^Jones, Jonathan (29 August 2012). "The fake photographs that predate Photoshop". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 August 2016. In a 1949 portrait, the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin is seen as a young man with Lenin. Stalin and Lenin were close friends, judging from this photograph. But it is doctored, of course. Two portraits have been sutured to sentimentalise Stalin's life and closeness to Lenin.
Your second reference is unsubstantiated claim in the article, not providing any evidence whatsoever. The reference to a book is of no value either because we have seen so many books treating this subject to the contrary. Proof of a fake character of the photo can be provided by referring to Russian state archives, which I have at hand. Please have a look: https://yroslav1985.livejournal.com/154352.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user 14:17, 20 June 2019
Livejournals are probably not a reliable source, but Russian state archives are. Please go to them and provide your evidence that the photo does not exist, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bv36 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that you are trying to re-write the Soviet history. I said that you are effectively re-writing it by claiming that the photo of Lenin and Stalin is fake. It is not true. The photo is not fake. It does exist in Russian archives. I agree that there was a lot of "fake" stuff in there but not the fact that Stalin visited Lenin at the time of the illness of the latter, and that occasionally lenin's relatives were taking photos. There is nothing wrong with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bv36 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL 1) I didn't say that you are trying to re-write the Soviet history. I said that you are effectively re-writing it by claiming that the photo of Lenin and Stalin is fake. It is not true. The photo is not fake. It does exist in Russian archives. I agree that there was a lot of "fake" stuff in there but not the fact that Stalin visited Lenin at the time of the illness of the latter, and that occasionally lenin's relatives were taking photos. There is nothing wrong with this. 2) the second link I sent you is affectively comparing real photos with "photoshopped" ones: some people deleted, for instance. This link shows that there was manipulation of photos. True. There was. So what I was trying to say is that 1) manipulation did indeed exist. This is absolutely true. But 2) not in regard to Stalin visiting Lenin during the illness of the latter. Am I a bit clearer now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bv36 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bv36: Sorry, but it includes the contentious image in it and says it's a fake as well. From the link: "From the mid-1930s, a huge propaganda machine worked on the exaltation of Stalin's personality. The photo in the upper left corner of "Lenin and Stalin in Gorki" (1922) is a fake. It was created to show the working people the close friendship of Stalin with Lenin, when Ulyanov’s health deteriorated, and it was time to choose a successor. Workers believed." I'm sorry I am not understanding you. This is what it says? –MJL‐Talk‐☖14:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: this issue has been discussed in Russian internet all over and eventually it was proven that the photo does exist. What I was trying to say is that "photoshopping" existed. Period. But to say that the photo of Lenin and Stalin is fake, is like saying that Stalin is fake, or maybe even Lenin is fake, or maybe be even both are fake. Why say uncompromisingly that the photo is fake?? If you continue on insisting that it is fake, why not write allegedly fake? Why not give it a benefit of a doubt?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bv36 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL I would prefer to leave you in peace. Believe in whatever lie you want to believe in. It is no longer relevant anyway. You can even write now that the Soviet Union was fake.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bv36 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL This is where the truth lies: doctored in the sense that the face ogf Stalin was reworked, but not the fact of the photo. The photo is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bv36 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bv36: According to the Met, yes you are partially correct (Lenin's face was doctored as well apparently). However, that still mean the photo is not 100% accurate. Right? So we're both right here is my logic. The photo was altered and reworked. –MJL‐Talk‐☖16:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL What I aws concerned with, is when we say "doctored", readers immediately think that the whole photo is fake, which is not true at all. It would be fantastic if you could think how to phrase it so as not to create an illusion that the whole fact of their meeting is fake. Have a nice one anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bv36 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pish posh, you've been registered for more than 2 years. WP:SERVICE: Service awards are...based on two specific benchmarks: the number of contributions that the editor has made to Wikipedia and the length of time registered.WanderingWanda (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fineeeeeeeeeeeeee, I'm eligible for it, but I can't accept the service award. I've already had enough Day-1 users thinking I'm an admin. Something that says veteran editor would send mix messages. –MJL‐Talk‐☖02:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some might say they never mean anything. 😉 neither the number of edits nor the length of time from when an account was created is a good indicator of the quality of an editor's contributions or diplomatic ability. – Wikipedia:SERVICEWanderingWanda (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry that left you feeling stressed but the response to that report was entirely predictable. I don’t see why you felt the need to drag Eric to AE for such a minor violation. You’ve previously been advised to refrain from wannabe admin type activity and focus on content creation and I really think that’s advice you should follow. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree: While I appreciate the sympathy on your part, I would be remiss as to not make it clear that my warning was for admin-y type activities and not wannabe admin type activities. The distinction should be made clear as I was being warned for my (1) unnecessary clerking, (2) offering unsolicited advice to established editors, and (3) making light of serious requests for me to slow down because I don't always know what I'm doing. Were I to follow your recommendation to the letter, I'd be unable to participate in XFD discussions nor submit WP:AIV reports. However, I am not obtuse enough as to be incognizant of your intimation this is not an issue with my anti-vandal work but instead my participating in Wikidrama. To that I am unable to retort because it is abundantly clear that our community prioritizes whether a person is perceived as uncontroversial more so than their ability to try to learn from their mistakes. Even if I was wrong on that count, I still have been advised to stay away from certain discussions until I am better equipped to properly handle them. Further, I have no intention of staying out of contentious discussions; so long as (1) I balance the needs of this community to be free of disruption with my own admitted self-righteousness and desire to make this a more friendly place, and (2) there is something I feel I am able to uniquely contribute that will productively add to the discussion or help strengthen our policies on conduct (ie. when I'm properly equipped to handle it). This still being the case; if I am warned by Swarm or another familiar administrator that I am stepping back into old habits, I of course will re-evaluate and change course. Your feedback is appreciated, welcomed, and will be taken to heart moving forward. –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take much of the stuff that happens over here seriously; at the end of day, this is a website. Nothing more, nothing less. And, don't drag longstanding editors to any sanction-board for borderline violations; they emit far heat and ill-feelings than light. I consider you to be one of the sane folks over here and here's to meeting you in the mainspace! ∯WBGconverse20:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WBG: I can't tell if me being considered one of the more sane editors is a compliment to me or a knock on the community. Thank you for kind words anyways lol –MJL‐Talk‐☖02:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your recent review of my first from-scratch page and belated welcome to reddit. Do not be discouraged! Maybe take a few days for yourself and away from the internet Starsandfrost (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for being the reviewer of this article.
