User talk:Knuthove

Welcome

Hello, Knuthove, and 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 at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 13:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Personal attacks from sockpuppet of blocked editor. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middleamericajames.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This person is a paid troll that is vandalizing Wikpedia pages and attacking a very well known activist, removing properly sourced information, and making false claims against other editors. Rightventracleleft (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Calling an editor a "paid troll" (especially with absolutely no evidence to back it up) is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia and can lead to repercussions for your account. He iro 21:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to this paid troll vandalizing my edits and makin false claims. Not only attacking me but making false allegations against Matthew Berdyck, a man who certainly doesn't need Wikipedia to promote his name. In terms of Mr. Berdyck's career, he's got paid trolls and there is more than enough evidence to back this up. This would not be the firsyt time a paid troll tried to scrub Wikipedia of the existence of Matthew Berdyck. Rightventracleleft (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Stockholm Tunnel Rail Line 18" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Stockholm Tunnel Rail Line 18. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Template:Stockholm Tunnel Rail Line 18 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Devokewater @ 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Knuthove it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, so I have requested speedy deletion. This should be the last "Tunnel Rail" to be deleted. Regards --Devokewater @ 09:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is great to hear! A minor affair, all things considered, but one that annoyed me a lot. Thanks again for your effort! Knuthove (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Knuthove! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What is the procedure around disputed edits, or, how do I get consensus?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Good job dude, doing better than the bot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.88.177.29 (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@107.88.177.29: The bot only reverts obvious vandalism. What I really don't understand is the subtle vandalism you do, like slightly changing a date or a place. Why do you have to do that stuff? Can't you leave a place like this, that only wants to spread truth and knowledge, alone? Knuthove (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harby, Leicestershire

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

(talk)

Thank you for your comments regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harby,_Leicestershire Parish Church Incumbents The Citation points are a [6][7][8] under incumbents this covers all the documentation within the incumbent's area. However, what I have is an issue whereby I have used information contained within a book about the church or have copied it from the walls of the church how do I credit that? I cannot credit myself as it is against Wikipedia rules Can I credit the building? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruddingtonsmith (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using information from a book, use {{cite book}}. If you're using an inscription from a wall of a building, use {{Cite sign}}. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruddingtonsmith: Those sources are a very good start. However, I was thinking more about the other sections. For example, the sections on the primary school, parish church, bells, parish registers, notable people, amenities, war memorial and public houses cite no sources whatsoever. The fact that they have stayed up for several years implies that many editors view it like me, and that perhaps the risk of removal is pretty low. However, I thought I should warn you that as far as I understand the rules, those sections could in fact all be removed if a particularly strict deletionist editor were to come across the article. Knuthove (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation on Jerry Holkins

i didn't defame anyone, i just said he's bald — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:4C8B:6B21:2006:5576 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:A442:581E:1:4C8B:6B21:2006:5576: Changing "Jerry Holkins (born Parkinson)" to "Jerry Holkins (born Bald)" is not "just saying he's bald". At the very least it is vandalism. Please don't do it again. Not to mention that your edit on Mike Krahulik is most definitely defamation. Knuthove (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to?

If it is the history I can certainly remove it. Images I had posted and general related links as well as a website link to the company website are things you have removed , and those follow all neutral conflict of interest guidelines. If those could be reinstated please do so and just redact anything that is a conflict of interest as it took a few hours to compile everything. I requested the name change as well so that should not be an issue in the future.

Thank you for your notification.

Mercurycorp12 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercurycorp12: The history was the most problematic. I agree that the company website and images were good additions, so sorry for removing those. However, if you read the conflict of interest guidelines, and the onus is on you to do so, they say things like:

Be transparent about your conflict of interest. Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space. The role of editors is to summarize, inform, and reference, not promote, whitewash, or sell. Article subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources.

