necessary, but the general rule holds for your case as well.

I understand that it‘s a little bit tricky to understand how the copyright policy can coexist with some other policies like no original research and verifiability. The key is that information is taken from external sources, but the actual content is written by Wikipedia’s editors. For example, if there is an external source that states „Person A was born in 1973 in Canada, and they are a lawyer“, Wikipedia cannot copy that sentence into an article directly, but it can incorporate the information (the birth year and location as well as the occupation). The article‘s lead sentence might read „Person A (born 1973) is a Canadian lawyer.“

If you‘re unsure about how to apply these policies, feel free to ask any follow-up questions here :) Actualcpscm (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! Adrianxastron (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Adrianxastron unfortunately, your most recent addition was still problematic. I think that's my fault; the example I gave was not quite clear. Close paraphrasing often still violates the copyright policy; for an in-depth explanation, see WP:PARAPHRASE. The example above was a case covered by WP:LIMITED, so I apologise if it gave you the wrong impression of what constitutes appropriate paraphrasing.

To summarise the issue of very close paraphrasing, such as what your contribution included, the text itself is still taken from the source. I suppose the writing process was to copy-paste from that website, and then do some copyediting and substitute some synonyms to avoid direct copying. To avoid copyright issues, you should write text yourself, and ideally without reading from the source at the same moment. The information you're communicating needs to come from a reliable source, but it needs to be your writing. I really want to empathise that this is tricky to get right, and I gave a misleading example; this one's on me.  Self-trout

I will take some time tomorrow to write a version of what you intend to communicate that would be appropriate for the article. Please don't let this discourage you from continuing to edit; it takes time to learn the ropes! Actualcpscm (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It is really tricky, but i suppose i should cite several sources so that the end result would be mixed. Also to save a lot of effort, i'd suggest i should show my rewrite to yourself here first and then publish it, if that's alright and you'd be willing to read it. But it seems you have taken the task in your own hands and i may learn from your upcoming edit. Thank you. Adrianxastron (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course, that works too! Doing it yourself is the best way to learn, and I'd be happy to provide feedback on your drafts. Just paste them here :) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, i hope you're free and having a good day. I found some free time just about now and rewrote it. Would you be so kind to review its acceptibility so i can figure out whether i got it right this time and whether its eligible for publishing:

" The Ghost and The Ghostbuster

Protagonists can be created with what's called a "Ghost". The ghost is something that haunts the character and its cure is what's called a "Ghostbuster". The ghost sometimes called "The Wound" in the writing community is usually displayed as a traumatic event for the character which leads the character to hold a damaged worldview that is fundamentally flawed, which in turn becomes the protagonist's "weakness".

For instance, in the film Frozen, Elsa accidentally causes serious harm to her sister Anna with her powers during their childhood playtime, this event becomes Elsa's "Ghost" as it haunts her from then on. To stop herself from hurting anyone else she runs off to build an ice castle in hopes of secluding herself from the world. This is her "Weakness" but this also creates her Want, which is to be secluded and this Want creates her personal Goal. In her journey, She will understand that to receive genuine love, she needs to have an open heart and to acknowledge that some forms of love are worth the pain. This is the "Ghostbuster" that makes her whole again and breaks her free from the "Ghost"." Adrianxastron (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you provide the sources you used to collect this information as well, ideally as inline citations? Remember that everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable :) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, i forgot to mention it was the same source as before. Adrianxastron (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this is much better. Copyright doesn't seem to be an issue here, and you are also not providing original research and instead basing the text on the available source. Great job!

The last thing to think about now would be style; the language and style used in Wikipedia articles is neutral and encyclopedic. For example, "it makes her whole again" is an abstract expression, which makes it somewhat ambiguous. I see that you made the edit yourself; I'm going to copyedit it to ensure that the language and style are appropriate. Still, this is really good! Actualcpscm (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

A small note: in general, Wikipedia articles don't include examples to illustrate a point unless there is a very good reason to do so. If examples are included, they are usually separated from the primary text, for example by being in a different section. Anyway, good job on this! If you have any other questions or concerns at any point, feel free to ask me here on my talk page :) Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Thanks - Adrianxastron (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

North Luzon Force

Please do tell me if there are any more issues you think need to be addressed with this article to avoid PD. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks much better now. Happy editing :) Actualcpscm (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Anatomy of a Murder

No copyright violation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "they probably copied from Wikipedia and not vice-versa" is strong enough to dismiss a copyvio claim, but alas, it has been done. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you can (and should) do a better research job if you want to repeat the bold accusation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

IMDb doesn't make edit histories public, so there isn't an easy / immediate way to check which came first. Many editors copy from IMDb or similar external sources; it's not unreasonable to assume so. I wouldn't call this an accusation, though; in fact, IA archives appear to indicate that Wikipedia did in fact come first. In this case, all is well, but I think it's good for Wikipedia if its editors occassionally err on the side of caution and remove content, if only temporarily, that might be copyvio. Can't be too careful. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Saying that there is copyright violation is one thing Proving it is another.

Willful compyrightr violation is a capital offense in Wikipedia land.

And it is in the nature of Wikipedia that admirers are encouraged to use it elsewhere, although proper attribution is supposed to be made. Happens regularly at IMDB. Unfortunately, we don't control IMDB. So comparative timelines need to be explored before going off the deep end. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it would probably be better to double-check if a history is available before requesting RevDel, I'll start doing that. But I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "capital offense" bit. It's not like anyone opened an ANI investigation or started anything else that actually affects you beyond the isolated edits on that page. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No one has gone to ANI yet. But it is in the waiting room. One just has to be out of favor and someone chooses to make a fuss.