This is my second rejection for this article. The first was for the given reason that the article was about 'a run of the mill local organisation'. So, I added more material, which I think demonstrates that was not the case, and resubmitted it then with twenty-two references. Now, it has been rejected again based on the sourcing not being verifiable.
This is not the first article I have written for Wikipedia, but it is my first second rejection.
I am comparing the Caloola Club Draft with some other articles (The Bush Club, Sydney Bush Walkers Club) on similar topics, which have made it past draft, and I really don't understand what more I need to do. Although I did not intend to expand this article, beyond what is there now, I am willing to do more work, if needed. I would really appreciate some guidance. For example, is it because the 22 references in the article are not verifiable - most are on-line - or are more citations needed? Are there some particular examples that you can give me? Note that I do want to meet Wikipedia's standards, and I don't want to argue about this second rejection; I am accepting that there is a valid reason for this second rejection. Also, take it as a given that I have read the link on reliable sourcing. I am just unsure of what is necessary to move the article forward, without some concrete examples of where I am astray.
Thanks.
TrimmerinWiki— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrimmerinWiki (talk • contribs) 02:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TrimmerinWiki: Thank you for reaching out to me! Denying this draft was a tough call for me in all honesty. The primary reason I denied the article was it had an unclear method for citing its sources. If the article was to make clear which of its citations are general reference then it would be easy for me to pass. Your offline sources are fine on their own, but that only the case when they are being properly utilized. The simple addition of those general reference is all I need because you otherwise did a great job on the article! Sorry for not offering an explanation up initially. Cheers, –MJL‐Talk‐☖02:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do sincerely hope that you don't feel like I am picking on you or treated the article too harshly. I just understood you to be a great content writer and capable of rising to this occasion! :D –MJL‐Talk‐☖02:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MJL. I have added your account to the NPR user group , because I think you'll use it and enjoy the challenge of something more interesting than chasing vandals, and it would help with our massive backlog. It's time limited for 3 months and if you like doing it you can ask me for an extension. This user group allows 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 encylopedia. 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 right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, 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, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: Oh gosh this flowchart. The flowchart to end all flowcharts. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ Not particularly sure I am ready for this user right after only a few days of working on WP:AFC. I appreciate the time limit to it though to give me a chance to try it out. Thank you, –MJL‐Talk‐☖15:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry too much about the flowchart. My original one is the simpler one above it. The complicated one was designed by someone who likes designing flow charts for people who like flow charts. All you really need to do is read the rambling tutorial I wrote, watch the Curation videos, and then consign the most important deletion policies and notability criteria to memory. The rest is common sense. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could make this raw data into a table [1]? It's a little tricky because the individual discussions are sub categories of the talk pages. If so, then thank you so much. If not (I have no idea how much work it is - wouldn't it be cool, or just plain 21st century, if Wikipedia had a built in spreadsheet rather than those clumsy tables) then thank you so much anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more citations from online news papers. Also you can check the movies that is already major article in Wiki. Like Second ShowKootharaTheevandi. Referring above materials request to review submission.
Thank you so much! I needed two things on here, reach one thousand edit which I reached today and a gift, thanks! and a third thing, be dare and add info to my user page. But my question is since I don't understand English very well, is it because of Kiwi chat? :):):):) --LLcentury (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: *ouch* (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ btw sorry about not using undo for that removal. If I had known it was the most recent addition, I would've. –MJL‐Talk‐☖22:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
😂 My TP & archives are heavily weighted with emoticons - it causes my laptop to tip to one side - so I'm just as guilty. I created that particular template for an admin, and added it to the list so others can use it instead of (talk page stalker). AtsmeTalk📧22:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that was the extent of my worries on WP but if you feel enterprising...¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (sidebar: I think the page could probably use a name change). I don't remember how I stumbled upon it. But would it not have been unprecedented if we had gotten into an edit war over an emoticon? Hillarious! AtsmeTalk📧23:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
What is the proper procedure to help my friend Sushant here? Would they have to send an email WP:OTRS? I can't see the page, so I don't know how much of the article in question is even copyvio. Cheers, –MJL‐Talk‐☖16:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Done Notified user in edit summary –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Atsme Talk 📧 23:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Self-trout. My apologies there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
