Saving welcome links.

Hello, Schazjmd! 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 me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi Schazjmd! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:01, Wednesday, November 14, 2018 (UTC)

you can keep em. --2003:F4:1BC9:5101:E95C:C4AC:D9A1:6D4B (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your words of wisdom, I am relatively new to the editing scene and appreciate your comments. I was just trying to update my friends page ( I went to the same school as Ben) as per his request but now realise I need a source. Once again, thanks for your contributions, you're doing our whole community the world a good! Dobbo02 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Small Business Saturday. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've since had to full-protect Small Business Saturday after others carried on the edit war anyway. As this means the reason for the block is no longer valid, I have unblocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ira Leviton (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Hi. Thanks for your cookie and your help in making Wikipedia better for everybody. And on to letter "E"!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding ((subst:GivePie)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Very useful and well judged comment that served to underline an alternative course of action when myself and the other user appeared locked in a head to head disagreement.

Mrspaceowl (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What did you watching movie Swgso (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Swgso: What movie? Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Schazjmd, thanks for your edit to German Lorraine. You definitely found a typo! However, the word was "juridical" not "judicial". The distinction is fine, but the former means " relating to the law" whereas the latter means "involving a law court". I've changed it to the former. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bermicourt: Thanks for catching my error, I appreciate it! Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm glad to see you contributing new articles, including Dockton Hotel, about places listed on the U.S. NRHP. You're doing a great job, with this one and the Wurdemann House one you mentioned at my Talk page! I noticed these new articles because they happen to link to an article or two that I created, I guess, so they show up in my notices stream. Not that I check or comment about everything there, but I was happy to see a new author name showing up. :)

Hey, you seem to be doing very well in these, and you may have already used advice at wp:NRHPHELP, but please do feel free to use that resource and perhaps add to it. You'd be very welcome if you'd like to join Wikiproject NRHP, wp:NRHP, and whether you do that or not you are free to comment, ask questions, participate at its Talk page wt:NRHP. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup here. I was called away and rushed the completion of that edit. My bad. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Black Diamond Coal Mining Company.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

A well-written and interesting article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Cwmhiraeth)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Schazjmd! Would you mind taking a look at Larissa Shmailo and opining on whether or not I'm ready to remove the maintenance tag? I really appreciate your help! Call me SLAG. 17:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SLAG: I'll take a look at it after work tonight and get back to you. Schazjmd (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much! There's still stuff I want to do--I want to hunt down a couple of more refs. At the end of the month, I'll be attending a conference where she'll be speaking, and I'll try to get a picture. But I've copy-edited and cleaned it up, at any rate! Call me SLAG. 17:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SLAG: The article is so much better now, great job! I removed the template. (I also moved the bibliography section, see what you think.) Good luck on the picture, that would be a great addition! Schazjmd (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes sense to me! Thanks again! Call me Slag. 21:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am notifying you that I have removed the PROD that you placed at Alaska 1741-1953 per WP:NBOOK. MarkZusab (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for adding those reviews, MarkZusab, I didn't find those when I searched, only the Tompkins one. I appreciate you adding the others. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's nice to know I'm doing something right.

And thanks for the heads-up.

Hi,

Kindly intervene on the page of 2019 Delhi Temple attack. As some users are removing genuine sources by citing that they’re propaganda websites and hate websites and all. The onesided picture is created being here. Hereby, I’m requesting you to interfere and kindly look at the edits from other users, undoing aggressive edits.

