User talk:Njd-de/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, Njd-de, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Fleet

Hi,

I saw your message. The planespotters main page for Emirates shows 115 A380 and 132 B77W, however upon closer inspection, one of the A380s (A6-EDB) is permanently withdrawn from use and retired.

Furthermore, the number of B77W aircraft has come down to 131 due to the recent retirement of A6-EBE.

Planespotters.net has not updated the total fleet numbers as they don't update them until the aircraft has officially been handed over to another operator.

Unfortunately, due to the pandemic, the aircraft are currently sitting in storage of the leasing company, and are no longer in revenue service with Emirates.

I hope I've cleared things up. Murtaza2000 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi Njd-de/Archive 1,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Edits to SSME page

Would appreciate if you could explain your undo action on the SSME page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sknetsurfer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sknetsurfer, please don't add external links to the See also section of the article. If it's a reliable source use it for inline citations, or else you could add it to the Further Reading section. However one might say that this particular article already has a long enough list with relevant further reading material. NJD-DE (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NJD-DE, Posted to Sknetsurfer/talk with pointer to suggested improvements that remove less relevant content from Service science, management and engineering. Spohrer (talk) 15:30:16 Wednesday, September 2, 2020 (UTC)

Harry Elias

pls see Talk:Harry Elias. Jjaey (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Elias

i want to review previous content so I can rewrite. but now I can't see anything. so how to go about!

u should just make a comment at top of page instead of blanking the whole page so that one can review it to do something about it.....

i spent many hours in this. I write & rewrite many times.......... Jjaey (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Forgive me bro Willmarktot (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck

Im sorry Willmarktot (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khanqah masjid

I gave reliable citation DrAshrafShafikashmiri (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may benefit from using RedWarn

Hello, Njd-de! I'm Ed6767, a developer for RedWarn. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to try RedWarn, a new modern and user friendly tool specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over two hundred other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on RedWarn's talk page at WT:RW. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed talk! 12:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuerpedia

Fuerpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) That was WP:LTA/FUERDAI. Please yust report to WP:AIV and meta:SRG, no need to place warnings. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Schmidt: Thanks for the note. Wasn't familiar with this LTA (yet). Schönen Abend! NJD-DE (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northumbrian Language edit

The Northumbrian Language Society was already mentioned on the page discussing Northumbrian Dialect. Our sole object is the preservation and understanding of the origins and evolution of this language. Given that the organisation is already being used on the page to state that the NLS holds to the view, common amongst researchers, that it qualifies as a language rather than a dialect, could you explain how a reference to the site dealing with the subject matter of the page is inappropriate?

(forgive clumsiness in editing/using this facility - I'm new to this ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMuttley (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DerekMuttley: Thanks for reaching out to me. I did not mean to imply that there any issues/concerns with the article or the Northumbrian Language Society. However please note that external links should not be placed in the main body of an article. Links to relevant external websites should be placed under the External links section, where you can already find a link to the website (Northumbrian dialect#External links). The main article is reserved for links to other Wikipedia articles. You can find more on that here: Wikipedia:External links. Something else, even more important though: You wrote Our sole object is - does this mean you are member/employee of or somehow affiliated with the Northumbrian Language Society? NJD-DE (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying - I didn't appreciate the subtle distinction between links in footnotes versus in the GML text of the article.

I am a trustee of the charity, yes. The website has been completely updated and rebuilt, with additional information, which will include some noted scholars lecture notes adding veracity to the discussed issue about 'language vs dialect' As the website address has altered, I'll amend the appropriate footnote - That's all I was intending to do after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.42.201 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@84.92.42.201 and DerekMuttley: OK, makes sense. The reason I asked about your relationship to the Northumbrian Language Society are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on conflicts of interest. If you are already familiar with that guideline, that's great. Otherwise please have a look at it. Updating the link should be fine, but strongly recommend you to not make any bigger changes without discussing it on the article's talk page first. NJD-DE (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is a mistake

I just added a reference which is about the 'ultimate homescreen' guide for iOS 14. please check and add the link back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khojoturner Channel (talk • contribs) 15:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Khojoturner Channel: I removed the "reference" as it does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources criteria, and there is no connection between the link and the phrase it should reference. Thus it can be considered as a spam reference. NJD-DE (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salam

Salam chera pak kardid ? کوروش تربت زاده (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salam کوروش تربت زاده, I am fine thanks! Hope you are doing well too. Please note that this is the English Wikipedia, thus English is the preferred language for editors and readers here. NJD-DE (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear manager, why did you delete the photo of Kourosh Torbat zadeh? Kourosh is the best seller of the company's products and is the symbol of this company کوروش تربت زاده (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

کوروش تربت زاده, the picture has no significant relevance for the article of the company.

If Kourosh is a notable person, then first a Wikipedia article should be created on him.

