User talk:No1lakersfan/2019/July

Archives

Add line to Unbanked article

Hello, I didn't intend to delete any content, I just wanted to add this line "* No access to government ID required to open a bank account" to reasons why someone could be unbanked. Can you add this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:41D0:604:1CB:0:0:0:0 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to try the edit again. Just try and be really careful to not delete any other content from the page when doing so. Otherwise, let me know where in the article the line should be added. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 22:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have problems with formatting. If possible, please could you add it under:

Causes

Some reasons a person might not have a bank account include:

Lack of access via a nearby bank branch or mobile phone
Minimum balance fees
Distrust of the banking system
No access to government-issued ID, which is required to open a bank account

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:41D0:604:1CB:0:0:0:0 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:41D0:604:1CB:0:0:0:0: This edit has been made. Sorry for the issues earlier. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 23:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to September 24 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the content guideline and the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: Thanks for letting me know. I assumed that since it was noted on the page for the person added that it was sourced properly. Otherwise I would have rejected the edit. I will be more careful in the future about these kinds of things. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 23:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

maybe tone down your vandalism bot a bit

hey sorry to bother you but over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_July_5#PassivDom we were discussing the promotionality of an article and considering deleting it. i know you might not know how AFD works but we do quite a bit of that over there. anyway i was taking the promotionality out of the article to make it an article we could keep and your bot dog accused me of vandalism and undid the edit. we're supposed to try to fix the articles to keep them in the encyclopedia, so please undo your edit. thank you Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeluvr613: At this time I am going to leave the article as it is. The notice for deletion asks that the article should not be blanked. What you did is nearly the equivalent of that. If other editors think that your edit was good, I will go ahead and undo my edit.

I do understand how AfD works, I have nominated a few articles there myself recently. I will post a comment detailing what I said here on the AfD discussion page, and see what comes of that. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 00:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nah too late, now everyone will think i'm working with powerful admins to mess with articles. it's doomed. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeluvr613: I'm sorry if I caused any issues. Had you been more specific with your edit summary stating you were trying to improve the article to try and make it worth keeping, your change may not have been reverted. Just saying "fixed it" can be perceived as vandalism. Just a helpful hint for the future. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 00:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pasadena High School (Pasadena, Texas), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New contributor seeking guidance re AFD

Hello! I found you from your comments to another user who has voted for deletion of a page that I have contributed to. I'm a very new contributor/editor, trying to learn the ropes. I will investigate all the links that you offered to this other user. I found your approach friendly and inviting so am reaching out. Someone called Velella who appears to be a well-established editor has commented on my edits and I have responded. If I understand correctly how this works, you can view those comments so I won't repeat them here. I've read the guidelines about notability, BLP, etc. and while I appreciate and respect those who are seeking to keep wiki pages "legit" I'm a little bewildered by the comments about COI and particularly the expressed opinion that the subject of the page in question is not notable. I realize I'm being general here and not citing specifics, but I can get into specifics if you're able/inclined to respond. Thank you for your time. Teresa.Huk (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Teresa.Huk: I am not sure where the COI issues are, as I have not been able to spot them myself. However, users that are closely associated with the article’s subject are not supposed to directly edit it. The concern is that they cannot maintain a neutral point of view which is required by all articles on Wikipedia. Generally this can be found by looking at the edit history for usernames that have some relation to the subject or statements on the user pages of a user that has edited the article.

Notability can be a tricky subject to verify. There have to be good, third-party sources that discuss the subject in detail and explain the significance of the subject. I cannot speak to the deletion discussion in question but these are things to keep in mind. If you have any further comments about a specific deletion discussion you may wish to ask them in that deletion discussion. You can do so by leaving a comment stating you are asking a question. —Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 12:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A message from 2601:14B:302:A137:4938:7DCB:47:5DA9

What do you mean joke?

WIKIPEDIA IS A JOKE

Wikipedia is a fraud, fake news, the original lie of the internet.

How can you talk about adding jokes to something that is a joke?

2601:14B:302:A137:4938:7DCB:47:5DA9 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:14B:302:A137:4938:7DCB:47:5DA9: Edits like the ones you made make the encyclopedia completely unreliable. If you wish to continue doing that you will be blocked from editing. I highly recommend you refrain from further editing unless you have something constructive to add. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 20:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Nicholson article

Hi there - just wanted to reach out as I saw you've reverted some edits to this article. The subject has asked that her personal information be removed, as well as asking if the page itself may be deleted (I created an AfD for it), due to previous issues with a stalker. I'm not a super experienced wiki'er and normally just do minor grammar/spelling/etc. edits, so wanted to reach out and clarify what was up. Thank you! Trickycrayon (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trickycrayon, I see what you have done, however I want you to know that Wikipedia has policies about this kind of thing. While personal information is not allowed to be posted, we cannot just bow to the demands of every subject wanting to be represented in a given way. Policies such as Biographies of Living Persons and Neutral point of view outline what we can and cannot do in relation to articles about living persons. If the subject feels they are in immediate danger, they need to contact Wikipedia with their concerns.

Also, if you are related in any way to the subject, there are also concerns about Conflict of Interest. Please read about that as well and try to refrain from future edits to pages to which you may have conflict of interests. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 22:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am just a person who saw the subject mention being concerned about the amount of personal information that was revealed in the article, and am in no way related to them. I understand that there are policies; however, I think it's problematic to leave the page up as all of the personal information can easily be found in previous edits, hence the AfD request. I will pass on the contact page so that they're aware of what they can do. Trickycrayon (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TrickycrayonThanks for doing that. It is best if the person(s) involved with the subject contact Wikipedia to address the concerns instead of having regular users address it. Otherwise dangerous precedents can be set about how things like this are handled which could undermine the credibility of Wikipedia. I do not feel the entire article should be deleted if the subject is notable. However, protections against the display of personal information should be in place to prevent any further issues. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 22:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image vandal

I have also noticed the image vandal which affects two of my watchlist pages - I have tagged the "naughty" image for deletion since (thankfully) no other articles are using this photo. The uploader (which is a different user) has been notified of that as well by me since that image is five days old. But yes, thanks for removing that unrelated photo. Iggy (Swan) 17:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iggy the Swan, I was debating about tagging the image for deletion myself, however didn’t because I know there is a policy against censorship on Wikipedia. The image is truly obscene though and I am glad you took action since it is an orphaned image. Hopefully we can get that out of here, as it doesn’t belong if it doesn’t serve a purpose. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 20:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked Commons on the progress and the result was kept and the tag has been removed from the file page. They think the photo is "own work" by the uploader and the brief issue was not a reason to delete from Commons. Iggy (Swan) 06:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolution Museum at Yorktown moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, American Revolution Museum at Yorktown, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am James Aaron Sinclair owner of the Island

Hello I think there is something wrong I have tended to Sinclair Island nature preserve for 21 years. In the last 3-4 years I've had trusts and individuals trying to claim my Island there is a website google have made me for free and the local council and wildlife officials are now working with me to rectify all of this mess thanks very much for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.73.205 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much I can do for you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not something that advertises for individuals. All we do is present articles that have a neutral point of view about notable subjects.

If you could explain a little better what your problem is with this site I might be able to assist you better. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 20:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]