Thanks! —Harshil169 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Harshil169, the place for discussion of the article is on the Talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Schazjmd. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoa, using WP:Huggle with rollback permission is like driving a souped-up sports car when you've only ever driven an old clunker that's stuck in first gear. Daunting and intimidating! Schazjmd (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I accidentally undid you on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Meters (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a look at the history for Segway and noticed that all of the "regulation of use by country" content had been moved to Personal transporter. Take a look at the Europe section, seems like your segway-forbidden image might belong there. Schazjmd (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your search and your advice :-) However I am feeling the Segway article is not really impartial/neutral/objective/unbiased... Friendly, --Oliver H (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Greetings
	Thanks for your help ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And for yours as well, Mitchellhobbs! Happy editing Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

historic mansions

Thank you for quality articles about mansions in the U.S. such as Harry Vanderbilt Wurdemann House, Covenant Beach Bible Camp and Erick Gustave Sanders Mansion, for The Fresco, for reverting vandalism and "fixed highlighed typo", for RfA support and celebrating Amexit Day, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2257 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	…. LonerXL (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assistance needed Help me regarding the conflict of page Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019. This is just a bill and we cant make wikipedia pages for every bill passed. This is a topic to know i understand but it should be merged with Kashmir conflict. THANKS. Edward Zigma (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your recent message, enjoy this cupcake :) 21 Lilac Street (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Schazjmd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't have multiple accounts. I have a housemate who uses my desktop computer to edit Wikipedia because she finds it easier than using her phone. I haven't made any improper or disruptive edits or been involved in any disputes with other editors, and she assures me that she hasn't either. We both gnome on random articles, but do our writing on different topics. We've not participated in any of the same discussions or AFDs, etc., that I'm aware of. If either of us have made any edits that you felt were suspicious, we'd appreciate knowing what they are so we can avoid such conduct in the future. (I'm doing my unblock request first because I'm more invested in editing on Wikipedia than she is.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accept reason:

I've unblocked you per the discussion below about your housemate.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Your explanation is plausible, but you have to declare the relationship between you and your housemate. To do so, you need to use ((User shared IP address)) on both userpages. If you and she agree to do that, I will unblock you both. But you have to be careful to avoid participating in the same discussions anywhere on Wikipedia without also declaring the relationship at the time you do it (other users will not necessarily know to look at your userpages). I need agreement from you editing with this account and from your housemate editing with hers.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll be glad to do that. And we'll continue to avoid participating in any discussions that the other is involved in. But apparently one of us did something incorrectly to bring this about, what was it? Schazjmd (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't usually answer questions like yours, but I'll make an exception. It was the UrbanToreador account that attracted my attention because she tagged an article for speedy deletion that I reviewed. It wasn't even a new article but one that had been created in 2016 but neglected. It's highly unusual for a two-month-old account to tag articles. Then I looked at the rest of her edits, and they also showed a very strong knowledge of Wikipedia for a supposed inexperienced user. Honestly, although I'm willing to accept your explanation that you are not socks, I find it puzzling that her understanding of Wikipedia is so deep. Before I unblock you, I'd like at least for her to explain this on her Talk page, but your thoughts are also welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bbb23, ah, that's probably because I helped her get started. She was curious about all the time I was putting in and decided to try Wikipedia for herself. So I showed her how to get around and gave her a bunch of links to read, and I walked her through how I go about writing new articles when she wanted to try one (Lucy Walker (writer). I'm not ready for NPP yet, but I printed out the NPP flowchart and posted it next to my computer for reference, she said when she found that old one sentence article, she went through the chart and it came up A7. (Handing off the computer now) Schazjmd (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good explanation - entertaining too (the last bit).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, thanks for explaining. I try to be conscientious about the actions I take on the site, and was concerned that I'd done something wrong without even knowing. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've unblocked you. Thanks for your cooperation.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	my oops
	Thanks for cleaning up when I accidentally created a user subpage in mainspace. Pelagic (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the fine article about the Black Diamond Coal Mining Company. I am reluctant to make edits to your great work. Can you contact me to discuss a few inaccuracies? Bxcrqngw (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we even sure that TyMega isn't an automated bot? I've heard that a person can set up Wiki-en accounts as a botfarm, Do a number of edits live, and then leave the bot to support those edits or make small edits elsewhere. Its a perfect sock for a user - one that has been active all the while. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jack Sebastian, I don't think so, the edits aren't uniform enough or have a similar enough pattern, although I supposed it's possible. I encountered that editor earlier today when they removed a large number of dubious refs from an article. After I left a question on their talk page, I started looking through it and found a long history of refusing to answer questions, refusing to use edit summary, and "earning" multiple escalating blocks. I also watch Filion's page (I'm a Firefly/Dr Horrible fan) so when I saw on my watchlist that you'd pinged Ty on the article's talk page, I wanted to let you know it was probably a futile attempt.