It appears from your username though, that you are or have an affiliation with him. It is strongly discouraged to write autobiographies or engage in an area with a conflict of interest. NJD-DE (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time Management

I have added a system to the time-management article. It was a link to a system exactly equal to others listed in it. I receive the message that you have removed it. I am not sure why was proposed change removed, the system timewellused is equal system like getting things done and Pomodoro, there are more systems to be added those two are not the only ones. I can't understand the discrimination of not having one system and keeping other links in the article.

How can I dispute this issue, because I think the link was removed unfairly. I suggest more links and systems need to be added, and I was going to help with that as well. (Lbakhia (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

@Lbakhia: I have reverted your edit as it clearly was promotional. You didn't provide any reliable sources, but instead added an external link to the main body of the article. Please familiarize yourself with relevant guidelines and policies of Wikipedia such as WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:DUE and WP:RS. NJD-DE (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was not promotional, I can not understand the promotional side of it. How is getting things done not promotional and the link I added promotionally? There are also other systems that need to be added to the list. I was going to add all of them one by one, and I don't think discouraging me from doing so has any benefit. For me, it seems like someone being subjective and making sure only preferred systems are presented.

List needs these as well: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbakhia (talk • contribs) 10:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Eisenhower Matrix Pareto Analysis Rapid Planning Method 168 hours Eat that frog Inbox Zero Time Boxing Time Well Used[reply]

So can you explain which exact guidelines are violated in my desire to present a fuller picture to the encyclopedia users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbakhia (talk • contribs) 10:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lbakhia: Don't worry, your efforts at enhancing this Wikipedia article are appreciated. I would like to highlight that I don't hold any personal preferences on the different time management methods. However Wikipedia has guidelines and policies on notability, fair representation and neutral point of view. You did not provide any reliable sources for your edit. The strong notability rules that exist for articles in general do not apply on the content itself, your edit raised concerns over Wikipedia:DUE though. Rather than beginning with a rather unknown/not much published about item, start with the most notable ones. Also, it is not appropriate to add external links to the main article. Furthermore it might be a good idea to reach consensus first on the article's talk page on which methods are significant enough to be added. NJD-DE (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G.A. Henty

I have to say I'm really upset by this long winded message, below, from a cipher - NJD-DE ?!? I'm really discouraged now from bothering to update anything on Wikipedia.

How on earth does including a column of dates and naming from whence they came generate your false accusations.

I'm a volunteer member of the Henty Society. I am not paid, I don't expect to be paid, I'm not a paid advocate, I do not have an undisclosed financial stake, I'm clearly not writing an article and I'm not trying to sell anything. I don't think I've missed anything ! YOU ARE MISTAKEN !!!

I have no idea what "COI" means nor do I have a clue as to what a "black hat" practice is !

Frankly I'm disappointed with your message and really upset with your not very nice accusations.

As I wrote, all I did was include a column of publication dates and reference where the information came from.

Be so good as to explain why I was accused.

Roger Childs TheHentySociety (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheHentySociety, let me start with saying that it was not my intention to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. But, Wikipedia has some rather strict policies in place when it comes to editing in conflict of interest areas, as well as if an editor receives an undisclosed contribution for editing on Wikipedia. You mentioned the topic of usernames: Your username gave the impression that you have a relation to the subject of the article, and thus are acting in an area of conflict.

I am sorry, that I might have overstepped here though. It seems like you had good intentions, which is unfortunately rarely the case for users with conflicts of interest. However, I recommend you/ask you for two things: It would be good to request a renaming of your username (e.g. Roger at TheHentySociety). User names that imply representing an organization and shared use by multiple people are not allowed per WP:USERNAME. Also, in case you are planning bigger edits in an area where you might have a conflict of interest, propose your changes on the article talk page first.

Once again: Sorry for the harsh greeting on Wikipedia, please do feel welcome here. NJD-DE (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Njd-de/Archive 1,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed changes saved somewhere?

I got your talk message that my changes to Music Therapy were removed. Are the changes saved somewhere, that I can edit? I added a lot of material, including new sections and some of it correcting small inaccuracies here and there. Most should not violate any policies. I really don't have time to try to remember what I wrote and do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogsgopher (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I figured out how to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogsgopher (talk • contribs) 01:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to Wikipedia's Style Manual. I'm glad to find that they have one. I like to do things correctly. As I have time I will review contributions I have made to Wikipedia for style errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogsgopher (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dogsgopher, great that you figured out where to find the article history. And if I didn't say so earlier, then welcome to Wikipedia.

I had reverted your edit due to issues with the style, yes. Some of the content was in rather weird grey boxes.