As you can see in the guidelines, you are strongly advised to not edit articles that you have a close connection to at all. If you want your proposed changes to be accepted, they need to be neutral in tone and based on reliable sources. Your edits, especially the history, were entirely unsourced. The company's own website is a problematic source, since we can expect the company to want to present itself in the best possible light. Ideally you should find third party sources, like the aviation history books already cited, but I am not experienced enough to say how much you can rely on the company website. You should ask a more experienced editor.

Secondly, phrasing such as "its very capable Vice-President and Chief Engineer", "The new facility lived up to all expectations and continues to do so.", "the future looked promising.", "which kept Mercury ahead of the competition.", "At this time, the company was now able to fabricate, paint, and completely assemble products for customers. Mercury also added the capability to electronically test the product and deliver it to our customer's dock via our own fleet of trucks.", "In 1990 the company converted its quality system utilizing the Total Quality Management Method of operation. This continues to be the base of our quality system today.", "Mercury began working directly with customers on the development of future products, one of our core processes today", "At this time, Mercury also developed its strategic alliances and partnerships in the global marketplace.", "Today, Mercury has emerged stronger than ever through the COVID-19 crisis, supporting all industries including the medical industry to help assist with containing the Pandemic.", and especially the entire final section "2021-Future: An Even Brighter Tomorrow" are all very problematic. The repeated references to "our" fleet, "our" processes etc. makes it seem like your edits are purely a copy of promotional material from the company. That is obviously not what we want in an encyclopedia. Remember that as editors of Wikipedia, we are in fact here to build an encyclopedia.

Parts of the history you wrote are great, especially the earlier, more neutral parts. If you can support them with reliable sources, I am certain that they would be good additions to the article. I wish you the best in your future editing. Knuthove (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Knuthove: I agree, did not realize the history page was as biased as it was. It was transcribed over from the official website's history page itself. I will Also be removing the website link as well and attempt to find some aviation books / sites referring to the aircraft and the company itself that were mentioned in the article. I appreciate bringing this to my attention, I learned something new today! Lol. Have a great rest of the day and I will be more thorough with my edits and I appreciate the response. Mercurycorp12 (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

Dear Knuthove,

Appreciate your help maintaining page Messiah in Judaism!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Wa. (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yaakov Wa.: Thank you! Knuthove (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hello, Knuthove. Hope you are well. Please see this report about a case in which you have been involved. You are welcome to take part in the discussion. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological Projection

If You Don't Like Your Contributors You Shouldn't Solicit Them To Join Your User Pages And Make Additions While Deleting Them With No Response About Such Occurrence!

When My Computer Freezes I Try To Restart It And Nut-Job Talks Himself Into Believing That It's Graffiti?!?

Tell Yourself Some More Stories?!?

You Are The Reason Newspapers No Longer Exist?!?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legoines (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are saying here. I haven't deleted anything you wrote with no response. On the contrary, I have responded to you several times to try to get you to discuss your changes on the talk page of the article. If you continue making edits like this [1] and this [2], which clearly have nothing to do with the subject of the article (Sols on Mars), then I'm afraid you might get blocked to prevent you from vandalizing Wikipedia further.

Again, please read the guide for new contributors, especially the part on discussion and consensus, and ask for help at the teahouse if you have any questions.

I'd also advise you to try to be more civil, even if you feel unfairly treated. Your language is also hard to understand. For example, I have no idea what you mean by "When My Computer Freezes I Try To Restart It And Nut-Job Talks Himself Into Believing That It's Graffiti?!?" You might want to try to write in a more standard English, so that people better understand what you want to say. Knuthove (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hokey - Pokey!
On This Blasphemy, "This, Which Clearly Have Nothing To Do With The Subject Of The Article (Sols on Mars)", What Gives?

Why Am I Not Allowed To Discuss 'Centi-Meters' When I Discuss 'Meters', And Why Am I Not Allowed To Discuss 'Centi-Sols', When I Discuss 'Sols'?!?

Why Are You Misinforming Your Users About What A 'Converter' Is And Why Are They Talking Like A Slide-Ruler When Calculators Work Fine?