Regarding "best known for", I'd let it go. There are so many more important edits to spend your energy on. Schazjmd (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, if we can discourage the little bits of OR, we can maybe inhibit the larger bits of OR. Help a brother out? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My number Adityabelnekar (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adityabelnekar, you should not post personal information such as your number. I've posted some links to your talk page to help you get started with your article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Schazjmd, can you remove the image below please? I uploaded the wrong photo by accident.

Schazjmd, I know I already stated this on my talk page, but it was sincerely not my intent to disrupt the consensus on the page there. Just to give you an window into my thought process, I noticed a change on the page to infantry-type force, and changed it as such to integral infantry corps, to emphasize, what I felt was the overarching intent of the consensus. I actually want to thank you for bringing it to my attention that you feel that this did not convey the intent of the consensus, and as such have reverted it to the direct and original wording, as reached in the talk page.

I hope that this demonstrates my desire to work within the intent of the consensus that we worked so hard to reach, and that we can continue to collaborate and work together. Garuda28 (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Garuda28, you earned my respect with your willingness to discuss and compromise in the July discussion, and I overreacted when I saw infantry-related changes being made again. I look forward to continuing to work with you. Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Schazjmd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "I am your lord and saviour". The reason given for I am your lord and saviour's block is: "Sock puppetry".

• Blocking administrator: ‪Laser brain‬ (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Your autoblock has been cleared. PhilKnight (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	my oops
	Thanks for cleaning up when I accidentally created a user subpage in mainspace. It looks like another article got created there which will need deletion. I'm using the draft page creation button now. Is there a way to delete self made articles when that happens in the future? Thanks again! RBMcIntosh (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to help, RBMcIntosh. The redirect that was left in place is already tagged for deletion to clean things up. Any time you accidentally create an article in the wrong place, just move it to the correct title. When you move an article to a new title, it leaves a redirect to the new title on the original article. If you don't want that redirect (for instance, you don't want a draft: to mainspace redirect, or a mainspace to user: redirect), just use speedy delete for redirects. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What did I do incorrectly on the They Reach sandbox page? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jack, you created the article User Jack Sebastian/They Reach. To have a subpage in your userspace, you need to use User:Jack Sebastian (note the colon). No big deal, happens a lot, I just moved it to the correct space. Schazjmd (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't upset that you did it, I just wanted to know how to not make the same mistake again. Thanks for fixing it. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much! Hi, you recently made a useful change to my newly created article by Aaron Leupp. If you have time, please vote to save this article on the discussion page. Serhii Harbaruk 18 October 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Serhii Harbaruk, it is not appropriate to request editors to vote a certain way. See WP:CANVAS to learn more about it and why you should never do it.

That said, I have not weighed in on the Aaron Leupp article yet as I don't have time today to research him myself. However, just looking at the published article, the citations in the article do not support him meeting general notability guidelines. Ads, press releases, brief mentions, and content written by the article subject are not independent, significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (The Forbes and Huff Post articles are by contributors, not equivalent to content written by staff journalists.) You really need better sources to convince other editors that Leupp is notable. Schazjmd (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, I only asked you among the editors because I thought it was appropriate and did not violate the rules. Sorry. Okay, I'll take your opinion into account and think about how to fix the problems you've identified on the page within the time allowed for discussion of the page. Serhii Harbaruk 18 October 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serhii Harbaruk, of course you wouldn't know about the rules against canvassing, that's why I told you. I wouldn't want you to get in trouble. The discussion on deletion runs for 1 week. Schazjmd (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page The Walkers (Gospel Music)/sandbox has been deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. As the page met any of these strictly-defined criteria, it was deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been deleted are:

• It seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://thewalkersonline.com/. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review GermanJoe (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

adding a note just for my own memory: The Walkers (Gospel Music) created the page The Walkers (Gospel Music)/sandbox in mainspace. I saw it in the new pages feed and moved it to User:The Walkers (Gospel Music)/sandbox, then tagged the resulting redirect for R2. While I was writing up a message for the editor's talk page to explain, GermanJoe deleted the associated pages.