If you haven't already, then please also have a look at WPs policies and guidelines on how to cite and how to include information from primary sources (e.g. WP:CITE, WP:NOFULLTEXT). It was another concern I had about your edit that texts had been copied from another source (This section is reprinted from Bright and Grocke’s). NJD-DE (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

I got your message. Thanks. No, it shouldn't be a test. After I published the changes I realized that I had troubles with my new tablet and it didn't turn out the way it should have. I will do better next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tec Tom (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tec Tom, ok got it. Good luck for next time :) NJD-DE (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania 2020 Edit

My edit was neutral. With Ohio and Florida going to the losing candidate, and especially with Ohio since it hasn’t backed a losing candidate since 1960 until now. This edit was to signify the importance of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of their perfect streak, not because of any particular positive or negative feelings towards a candidate/party or because of geographic favoritism. If my edit is less than neutral than the 2020 Presidential Election in Ohio needs to be edited too because I mention the same thing. Apoeticproblem (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apoeticproblem, the wording perfect streak gives a certain ring to it that some would deem not to be neutral. That's why I had reverted your edit. NJD-DE (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect streak has been used on several other pages across Wikipedia, including the page “United States Presidential Elections in Ohio”. My edit should have been reverted, or been changed to “winning streak” instead of being removed of all together. Apoeticproblem (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar mistake, apologies. My response should have been read as “should not have”. Apoeticproblem (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apoeticproblem, you're right I read too quickly and didn't get what you were trying to say. Sorry for the harsh welcome on Wikipedia. Having an edit reverted is something normal here though, especially as part of the commonly done be bold, revert, discuss edit cycle. Apologies again and hope you will still like it here :) NJD-DE (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I’ll stay, it’s honestly fun doing it. Thanks for the information, I didn’t know that was a thing on Wikipedia. To be quite honest, I enjoyed this lil back and forth because I love talking about elections. Thanks for that too. :) Apoeticproblem (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyne Binsack ‎

Hi, I make all this changes in cooperation with Mrs, Binsack here. We will add citation soon. It seems you have no so much insight into the life of Mrs Binsack as she has. So please hold back your deleting. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARE505 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MARE505, it doesn't really matter here who has more insight into her life, as Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Wikipedia is a place where already reported information is summarized in articles. Thus it doesn't work the way that you write something, and then, later on, find some citations for it. Please include the citations right into the article while you're writing it.

Most importantly though, please note that you appear to have an external relationship with Evelyne Binsack. This might unduly influence you and will be seen as a potential conflict of interest. NJD-DE (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I appreciate it and filled in the citations as mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARE505 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everspark

Hello there, I don't know if I'm using the "talk" feature right, but this is in regards to EverSpark Interactive. And in response to your comment. "I completely understand that. That's why I removed everything promotional and left the update to the actual company like the update in ownership/leadership and our recent recognition by a third party. I took out all the "What we offer" stuff. " Skarwisch (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Skarwisch, I have seen your edit summary which included a statement about having removed promotional text. However, your text still was overly promotional and not encyclopedic language. The details about Shazhad's and Watson's work in the company are not really of encyclopedic relevance for example. Also external links are not supposed to be part of the main article. Instead one should make use of reliable sources and citations, so that others can verify it. NJD-DE (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me try to adjust it. Please be patient. Skarwisch (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skarwisch, one question: from your username and a google search it seems as if you are employed by Everspark. Is that correct ? NJD-DE (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how is that? Better? And should I not include the link at all? I'll take it out if need. Yes, I do work for EverSpark, I was asked to update the Wiki page as it was very outdated. Perhaps my promotional tone is bred in me, but I can adjust to fit Wikipedia's rules. Thank you! Skarwisch (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to not include the link.

I totally get it that you want your employer to shine in it's best light, it's just that Wikipedia community deems you to be under a conflict of interest. There are a few things to be aware of in that situation. Trying to fit/comply with the rules is already a good start. I will post a message on your talk page with a short list of relevant guidelines and policies. NJD-DE (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick T Attenborough

Hi, really confused by the comment on Frederick T Attenborough page. One of the issues with the page was that it relied too much on primarcy sources. I've added a secondary source and you're saying it's inappropriate. Could you explain? I'm new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policyoftruth97 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Policyoftruth97, you didn't add a reference by citing a source but instead added the website as an external link. External links in articles are considered inappropriate.

Regarding the point of the article relying too much on primary sources: That doesn't mean you should just add any other source. Wikipedia articles should be referenced with reliable sources. Have a look in WP:RS to know more about what that means. A blog such as lockdown sceptics wouldn't be considered as reliable source for example. NJD-DE (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Could you just clarify what a blog such as lockdown sceptics wouldn't be considered as reliable? Is it the content of the site, or what, exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policyoftruth97 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain factors like editorial oversight that are relevant. That's why blogs not published by newspapers are usually not considered reliable. There are certain exceptions where you can use them as a source on themselves, however, that wouldn't really fix the primary sources issue.. If you wanna learn more about that then have a look at the guideline about reliable sources and the policy on verifiability. NJD-DE (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Republic Brewing Co.

Hello, I am sorry if the content i added to the bear's page was not properly cited or violates a COI. I am new to adding content and what is and isn't acceptable, i am a little confused about what can and cannot be added. I was trying to use the same format i have seen on other breweries pages. Can i get a more specific example of what i should not have added or been doing so that i can not repeat the mistake. I would also like clarification on what was considered promotional material so that i can avoid the misunderstanding as i am new to this. Blkmerlin13 Blkmerlin13 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blkmerlin13, thanks for reaching out to me and welcome on Wikipedia.