And, Why Are They Talking About Factorials When These Work Fine?
5^2 / (6^1 × 10^0)
5^2 / (6^2 × 10^1)
5^2 / (6^3 × 10^2)
(6^1 × 10^0) / 5^2
(6^2 × 10^1) / 5^2
(6^3 × 10^2) / 5^2

There Is No Such Conversion For Mars, Your Frame Of Reference, If You Want To Figure Where It Is At Any Given Time, "A Broken Clock Is Right Twice-A-Day"?!?

When We're Driving Around In Jets, You'll Still Beholden To The Square Tire?!? Legoines (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incoherent and unproductive. I fear you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Knuthove (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Noem

Kristy Noem is not from Watertown, She is from a small town close by of Hayti, SD — Preceding unsigned comment added by GARTHFAN79 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GARTHFAN79: On Wikipedia, any information should be verifiable. That means it should be supported by reliable sources that other editors can check. You can't just say Kristi Noem is from Hayti, you need to provide a reliable source that says she is. Now, there is no source for the claim that she was born in Watertown either. However, that is not needed if the main article, Kristi Noem, has sources that support it. The main article does say she was born in Watertown, with a cited source, but if we actually read the source, it doesn't mention either Watertown or Hayti! This is sadly all too often the case on Wikipedia, but the great thing is that anyone can fix it. For instance me. After googling "about" "Kristi Noem", I found two relevant web pages: [3] and [4]. These seem like very reliable sources to me, and they both say she was born in Watertown, SD. While searching, I also found these pages: [5] and [6]. There you can see what I think is the reason for your confusion. Not long after her birth in Watertown, Noem moved to a ranch in Hamlin county, and went to Hamlin High School located in Hayti, SD. I hope you found this enlightening, and I hope you will continue to help improve Wikipedia with well sourced editing in the future! Knuthove (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Knuthove! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What to do about users with promotional or vanity userpages?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, you can create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Knuthove! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What to do about unsourced, promotional, biographical articles?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, you can create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Minor Edits and COI

Dianarossok (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC) Hello. Thankyou for guiding me through. As I am a paid editor, I would obviously want the articles up on Wikipedia but surely keeping in mind that they abide by Wikipedia's policy. I have already disclosed that I'm a paid editor so is there anything else I need to close before proceeding with my edits? And yes, for sure I'll make sure I do show you my draft before proceeding with publishing. Thankyou![reply]

@Dianarossok: The most important thing you can do right now is to read and understand the "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide" which I also linked on your talk page, and read and understand any of the articles it links to that are not immediately clear to you. One of those linked articles is Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which says:

Editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contribution to Wikipedia.

Employer: the person or organization that pays, either directly or through intermediaries, a user to contribute to Wikipedia. This includes cases where the employer has hired the user as an employee, has engaged the user under a freelance contract, is compensating the user without a contract, or is compensating the user through the user's employment by another organization.
Client: the person or organization on whose behalf the edits are made; the client is often the subject of the article.
Affiliation: other connections that might be relevant, including, but not limited to, people or businesses who provide text, images, or other media for the paid edit. If a paid editor is working as a contractor, "affiliation" would include any broker involved in the transaction (e.g. Fiverr, Upwork, etc).
Contribution: any text or file added to, or deleted from, Wikipedia, including talk-page and sandbox contributions, and material added to or deleted from articles by others at the behest of paid editors.
Payment or compensation: includes, but is not limited to, money, goods or services.

For example, if Smith PR pays an editor to work on Wikipedia content about Acme Widgets, then Smith PR is that editor's employer with respect to those contributions, while Acme Widgets is the client. If you have been hired by a public-relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client. Often the employer and client are the same entity. If Acme Widgets pays an editor directly to write about that company, then Acme Widgets is both the employer and client.