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help me Adityabelnekar (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adityabelnekar, what help do you need? Schazjmd (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've been creating some articles about NRHP listings in Idaho, sort of trying to push the last counties over the 30% threshold in wp:NRHPPROGRESSID and doing scattered others. I find it necessary to create Art Troutner and Nisbet & Paradice articles about architects active in Idaho and adjacent states, both still in very rough form. The latter have works in many historic districts. Payette Lakes Club seems like a relatively important topic, also rough. You're welcome to help in those, and I'd like you to know about them anyhow as you occasionally are creating other NRHP articles in the area, right? (Or am i mixing u up with another editor more in Idaho? If so, sorry.) cheers, --Doncram (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Doncram, my NRHP articles have all been Washington state and San Joaquin County in California, so you might be thinking of another editor, but I might take a peek at them when I get a chance. Schazjmd (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Schazjmd,

Thanks for your welcoming message! I opened a discussion for deleting the Ecobranding article that strongly seems to be written for promotional purpose by an advertising agency. You can find more information on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ecobranding page, on the Talk:Ecobranding page or on the talk page of the author of the article User_talk:Robert_Petit. Would you know more about the process and if I respect the guidelines for asking the deletion of an article? Raoul Anodin (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raoul Anodin, I read your nomination to delete Ecobranding, it seems like you've done a thorough investigation. Your explanation of what you found will be helpful to other editors who weigh in on the nomination. I think there might be a few problems with the format of the AFD nomination, however there are experienced editors who watch the nominations and will help fix that. You can learn more at WP:Deletion process.
It is unusual for one of the first edits by a brand new editor to be an AFD nomination. There will probably be some suspicion as to your motives and whether you have any connection to the article subject or one of its competitors. If you have any connection to anyone connected to Ecobranding or its competitors, it's best to reveal that upfront. Schazjmd (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I am a heavy Wikipedia reader and I contributed sparsely other the years mainly on the French Wikipedia, without creating an account and only small updates like adding sources or trying to make some sentences clearer. I am somehow related as I am a graphic designer from Paris and am also involved in environmental activism, but my field of activity does not have any relation with Ecobranding as I only work with artists and small nonprofit organization, only two of them being in France (an open-source “biology-hackerspace” lab and a nonprofit art space). Should any of this be mentioned on my user page? To be honest I had never stumbled across such example of self-promotion on Wikipedia before, and several of my friend also noticed the Wikipedia page after Royalties-Ecobranding got into mainstream media as they released the 2024 Olympics' logo, so I thought I should start a discussion about this page. Before any edit on Wikipedia, I informed Royalties-Ecobranding in what way I thought their page did not respect Wikipedia’s guidelines and asked them to justify the encyclopedic value of the article on its talk page or I would propose the page for deletion. Raoul Anodin (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raoul Anodin, I just brought it up so you can be prepared should any editors question it. I don't think you need to put anything on your user page about it. I pinged the experts at AFD and they fixed up the format of the nomination page, and also added it to the day's log of AFD nominations so other editors will also find it. The AFD process generally takes 7 days, during which interested editors will add their opinions to the nominations. At the end of the process, an uninvolved editor will consider all of the viewpoints and identify whether there is consensus to delete the article. During this time, editors can continue to improve the article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this edit to Glenn Morshower. You wrote that in the movie By Dawn's Early Light, Morshower played the role of an "F-18 pilot". To support your edit you used this source, but I cannot find the part stating that Morshower played this role. I must have missed it, so I'd appreciate your help. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Magnolia677, I just used the table that Solar Dragon created and looked for cast sources; feel free to remove the specific role if it isn't supported. Schazjmd (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The table added by that editor was completely unsourced, and was removed by User:John from Idegon and myself. If you are going to add the exact same table back, but only source part of it, then it remains unsourced content. With regard to the addition mentioned above, it was the only source I checked, and it was not supported. Are you asking me to check every source you added, and remove all the incorrect ones? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I have checked two of your sources--the one which added "Lt. Leifitz"--and it also was not supported. Would you consider moving the table to your sandbox until it is properly sourced? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Magnolia677, fixed by removing role column. I'd already removed films from the table completely that I didn't find a good source for. Schazjmd (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you declined a pending change at PAW Patrol. What do you mean when you said "not accepting as it's qualitative"? 107.77.230.50 (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean that the edit was adding a subjective description ("clumsy but competent", I believe was the wording). If you look at the other character descriptions, they're all objective statements. Hope that helps, and sorry that my edit summary wasn't clearer. Schazjmd (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if you ever saw the series. But those who did will certainly not doubt the description. 107.77.230.50 (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe you that it's accurate, but the article hasn't included descriptions like that for any other character. Schazjmd (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because the other characters don't have such descriptions, that doesn't mean we shouldn't add something to someone's. If the description is something typical of a character, then it's probably worth including. 107.77.231.218 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should start a discussion on Talk:Paw Patrol to see what other interested editors think of the idea. Schazjmd (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your feedback on my correction and provided details in Future History. Nice to know that this is appreciated!  :-) Jens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.46.78.154 (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the offtopic rant from the military stress card article again. It is about military stress cards. Maybe they can start another article about average recruit quality in the US army. Can you implement the rest of the fixes please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.55.8.18 (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also I created the page "kool kidz klub" because I thought its another name for the KKK