The edits on Bear Republic Brewing Company seemed promotional due to the inclusion of company quotes such as "To make beer, you need water, and lots of it. Living in a drought prone area has made us conscious of water scarcity". Also most of the text was not sourced, or not using reliable sources. Furthermore, large parts seemed to be copy-pasted from the company website which is a copyright violation.

Due to the nature of your edits, and after a quick google search of your username, it appears that you have a close connection to the subject of the article. Editors with such a conflict of interest are asked to disclose this and are asked to avoid editing the articles themselves. In such case it is better that one suggests the text additions or changes with sources on the article talk page with the request edit template. NJD-DE (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarifications and moving forward i will use the talk page for suggested edits with the appropriate COI disclaimer and sources. Again thank you for helping. Blkmerlin13 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome anytime. In case you have more questions feel free to reach out to me. Alternatively, you can also visit the teahouse where experienced editors will help you with finding your way around on Wikipedia. NJD-DE (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hazards Forum

Hi, I note that you consider I have a conflict of interest. If I'm unable to update the article which is out of date and incomplete, and no-one else is doing it, then how does it get updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HFChair (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HFChair, I recommend having a look at the conflict of interest guide. I know it's nothing you read in 2 mins but it gives a very good and practical overview of what to do, and what not to do (e.g. ways of disclosing your COI, how to request edits on the article talk page, not using promotional language/mission statements, using reliable sources ..).

I won't promise that someone will have a look at your edit requests on the same day, as there are quite a few of them on various articles. However, fairly soon editors will usually see and act on such edit requests then. NJD-DE (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of White House security breaches

Geol19 my information on white house security breaches was correct and did happen today, so put it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geol19 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geol19, you didn't provide any reliable source backing up that there has been indeed security breaches in the White House. The article you referenced referred to the incident happening in the Capitol. Thus I had reverted your edit. Please only include events in the article if you cite reliable sources that actually match the event. NJD-DE (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well i am new to wiki and do not know how to do such things, but since it is all over the news i would have thought it would be acceptable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geol19 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a reliable source that reports on it, then you can include it most times. However, at least I fail to find any reporting on such an event having happened/happening in the White House. What I find all over media is people being in the Capitol .. NJD-DE (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Watch edit

I’m sorry that was my mistake. Thanks for editing it Tididkdk (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tididkdk, no worries. Just be careful when editing and make use of preview-function/review changes as well as your sandbox. Otherwise, your editing might come across as being disruptive. In case you have any questions feel free to ask me or head over to the teahouse where you can ask your questions. NJD-DE (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Barnett

You were too quick reverting my edits. I was still in the process of fixing it. Rob Napier (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Napier, alright. But I wonder how. Are you intending to create an article on him? Previous additions of his name to the list were removed by an admin and even revdel'd. NJD-DE (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bieniemy

A few days ago user IceFrappe made massive unilateral edits to the page concerning a lot of controversies/incidents like speeding tickets and driving violations from 20 and 30 years ago. I have been in a dispute with them about it, and have been reverting the page to what it was before they made their massive unilateral edits. Log47933 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Log47933, still not a reason to not provide an edit summary. Also if you already are in a content dispute, then let the article rest first and discuss it. NJD-DE (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my earlier edits I explained my rationale for the changes, but I understand your point, I should do that every edit. Discussion has been difficult since the user is trying multiple methods to block/ban me while bypassing the BRD cycle and making a lot of personal attacks. Log47933 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Log47933, I am a bit confused about what's going on here and who might be following which agenda. One might argue that the article in its form doesn't adhere to WP:DUE. But please still discuss with other editors and try to reach a consensus about removing or condensing the controversies section. NJD-DE (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Well spotted - that content had remained in the article for far longer than it should have, some editors had even disambiguated links in it (!). A good thing you took the time to read it, and respond appropriately. Cheers, and Happy New Year! GirthSummit _(blether) 16:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kittrell College

Dr. Stephanie Freeman: I had not addressed what you wrote to me, but I am going to address it now. A media firm wrote information on me (unpaid) because I am very well known for what I do. They wrote the information in a lively manner--a manner that fits my personality. I posted it because I thought this forum was open--as long as the information was credible. I don't need to advertise myself. I am already advertised, so to speak. I will have the firm revise the information and put it in the Wikipedia format with links. From there, I would like to know who gave you the right to remove something from a public platform. Also, why are the person to whom I have to justify what I am doing? I see Wikipedia's guidelines and suggestions (some strong suggestions), but I do not see where people have the right to remove credible information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfreeman44 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sfreeman44, Let me begin by addressing the last point you mentioned because the answer to it might lighten things on Wikipedia generally.