It seems to me that AlphaCritique is a PR firm or a broker, so you probably need to disclose your client as well. It is great that you show you are willing to learn and follow the rules, and that you understand that you should not edit Wikipedia directly, but rather make proposals for edits or new articles to other editors. Here is a simple guide on how to make an edit request. If you have more questions, you can probably get a quicker response, and from more experienced editors than me, by asking at the Teahouse. — Knuthove (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dianarossok was blocked as part of the Fatima.Innovative sock farm. Your user page is the only other place AlphaCritique was used—I was searching for that term to see if I could pick up other formerly undetected socks. Thanks for your work counseling the user. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe: Great to see that you are on top of this. I had recently noticed that Dianarossok didn't seem to be following my advice, so thank you for doing that bit of work for me! Just one thought I had: When I look at the sockpuppet investigation, it seems like Dianarossok and the other similar accounts are treated as socks of Fatima.Innovative. But wouldn't it be possible that they are different people who are all employees (freelance or otherwise) of AlphaCritique, and editing similarly because they are editing on behalf of the same customers of AlphaCritique, possibly using their equipment/software? I don't know if it would make any practical difference, but it seemed at least to be a possibility. Knuthove (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The socks were identified by technical characteristics, and many hadn’t yet edited. So at the least, they were co-located if not truly the same person. But I don’t know for sure, as details about how they were connected are confidential. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe: Well I won't fight too hard for the possible benefit of a commercial actor trying to do paid editing on Wikipedia. If they feel unfairly treated, I'm sure they are able to say so themselves. Keep up the great work! Knuthove (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs on nuclear power in the United States

Dear Knufhove, the link I added to the external links section of the Nuclear Power in the United States page was neither advertising nor promotional, as even a cursory review would have made clear. If was my hope that the editor responsible for maintaining the page would have reviewed it and perhaps incorporated elements of the linked article into the "debate" section of the page. I did not feel comfortable making such an edit myself. Perhaps you might consider forwarding your edit to that person. The linked material is quite directly relevant to the page topic. AL20227 (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally does not allow self published writings, such as blogs as sources for articles, unless they are written by people that can be independently verified as subject matter experts. Are you an expert on nuclear power in the United States? Anyway, simply adding a link at the end of the article is the wrong way to go about it, even if it were a reliable source. Starting a topic on the article talk page detailing exactly what should be incorporated into the article from the source would be a much better course of action. — Knuthove (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I perhaps have some standing w/respect to the subject matter (in particular, the public debate over the costs vs benefits of nuclear power in the US), I would hope you would judge the quality and relevance of the material rather than the perceived expertise (or lack thereof) of the author. In any case, thank you for pointing me toward the article's talk page -- I was unaware of this feature of Wikipedia, and it helps a lot. AL20227 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AL20227: I apologize for my tone previously, but I mostly do anti-vandalism work, and a lot of people simply spam their blog or book or social media sites on Wikipedia, so I might have been a bit too brusque and dismissive. Engaging with comments and showing a willingness to learn and follow the process like you do puts you in an entirely different, much more constructive category. Thank you for that. If you want your proposed changes to have the best chance of being accepted by the editors of the Nuclear power in the United States article, you should read up a bit on how Wikipedia works. There are many places to start, but a good one in your case is here: Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. To condense that condensed introduction even further, I would say the most important things to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is based on verifiable information published in reliable sources, not original research, and that the best way to be sure to not achieve your goals on Wikipedia is to try to unilaterally force them through by constantly editing an article, creating alternative accounts and so on. Present your case based on good sources, and keep calm and ask for help if things don't work out right, and I'm sure you will greatly improve the article on Nuclear Power in the United States. — Knuthove (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! --AL20227 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Khdar

I want to ask you what would be enough evidence that he is my father do I have to show you a picture with him or show you my ID card or what? Ikosaheadrom (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not care that he is your father. In fact, that makes you a worse candidate for editing his article, since it means you have a conflict of interest. What Wikipedia wants, is reliable sources published by people with no link to the subject of the article, or the Wikipedia editor. However, just for the date of birth, I think there might be an exception. I would ask a more experienced editor than me at the Teahouse, here: WP:TEAHOUSE. — Knuthove (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like send you a picture of my proof is there anyway I can reach you Ikosaheadrom (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning your revert on the topic of Metrication