		The Red Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to Schazjmd for writing the Canadian biography Anne Emery during the third year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi schazjmd,

thank u for your advice. I appreciate it very much. I will update the external link as you suggested accordingly.

best regards, Dazhong Dazhong Gao (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More disagreements to be had over at TSLAQ. Would like your takes on recent edits, thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi!Hello1 I'm new here any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.ChanelNarwal2006 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Mr.ChanelNarwal2006, welcome to Wikipedia! My first tip would be to try the Wikipedia Adventure (there's also a link to it in the welcome message I put on your Talk page). It's a very helpful guided learning experience to introduce you to editing. Then, if you're looking for ways to get involved, check out the WP:Community portal and see all the suggestions in the Help out section. Have fun! Schazjmd (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So question what are somethings you like? Just for ideas.

                  Mr.ChanelNarwal2006 (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Mr.ChanelNarwal2006Reply[reply]

When I started editing, I spent a lot of time fixing misspellings for [Typo Team]. Schazjmd (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting Because I can't spell!

Tank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.ChanelNarwal2006 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to thank you too for your assistance and guidance with referencing to verifiable sources for my first Wikipedia EN contribution (small change) Pelajanela (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pelajanela, glad to have been of help, and I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia for a long time. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, in fact I have been interacting with Cassiopeia all morning and they rejected these saying that - Female beaty/fashion magazines are not good sources and they would subject to challenge - their words. So I came up with more sources, and the 2 they approved are Gulf News - https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/saudi/saudia-offers-pilot-training-scholarships-to-women-1.2097443; and https://www.arabianaerospace.aero/captains-fantastic.html. So one of these I have incorporated, the 2nd one am yet to, will do so now. Harper's Bazaar and Saudi Gazette even i felt would be good because both are reputed, but then when Cassiopeia expressed doubts I started looking around further. Then the GACA source I took permission and shifted it under External Links. Thanks for all the help, truly appreciate, and sincere apologies for troubling like this, just that identifying sources is a truly maze-like experience. Regards & best wishes, Tycheana (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tycheana, sorry I couldn't be of more help, but I don't have the expertise with new article review that Cassiopeia has and I would have to defer to their judgement. I admire your tenacity throughout this; writing a brand new article is not easy and can be quite frustrating, but it's a great learning experience. I wish you the best of luck with Draft:Yasmeen Al Maimani and happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Schazjmd, you have been a big help when you warded off that bully yesterday, and am grateful. The good thing is the subject has a lot on her name on the Internet, its just a matter of figuring out what would work here, and yes, it is definitely a great learning experience. The only reason am pushing this is because I get to figure out how sources are determined. Either you win, or you learn, is my way of looking at things. Thanks & regards, wish you all the best too, Tycheana (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Schazjmd, many thanks, would not have happened without so many of you taking an interest and encouraging me. To show my appreciation for protecting me from the bully the other day, I would like to gift you a barnstar -

		Anti-Wikibullying Barnstar
		Thank you for protecting me from the bully, truly appreciate