I am not the authority deciding on how a Wikipedia article should be written. I am far from being such an authority. Thus, you don’t have to justify what you are doing to me personally. However, Wikipedia is a community, a community run by volunteers. Everyone here is free to read and to contribute. Not only free to do so, but invited to do so. This invitation comes with a set of policies and content guidelines though. These have been formed over the years by consensus of the community.

To make it clear: Wikipedia is not a platform where you can just do what you want to do. So coming back to your question who gave you the right to remove something from a public platform: it is the community giving everyone this right. If something is not according to policy or seems like it would fail to reach consensus, everyone here can and should address it.

In this editing cycle - often known as "be bold, revert, discuss" - the credibility of information as you mentioned is indeed important. However, it's a key policy here that editors need to ensure that information is verifiable. This can be achieved by quoting reliable sources. It is not enough to edit based on "It is this way because I am saying it". A conflict of interest in the community's view doesn't stop when someone feels like he is already advertised and has no need for it as you'd say. It is the understanding here that someone in a conflict of interest is unduly influenced and will face difficulties adhering to a neutral point of view.

The way Wikipedia works might not be how you expected it to be. You might disagree with some of the policies, or even find them ridiculous. I can't change that for you. What I am doing though, is to encourage you to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works, ask questions and propose your edits on the article talk page. - NJD-DE (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The community of which you speak is diverse. That means some members of the community have different styles and ways of documenting and relaying history and information. Some cultures are more oral than others. One type of community seems to be trying to rule what was intended to be an open format. Yes, information needs to be verifiable. However, the way in which the information is verified and handled is not being representative of a "community." Your information was associated with the removal of my information, which is why you and not the "community" was addressed. This aggressive posturing and acting on behalf of a "community" without reguard or respect for how some communities disseminate information is what I am addressing. It is arrogant at best and rude at worst to assume that the adopted "format" on an open platform should conform to what a some deem "appropriate." Wikipedia has suggestions and strong recommendations, but the validity of information is foremost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfreeman44 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sfreeman44, I am too tired now to have a discussion on whether Wikipedia is keeping up with what it was intended for and whether it serves all communities well. The policy is that information needs to be verifiable and it's gonna stay like that until you start discussing the policy on relevant talk page.

No one here intends to be arrogant, aggressive to you or silence you. But even an open platform has it limits and ruleset as I mentioned before. You will find it very hard here when not accepting that. NJD-DE (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult my intelligence. I, of course, do not think that Wikipedia is a place where people can do whatever they want. It is also not a place that was intended to be some "police state." You are tired. So am I. I am tired of this dictatorial faux ownership of this platform. Yes, the platform is diverse, but the people with whom I am dealing do not seem to be. Guidelines are just that--guidelines. Had we had a conversation before my information was removed, we would not be here. Respect is key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfreeman44 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Moatlhodi Nkwadzile (Jutas)

Stop editing people's information unnecessarily because you are removing information which was legally published by Wikipedia.Take time studying the information of a person you want to edit because if you upload fake information your account may be banned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moatlhodi Nkwadzile (Jutas) (talk • contribs) 06:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moatlhodi Nkwadzile (Jutas), I am not sure what you are referring to exactly. I can not have removed information that was published by Wikipedia as Wikipedia doesn't publish articles. It's users working on articles here. When accusing me of misbehavior please remember WP:AOBF before threatening me with a ban. Thanks. NJD-DE (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KUJU ENTERTAINMENT RELIABLE SOURCE

Hi

My name is Asad Habib. I am the reliable source. An ex employee hired as Head of Quality from 2002 and 2011 with 9 years service. Every single item added wa actual fact with no exhagerration, lies or spin. Every single Kuju employee (300)would verify that as the truth.

Yours sincerely Asad Habib AsadHabibUnitedKingdom (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AsadHabibUnitedKingdom, I was not doubting the factuality but I am sorry to tell you that your own testimony is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Things have to be reported on by reliable sources in order to be able to include them in Wikipedia articles. If you wanna have a look at what that means have a look at this link WP:RS, as well as this one to understand why verifiability is so important here. NJD-DE (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at unlined citations to add them then the case is closed. AsadHabibUnitedKingdom (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing external link

Hi Njd-de, I'm YuriNBZ and I received your message about removing my external link on Foo Fighters page. I also noticed you removed other edits that I made about referring to my website.

Could you please provide more details about this edit revert? My website (chordlines.com) has chords/tabs for musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriNBZ (talk • contribs) 01:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YuriNBZ, I have removed these links as they were unnecessary per the external links guideline. Also the nature of your edits seemed promotional which you just confirmed. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. – NJD-DE (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got your point, but it's not promotional, it has a huge value for musicians who want to play songs and don't know how to. Those links I included explain how to play those songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriNBZ (talk • contribs) 13:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People phenomenon

I have noticed this too, do you have any idea where this started? Ifnord (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ifnord, I learned more about it on the admin noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Broad-based_spam_adding_non-notable_people. Apparently, someone uploaded a video on TikTok suggesting it's a great idea to add your name to your city's Wikipedia article.. NJD-DE (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Thanks for pointing me towards it. Cheers. Ifnord (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies of the United Arab Emirates

Thanks NDJ-DE for the suggestion on The List of Companies in UAE. Would articles from notable sites like Bloomberg work in adding a company to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suri-Himanshu (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Suri-Himanshu, with article we don't mean a news article on Bloomberg, The National, etc. What is meant is that only notable companies that have an own Wikipedia article should be added. However, before creating articles now, please be aware of the rules on notability, conflict of interest and paid editing. Cheers, NJD-DE (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of changes made to Duris Maxwell's wikipedia page ...

