User talk:AntiDionysius/Archives/2024/January

Can you check and delete it?

Hi AntiDionysius, This section of a biography of a living person Nine (singer) Career and work no source Can you check and delete it? On this page, there is a lot of personal history content. But there are very few sources. MeetHoneyBee (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see the issue. Thank you for flagging it. I'll go take a look. For future reference, you are welcome to try to tackle these issues yourself if you'd like, but I am of course happy to help. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Articles that cannot be found with reliable references to verify Even after searching thoroughly.

I can't fix these problems Because this article's Life, career information does not have any reference sources. It's all written from the IP address.

I've verified that all of these articles were added in one large batch, with no source.

This biography of a living person Nine (singer) has only references to songs and cover versions. Most of the references are from YouTube.

In the Endorsements section, a thorough examination found that it was abnormal and enter incorrect information Valentino Beauty (2021) He has no position with the brand, only a Promoter role.

Therefore, adding brand friend information is putting in the wrong information as a promotion or can be called impersonation. Intention to correct incorrect information People reading this article will have misunderstandings. There is no reliable source of information. There is no reference source.

The clear evidence is the Brand activity content. The person in this article only does Promoter activities. MeetHoneyBee (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

why you remove my edit from victor martins page 2A02:C7C:678A:9900:5588:43A6:B1DC:BDF8 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, the edit was reverted because you didn't provide a source for it. All additions to Wikipedia need to be sourced. You are welcome to add it back with a source. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit

What problem do you have with my edit to the 14th amendment page? @cullen328 whined about my edits and people reverting them. Before I clarify it and add the context back, I'm curious why you did the same without a reason? Magnus1313 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I gave a reason in the edit summary; per WP:RSP, both the Washington Post and MSNBC are reliable sources, so there was no reason for you to have removed them. Thus I reverted the removal. Also, please remain civil toward other editors. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

So I just need to use CNN or MSNBC or LA Times as a legitimate unbiased news source? Magnus1313 (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You can use any reliable source you like when adding content. But you shouldn't remove an existing source without a good reason. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Who decides if it's a "good reason"? I thought it was a good reason, hence I removed it. MSNBC has proven to be an unreliable, one-sided opinion source. So has CNN and LA Times. Magnus1313 (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikipedia is that they are reliable sources. And consensus is how we decide things. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

When you mute different opinions, consensus looks like everyone agrees. It'd been well proven these sources are liberal talking points. Hardly neutral, which Wikipedia claims it is. Magnus1313 (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

No one is "muting" your opinion. You're voicing disagreement with the consensus right now, and no one is stopping you. If you'd like to try to change the consensus and convince your fellow editors of your views on these sources, you're very much welcome to do so. There are instructions on how that process works here. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Lol. You and other "editors" have been muting nearly every addition/correction I've made. You and others don't like someone with an opposing viewpoint adding context to the biased content that's being posted under the guise of neutral. It's no wonder this site is branded as not a reliable source of any information when viewpoints are one sided. Magnus1313 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. I've explained to you how you can constructively work with other editors to try change the policy but if you'd rather just complain that's your prerogative. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Reversing edit

You are removing the Bangladeshi Writers category. Why? What is the rationale? TC0823 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@TC0823 which edit are you referring to? AntiDionysius (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Susan M. Gordon

Hi AntiDionysius, for the page containing info about the Honorable Susan Gordon, the phrase CIA is used without defining the acronym. For users not familiar with the term or wanting to know more, wouldn't it make sense to define the acronym and link to it before using it? How is this not constructive? Oldcrow602 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

SpVgg Fürth

See for yourself at

www.spvgg-fuerth.com www.zurueckzurspvgg.jetzt www.faszination-fankurve.de Die falsche 9

Please understand that I am not concerned with whether you want to use our traditional name or not. It is about us fans, Ultras of the club, that we A get our name back, this is being prepared, B as long as in this time, this has not yet happened, we will not accept it and do not want it that our club is called "Greuther".

Some people also thought that our club comes from "Greuther Fürth". To really do us a big favour, please use the full name or the only true traditional one! 186.116.227.142 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, the point of Wikipedia is to reflect what reliable sources say. If you can cite those, fine and good. But Wikipedia is not a place to wage an informational campaign, and saying you "will not accept" this that or the other is really not a good starting point. AntiDionysius (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for beating me to quite a few vandalism reverts tonight! All the best to you in 2024.

Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Heh, the gazumping was not intentional. All the best to you too! AntiDionysius (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Extension Grammar English tools

I use extension browser tools Grammar using Grammarly to fix the Grammars and Clarity but I didn't know that the International English written Grammar. I use written English American grammar in my place. 47.234.198.142 (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at this article? This article found that unregistered IP addresses removed the warning section without modifying it according to the instructions. And most of this information is not true. There is no reliable source.

Could you please take a look at this article? I looked at this article and saw an unregistered IP address deleted in the warning section without editing it according to the instructions. and add incorrect information. The references are few and mostly come from YouTube. Does it meet the criteria of deception, advertising, impersonation? Because there are people who misunderstand and believe Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1197053033

IP address 2001:1388:A45:7B00:F810:2A14:7BCB:F48B Delete this section without following the instructions.

BLP sources|date=September 2023 Copyedit|date=September 2023 Use dmy dates|date=September 2020

I've never seen this type of article before. There's a brand activity that involves live selling products with the brand. I would like to ask, is this part not against the rules?

Life and career does not have reliable references. It is edited by an unregistered user. The network IP address is the same every time. without reference source and there are very few reference sources. Most of the references come from YouTube. I couldn't find any information in Thai or Chinese.

This section of Endorsements is a scam. In 2021, Valentino Beauty did not announce any appointments. He only promotes the brand. But in the article put the position You can find more information. Does it meet the criteria for deception, advertising, or impersonation? Because there are people who misunderstand and believe in Wikipedia, there may be a notification from that brand.

IP address 2001:1388:A45:7B00:F810:2A14:7BCB:F48B Copying the content of other articles, such as Patrick Nattawat Finkler to put in the article Nine (singer) that IP has always edited. Proof of copying that is identical to the original article according to the revision history below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1196914870

I'd like several editors to help me check if [[Nine (singer)]'s article meets Wikipedia's guidelines, right? I'd like to ask for knowledge. Why don't other articles have this format? And the source of reference must at least be from the media, news agency, and this article does not have that part. MeetHoneyBee (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the edits as they were unsourced & BLP. Cheers! Adakiko (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

new findings

how would a newcomer like myself go about geting their findings added to the conversation without be discriminated against? ty Mike Ferrigno (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you shouldn't. If your findings are notable, hopefully someone will pick up on them and they might get added eventually. If they're not notable and aren't being discussed or read elsewhere, then Wikipedia isn't the place to change that.

Please see the Conflict of Interest guideline. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

awesome ty Mike Ferrigno (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Ferrigno: Also, please review Wikipedia's guidlines on original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Point taken

about seeking consensus first, but Nadler's framing is so abysmal that I think it's a crime to leave it up for any length of time, although hopefully no one with seriousness is looking to a Wikipedia page for illumination or even basic fidelity. 142.169.16.188 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)