Hello, there are a few issues I have concerning your revert. Hope to discuss them with you on the topics discussion page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.74.243 (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Edits I made towards Multitech Business School

Hello , I added that the campus has a branch in Kakiri and Hoima which you put down , could you please give me the reasons for that ? 196.0.84.42 (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@196.0.84.42: Hello. I reverted parts of this edit by IanGish, who I presume is you, because it was unsourced and created deceptive links. One of the core ideals of Wikipedia is verifiability, described on the policy page Wikipedia:Verifiability. This means that ideally, nothing that is not immediately obvious to the reader should be written in an article without a reliable source (which is defined here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources). This edit changed the name of the towns without adding or changing the cited source, or any explanation in the edit summary. You also used piped links in such a way that the links still went to the old cities. Only the name that was shown was changed. This goes against the manual of style on linking.

I see now that the previously cited "sources" are in fact just Google maps routes with no value as sources at all, and from the official website it does indeed seem like the three campuses are in Kampala, Kakiri and Hoima. I apologize for not checking more thoroughly, but it is the responsibility of the editor who wants to add or restore material to show that it is verifiable (see Wikipedia:Burden), so I do not think I was wrong to revert the changes.

I will change the towns back to your edit, and I will source it to the official page. I hope you will keep on helping to improve Wikipedia, with verifiable, neutral information, cited with reliable sources. — Knuthove (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed edit

Hello Kunthove, thanks for sending me a message after removing my edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Doughty to update to Divorced. I understand this was because I did not cite evidence. I have pasted the divorce decree here: https://pasteboard.co/yFAIKD5AUplv.jpg Can you please help how to update the page properly? I have tried to update the IMDb page - which is the source of the marriage record, but I have the same issue here. So a bit of a catch22. Thanks!! Updater6947 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Updater6947 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Updater6947: Thank you for contacting me, and for providing a source. It is great that you have found the divorce documents. Unfortunately, such documents are primary sources, and this document is also expensive and somewhat difficult to access. Regarding that, how did you get access to the document?

You can read about Wikipedia’s stance towards primary, secondary and tertiary sources here, but the short version is that they are only allowed for simple facts, never to be used as a basis for interpretation or synthesis, and generally to be approached with caution. Furthermore, Wikipedia is built on verifiability, which you can read about here. This means that others have to be able to check the sources you cite. This is harder with an offline document you must pay for like this one. None of this makes the "decree absolute" you have an image of inadmissible, but it does make a lot of editors skeptical, and it raises a lot of red flags. I started a discussion about all of this here, and the consensus from the other editors seems to me to be close to "Wait until a good source notices it." Meaning, wait until a respectable news outlet or similar mentions it. I do not feel they presented very good arguements, however, so I would say that say that sourcing just the fact of the marriage and divorce to the case number or similar, not the image of the document, would be acceptable. I will give the discussion on the Teahouse a bit more time to be closed, then post about my proposed changes on the talk page and see what people there have to say. If there are no complaints, then I will add the divorce, with source. — Knuthove (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding and Deleting Edits

I looked and realized that you have the power to block users! I was wondering if you have the ability to hide (delete, if possible) edits. If so, could I hide my edits on napalm and F.R.A.S. Basquyati (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Basquyati: I think you have me confused with someone else. As you can see here I only have extended confirmed rights, while I would need administrator rights to do those things. — Knuthove (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any admins that can help me? Basquyati (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Basquyati: I don’t really know any admins, but from looking around a bit, I found this page, which mentions the "Admin help" template. If that doesn’t provide a solution within a reasonable time, I don’t have any better advice than finding an admin from the list of active administrators and posting on their talk page. Good luck! — Knuthove (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2022 (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) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]