Hi,

You'd reverted changes I had done to my father's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duris_Maxwell. I understand why. I understand now I was in a conflict of interest (sorry, never used wikipedia before trying to make the changes). I totally don't understand what I need to do to update it and have the changes stick. Are you able to help? I've gone through the help and got lost.

There isn't an official obituary, but I'm working on that. I'd like my changes reverted. Thoughts?

Thanks for your time.

PS - yes, I know I probably did this wrong too. ;)

Unfortunatebiologicalson (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unfortunatebiologicalson and welcome to Wikipedia. I am sorry to hear about your father's passing.

We have all been new on Wikipedia once so don't worry about making some mistakes. You have already done something right though which is that after noticing your edits were reverted, you tried to understand why.

Wikipedia has certain standards for living or recently deceased people which you can also find here: WP:BLP. Briefly said: content needs to be verifiable with reliable sources. Facebook pages are usually not considered as reliable source.

Unfortunately, I was not able to find any reliable sources in a search and not an expert on what to do now. However, someone else will see your edit request on the article talk page in a bit for sure. Most likely they will request reliable sources as well though to be able to verify your edit request. NJD-DE (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the time and direction. Unfortunatebiologicalson (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome anytime. Ohh and one other thing Unfortunatebiologicalson. Some people might see concerns and question your intentions based on your username. NJD-DE (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see your point - it can be read in two ways, but there was no ill intent - meant it more along the lines that it's unfortunate that he passed, and I am his biological son. He had a smartass sense of humour, so would have laughed. The edits, however, had nothing malicions and were purely factural and to update things around his passing. Excellent point thought. Once I get some help (and an obit link from the funeral home), I may set up a less potentially controversial username. :) 174.91.150.100 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, now I see that there is a second meaning to it. Rather than setting up a new account in that case, you could also ask for renaming your account: Wikipedia:Changing username. Of course, you can also keep your existing name. NJD-DE (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silver mining

Hello dear Njd-de Sources from Persian Wikipedia page added There is also a specialized article on silver mining on the noghra site. https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%86_%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraniiiiiii (talk • contribs) 13:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iraniiiiiii, I have reverted your edits again as you added a promotional link to commercial website noghra.com which is not a reliable source. Also, the other reference fails verification as it's a dead URL and doesn't seem to be archived in a web-archive. NJD-DE (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This site translates to Persian and examines silver mines in Iran— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraniiiiiii (talk • contribs) 13:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC) According to available resources— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraniiiiiii (talk • contribs) 13:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which website are you referring to, Iraniiiiiii? The one you added under further reading is a webshop and doesn't fulfill requirements of a reliable source per WP:RS. NJD-DE (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is this site? https://eco.shafaqna.com/FA/258686/%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B2-%D9%86%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%87-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88-%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraniiiiiii (talk • contribs) 14:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iraniiiiiii, I can't find anything about their editorial oversight, and their source seems to be the webshop منبع: نقرا ( noghra.com ). So not a reliable source. Try to find something about it in one of the reliable sources listed here: WP:RSPSRC.

Just in case you would like promote this shop: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion – NJD-DE (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

about Jorkhali Page

	what resaons revert my info
	hi Md.Aftab Uddin Toufiq (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Md.Aftab Uddin Toufiq, you can see my reasons in the edit summary [1] and for your convenience here: unsourced history, affiliation with Islamic Arabic University fails verification, unnecessary external links. In case of specific questions, feel free to ask me again. NJD-DE (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

about Jorkhali Page

	Brother Please See my page identity here i use reference then dlt my page
	Brother Please See my page identity here i use reference then dlt my page its and institute page .i am astonished for ur works ,, i request plz chk my references then approved my page thanks brother Hannanwiki457 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hannanwiki457, I am not sure whether you intended to post this message with an award. Next time a normal message will suffice too. In regards to your request I recommend you to have a look at the deletion discussion that took place previously. The result was delete due to lack of notability of the school and the impression that the article was created for promotional reasons. NJD-DE (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, at least tell why my edit is being removed every time.