It can be. Depends on who all is involved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't help you with this entirely hypothetical scenario of hypothetical editors "making a fuss"; let me know if you need anything else from me. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

More than hypothetical. But I require nothing from you. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The Hague Institute for Global Justice

Hi there. Just wanted to ask once again whether you'd be willing to handle the edit request I made for The Hague Institute for Global Justice article, as you had been courteous enough to notify me on my outdated COI declaration for the same. All the requested changes and relevant references have been laid out in a systematic manner, so it shouldn't be a hassle for you (or anyone else for that matter) to look through. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I recently received a very similar request, see here. TLDR: someone will see your request and deal with it in the foreseeable future. That might be me, or it might be someone else; I rarely respond to requests to handle individual COI edit requests, unless there is a good reason that I am needed specifically. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Study Sign-up Follow-up

Hey @Actualcpscm, thank you for signing up for our study! I sent you an email to schedule the session. Talk to you soon! Tzusheng (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, excited to see how it goes. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel request

Hi Actualcpscm, Jessica from Cracker Barrel here. I wanted to see if you saw my hesitancy with making direct changes to the Cracker Barrel article, even with your go-ahead. Would the financial update be something you would be comfortable implementing? If not, that is fine, I can seek input from others. I just like to refrain from any direct editing if possible. Thanks for all your assistance! CB JessicaM (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Slipped through my fingers, done now. FYI, there's really nothing to worry about with direct editing once you've received explicit approval from an uninvolved editor; if you link to their approval in your edit summary, I can't imagine anyone seriously objecting to that. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll keep this in mind for the future. CB JessicaM (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Actualcpscm,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Johanna Staude

Hello, Actualcpscm,

I think it was wise of you to withdraw your AFD nomination and close the discussion. There were a few points made that I wanted to reiterate. First, please do not tag a page for any type of deletion so soon after it has been created, especially when it was created by an experienced content creator. As you saw in the AFD, you'll receive some pushback. Secondly, many editors who have a lot of experience creating articles do not use Draft space, they create the articles directly into main space and work on them over the next 24-48 hours to get them into an acceptable shape. So, while the article might have been in so-so shape when you first saw it and tagged it for AFD discussion, it was just in the process of being developed. It's always a good idea to see who the editor is who has created an article. While experienced editors can create mediocre articles, content creators are the core of Wikipedia and it's important to give them the benefit of the doubt when considering how to handle an article when you are patrolling newly created pages.

Consider this a learning experience (after 10 years, I'm still learning!) and continue on with the good work you're doing. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Liz!

Yeah, definitely a misjudgment to learn from. I started NPP / AfC review quite recently, and I can’t say that I’ve been perfect.

I think in this case, a personal philosophy of mine got in the way, which it shouldn’t. I think (again, personal opinion, not a policy argument) that a published article should be subject to scrutiny quite quickly; what really convinced me here is that the editor who has marked it as In Use had more recent contributions elsewhere. Turns out not everyone works the way I do, and I do need to give new articles a bit more time before AfD.

I think the time I will stop learning about Wikipedia is the moment I leave, which right now doesn‘t seem likely :) Actualcpscm (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I had more recent contributions elsewhere because I was de-orphaning the article. I would recommend getting more experience in editing and creating new articles yourself. It will help you gain a better understanding of the NPP and AFD processes. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

A new barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		As part of doing something else I noticed that the semi-protection edit request backlog went from like 40 earlier today down to 10, and after some digging I see you went ham! Let this be a show of appreciation for you doing that, as I personally know some of the ones you addressed could be considered tedious by a lot of editors here. Might I introduce you to the edit request tool? If you decide to do edit requests for the foreseeable future it should make your life a bajillion times easier. Good work, and happy editing! —Sirdog (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, and also the suggestion! The edit request tool is great. I‘ve managed to clear the SPER backlog, so I‘m starting on COIREQ :) Actualcpscm (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Actualcpscm. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Cynthia Weil

On 6 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cynthia Weil, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from DuckyRC (18:21, 11 July 2023)

Hi, I want to create my own wiki, how can I? --DuckyRC (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi DuckyRC! If you mean creating an article, WP:YFA might help. Be aware that this is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia, as it requires working knowledge of many different policies & guidelines as well as the manual of style. I suppose your talk page is an attempt at writing an article, but it is currently exclusively promotional; I suggest you read through the NPOV policy and the verifiability policy, as they are two of the most important parts of Wikipedia. If you have any specific questions or need help with something, feel free to ask me here in the future. Welcome to Wikipedia! Actualcpscm (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, right now it says my page will be deleted because of speedy deletion all i am doing it making a history of this website DuckyRC (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@DuckyRC When certain (very strict) criteria are met, unambiguously inappropriate pages may be speedy-deleted, which means any admin can delete the tagged page without further discussion. In this case, the page you created was first moved to your sandbox, which can be used for experimentation. It was then deleted under WP:U5, and in my opinion, WP:G11 might also apply. U5 applies to pages where Wikipedia has been misused as a webhost, and G11 applies to pages that exist only to advertise or promote their subject.

I would not suggest recreating the page exactly the same way, as it will probably just be deleted again. The problem is that the text you have written is promotional and not neutral. Again, I suggest you read the relevant policy at WP:NPOV; I'd be happy to help with any questions or concerns. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you! I will try to contact you DuckyRC (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Acts of Peter and the Twelve on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)