Hello this info that is being added is legitimate. All the crew of this production will confirm this. If there is anything i am not providing you can tell me. I think last time i also included a link. thanks! Afroyorkers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afroyorkers (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afroyorkers, have a look in the page history. I explained my reason for reverting in the edit summary: Not providing a reliable source, and left you a message on your talkpage also explaining that you will need to provide a reliable source. Isento reverted your second addition as well, and his reasons in the edit summary were similar: avoid sources like retailers (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE). - NJD-DE (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the musician isn't listed in the official credits, which Jaxsta purports to represent. And no other (purportedly) reliable source lists that musician, whose only credit at Jaxsta is called "other". isento (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thankyou so much for the information Spacer16 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help you Spacer16. If you need more advice feel free to ask me, or you can also ask at the teahouse where you will be welcomed by other experienced users. Happy editing, NJD-DE (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SWISS Name change

Good day. I understand the misinformation that people have regarding the airline SWISS. The company’s Name is spelled in capital letters. This is seen on the official website of Swiss International Air Lines. Nowhere is the name Swiss to be seen. Swiss can be a Swiss person or the adjective Swiss. This should not be confused with the airline SWISS. As you said the companies KLM and UBS are indeed written in capital letters, so is also the airline SWISS. It would be weird to see Klm or Ubs. It’s simply not right. Please check the facts on swiss.com for clarification. I’m not doing this for fun, I’m correcting the false name that is seen on Wikipedia. Please do not reverse the changes as the old format is completely false. Thank you WillXG (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WillXG, please have a look at what I wrote on your talk page and then have a look again at the manual of style. KLM and UBS are written in all caps due to being abbreviations. Swiss however is not. NJD-DE (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte seien Sie professionell..

Bitte bleib professionell und recherchier endlich mal. Ich habe Ihnen den Link zur Webseite mitgeteilt und Sie verhalten sich so, als wüssten Sie besser.. Geh bitte den Fakten nah und schau dass nicht so Unfug auf Wikipedia steht! Es geht hier nicht um den manuel of style! Sei nicht faul und recherchieren Sie bitte! WillXG (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WillXG, no need to call me lazy or unprofessional. I am well aware that their branding is SWISS. No need to even look at their website. Their marketing department's decision is not a valid argument though.

Three editors - including me - have reverted your edits as they deviate from the manual style. I have mentioned it before: you can discuss the MOS on its talk page or deviating from it on the article's talk page. Disruptively changing Swiss to SWISS won't get you far, you should establish consensus first.

As this is the English Wikipedia and out of courtesy to other users, please discuss matters in English. Thanks. NJD-DE (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Known Wikipedia Vandal

This user has a history of vandalizing people's Wikipedia's pages. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.73.147.139 (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, I fail to see where I have been vandalising Wikipedia pages. If you don't agree with my edits on Citrix Technology Professional then communicate with me. But don't call me a vandal for removing promotional content that doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. NJD-DE (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About my Add up In ALICIA (album)

Hello Njd-de,you've remove my Add up on Alicia(album ) more than a coupe times claiming you can't trust the info or the source of the info I added . to this email, I am attaching a YouTube link provided by RCA record(RCA record is the official Record company for this work).You can see the name I was adding on there . I don't know why it says other contributor . Perhaps someone didn't know how to spell steel drum or steel pan. I am just trying to help here. Let me know if this would work for you or if you still don't trust The RCA source, In which case this would be the last communication regarding this issue. Thanks! Below is the YouTube link and the credits as provided by RCA Records: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkEaoGnHb9Q&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR36XyS6Vta2E1G14_8OuzIc6BOdkshOpYXN0AGjnDDnJOpeSohPdOBWogE

℗ 2019 RCA Records, a division of Sony Music Entertainment

Released on: 2020-12-18

Background Vocal, Bass, Programmer, Composer, Lyricist, Engineer, Producer: Johnny McDaid Acoustic Guitar, Background Vocal, Composer, Lyricist: Ed Sheeran Composer, Lyricist: Foy Vance Programmer, Composer, Lyricist: Jonny Coffer Composer, Lyricist: Amy Wadge Programmer: Jukebox Programmer: Emile Haynie Drums: Ash Soan Drums, Programmer: Steven Wolf Electric Guitar, Assistant Engineer: Will Reynolds Other: Azouhouni Adou Engineer: Ann Mincieli Engineer: Graham Archer Assistant Engineer, Mixing Engineer: Brendan Morawski Mixing Engineer: Manny Marroquin Engineer: Chris Galland Assistant Engineer: Scott Desmarais Assistant Engineer: Jeremie Inhaber Mastering Engineer: Dave Kutch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9400:33CB:89C9:E548:DA31:75A (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, it's not just been me but also fellow editor Isento who removed the name. Look few sections up and see why we removed the edits: here. In my eyes would still not suffice as a reliable source, certainly wouldn't suffice for credit as a steeldrummer.

May I ask what you mean by this would be the last communication regarding this issue? Cheers, NJD-DE (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work

Wow, I see that several people have been giving you a hard time when you have been working hard to improve Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Deb (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Deb!! It feels good to hear your positive words and nice to get to know someone who is actually here to build an encyclopedia. A rare occasion for me to say this phrase without the "not" 😅. NJD-DE (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Dawson

Hello, I appreciate your edits. However, I think in this case my sources were reliable, and well cited. Could you please revert the article back to where it was after my edits? If not, could you please be specific as to what part of my contributions you found conflicting? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inmanaima (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inmanaima, you can find your edits still in the edit history of the article. I won't revert the article back as only promotional references had been added. Also, the external links wouldn't be good references because they are links to the publishing companies' websites. Please have a look at WP:RS. – NJD-DE (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Jjjjjj89

neden kaldırıyorsunuz ?--Jjjjjj89 (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjjjjj89, sorry I am unable to speak Turkish. Please communicate in English on the English Wikipedia.

From Google translate I understand that you are wondering why I removed your edits. Please have a look again in the history of your user talk page (Special:Diff/1006717843). I have explained there already why I removed it. NJD-DE (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pray why did you delete tv page --Jjjjjj89 (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what you are referring to. I removed the entries you added to the Pray TV article as they were linking to the Turkish Wikipedia. Linking to another Wikipedia can be acceptable and helpful, but in this case the context was completely lacking and the notability is questionable. Thus I reverted your edits with the remark that you could consider creating English Wikipedia articles. NJD-DE (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you can choose to edit instead of remove --Jjjjjj89 (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjjjjj89, it's getting disruptive now. Please have a look at MOS:DABNOLINK. NJD-DE (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I case you missed it

This link may be useful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why you remove my edits

My all edits have news source lapvihs (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shivpal Singh Badal, I have advised you before about relevant policies, and when reverting I indicate the reasons in the edit summary. However, instead of adhering to the guidelines, and not using Wikipedia for promotion, it appears that you logged out and continued making the same promotional edits again. Please familiarise yourself with the conflict of interest guideline. Thanks! NJD-DE (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Lemchastain

Dear Njd-de, Do you see this? If so, do I just write in this elaborate page, and expect you will see it? The bot _is_ accusative, and the words were written at some point by a person; not "you _may_ have vandalized..."

 It will be a while before I can re-edit that edit, but will take out citations of Geisecke books; only leaving my own published article  -- but no ISBN.

Good evening, Lem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemchastain (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lemchastain, yes I can see your message here. I had reverted your edit as it contained your personal comments and I didn't see any inline citations.

You can find your edit again in the page history: [2].

As DS suggested, it might be a good idea to have a look at the beginners tutorial. It seems you are planning to make edits based on your own published articles. Therefore, I also recommend you to read the conflict of interest guideline, especially the section about citing yourself. If you have more questions, you can also always ask them at the so called teahouse. I am sure you will get used to how things work here soon, and I hope you will like it here. – NJD-DE (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I properly cite the articles outlining Mammoet accidents.

Mammoet

You keep deleting my revisions on Mammoet and I am including media sources for each statement. We should be able to list the accidents when reported in newspapers at least. These are facts about Mammoet and I just want to document them correctly. Is the issue the type of newspaper? Small town Canadian papers are not ok? Do I need to change the wording to things like Mammoet was involved in an accident? I was just stating dates and locations to stay factual.

How do I document this accident last week? https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/ministry-issues-requirements-regarding-fatal-accident

Any suggestions appreciated ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Injuredworker (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Injuredworker, thanks for reaching out to me. Based on your edits and your username, I feel like you have made some personal, unpleasant experiences with Mammoet. I can understand that this might therefore be an important topic for you and you feel like it should be reflected in the article. However, on Wikipedia only things that have been reported on by reliable sources should be included in articles, while following the concept of due weight. If only from time to time an accident concerning Mammoet cranes is being reported by reliable sources, then this is not noteworthy for an encyclopedia. NJD-DE (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hello, I did include citations; I will go through and make more edits; I am currently doing more research on the topic to include in the entry.

Thank you for your comment and contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatoumatou (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fatoumatou, I had a look again at your edit and could only see one external link, but no inline-citations. Please have a look at WP:ILC to see how citations work in Wikipedia. If you have any questions regarding that, you can also ask questions at the teahouse. Happy editing, NJD-DE (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Nwachukwu Ndili

Hi, I noticed that you deleted changes I made to Professor Ndili's page. I made all those changes with direct communication with prof Frank Ndili and with his full permission. I am his personal biographer and you should not have deleted my changes. we will add references soon. You do not have insight into his life and cannot presume to delete the truth and allow falsehoods to be published. Please restore the changes immediately. That wa a lot of work that you erased without verifying from who was making the changes or asking for permission. Thank you.

Editor 20022 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editor 20022, I am sorry to tell you but this is not the way Wikipedia works. Only verifiable, with reliable sources referenced information should be added to articles. Even though the article is about a person doesn't mean that the person owns this article (WP:OWN). I didn't have to ask for any permission and I will not restore unsourced information.

Before continuing to edit please read the policies WP:COI and WP:PAID, and follow the appropriate steps to disclose the conflict of interest and paid editing. NJD-DE (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]