regards, Tycheana (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to bother you, you made mention of “Prev del” meaning it was once speedy deleted & prev AFD meaning it was deleted through the AFD process. What if it was prod deleted? Would it indicate that also? Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Celestina007, good question! I haven't seen one yet so I'm not sure. Looking at the script code, I expect a prod would be included in the same deletion log as a speedy. If you encounter one, let me know if that's a good guess. Schazjmd (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schazjmd would definitely do so! Cheers it’s a Friday night !!Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any advice what must I do I once requested the administrator right but I was rejected and they didn't give reason why they rejected WIKIZILE (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WIKIZILE, generally you must spend years making useful edits to the encyclopedia and building up a solid record of good contributions and collegial collaboration with other editors, and some editors look specifically at how many articles one has created and whether the nominee has worked on WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles. They look at your participation record in article for deletion discussions. They look at efforts to combat vandalism. And so on...

I don't know why you want the administrator tools, but there are no shortcuts to earning the community's trust in order to be given them. Schazjmd (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there,

It looks like IP hopper 185.209.162.141 and 185.130.105.66 is doing more damage on Armenian Genocide denial now. Similar kind of editing tactics to the edit you just reverted on Armenian Genocide recognition. Thoughts? Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Archives908. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My pleasure, the user is unrelenting in his views, doesn't seem to take any advice (I personally warned him 4 times) and is definitely pushing an agenda from both the IP addresses listed above. My gut says he isn't done either. Do you think this warrants reporting to an administrator? Archives908 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archives908, I'm keeping an eye on both articles. The topic area is under discretionary sanctions but that's not of much use against an IP hopper. If they try again, I'll request protection for Armenian Genocide denial. Schazjmd (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, much appreciated! I shall do the same too. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi my friend, looks like the IP Vandal is at it again. Unfortunately, I've already reverted one of his disruptive edits on Armenian Genocide denial and cannot undo his additions again. Would you be able to assist? Many thanks! Archives908 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archives908, Jingiby got it this time, I'll revert if it happens again today. I've left a message on the IP's talk, though I've no idea if they'll pay any attention to it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I've warned the user myself well over 4 times. However, the user doesn't seem to be listening to either of our advice. See the edit history on Armenian Genocide recognition and you'll notice how unrelenting he is to push his agenda. Archives908 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archives908, it should be calmer now that both articles are protected. Any edits by an IP editor will go to Special:PendingChanges for review. Btw, although this editor is definitely a POV warrior trying to right great wrongs, I don't think their edits meet the Wikipedia definition of WP:Vandalism. It's more of a content dispute, involving disruptive and tendentious editing but not vandalism. Thanks for keeping an eye on those articles! Schazjmd (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the input! Archives908 (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archives908, one more thing I should mention: take a look at WP:THREAD for tips on indenting your comments in Talk discussions. It hasn't been a problem here with just the two of us talking, but some editors can get quite irate when comments in Talk page discussions don't follow the guideline and I'd hate for you to get criticized for it. Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I learned something new! Many thanks for the heads up! Archives908 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Armenian Genocide (by Ottoman Empire, Kurds^[1][2])
  

• Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction (by Armenia, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russian Empire, Austrian Empire)
  
• Khojaly Genocide (by Armenia, Republic of Artsakh, Soviet Union)
  

• Algerian Genocide (by France)
  
• Indo-Chinese Genocide (by France)
  
• Senegal Genocide (by France)
  
• Kongo Genocide (by Belgium)
  
• Libyan Genocide (by Kingdom of Italy)
  
• Ethiyopian Genocide (by Kingdom of Italy)
  
• Bengali Genocide (by British Empire)
  
• Indonesian Genocide (by Kingdom of Netherlands)
  
• Sámi Genocide (by Kingdom of Sweden)
  
• Srebrenica Genocide (by Netherlands supporting Serbia governed Yugoslavia against Muslim minority)
  
• Native American Genocide (by United States of America, British Empire, France)
  
• South American Genocide (by Spain and Portugal)
  
• Indo-Chinese Genocide (by France)
  
• Palestinian Genocide (by Israel)
  
• Aboriginal Genocide (by Australia, New Zealand)
  

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.130.105.66 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

As well as these genocides don't be informed via Wikipedia, it will never be activated again in Turkey as it's blocked. There won't be any possibility for Turkey's focusing on this subject, I heard that Wikipedia copes with economical problems, sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.130.105.66 (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see your talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey haven't talked in a while. I've been busy. Hope your holidays were fun((I don't know your religion and I didn't want to be rude)) And I hope you have a great new year! Keep talking to me!!! Mr.ChanelNarwal2006 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Mr.ChanelNarwal2006Reply[reply]

Hi, I am new to this site and probably do not know what I'm doing. You recently reverted one of my edits on the Businesses page due to "no sources" when in fact I had 4 or 5 sources. Not sure what I did wrong here, just looking for some clarity. Thanks, Bullen2020 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bullen2020, thanks for asking! The page you edited has a form of protection on it, so when new edits are made to it, a reviewer has to approve or revert it. If you look at the history of edits on that article, you can see that I accepted your edit, because you did include sources with your article request. The next edit on that page didn't include sources, so I reverted that edit. If you look at that page, your article request is there. You did nothing wrong. Schazjmd (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you the response! Your empathy and help is refreshing. I'm working on getting a page written on my family's business :) Bullen2020 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Housekeeping note: my first response to you began with one colon, to indent my reply. I've added 2 colons to your reply, and now three on this one. This is how conversations stay readable on wikipedia, by indenting each reply by one additional colon than the previous comment.) Back to the conversation...Bullen2020, requesting the article on WP:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies/A-E is the right way to go about it, so good job there. You might still get some value from reading the Wikipedia guideline on conflict of interest. Also, in the welcome links that I put on your Talk page is a link to The Wikipedia Adventure. If you're interested in editing on wikipedia, it's a great guided-learning exercise. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Schazjmd. I've noticed the good work you've been doing on the days of the year pages. Please consider officially joining the project by listing yourself in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Members. Either way, we really appreciate your help. Toddst1 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your acceptance of my edit :-) 85.193.247.94 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your acceptance of my edit :-) 85.193.247.94 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get more satisfaction from finding a pending edit that can be accepted than one I have to revert, so thank you in return! Schazjmd (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Mr. Schazjmd,

I see that a certain Overzwotan, who is one of three responsible for offensive actions taken on my biographical page on english Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preda_Mih%C4%83ilescu (compare with its normal state, as it appears for instance on German Wikipedia, and at least half a dozen further languages), asked you some questions -- so I came to find your talk page too. I am happy to see that you are senior, with military experience -- this being encouraging premises for finally finding a seriousity which I missed badly in the last week or so, while trying to get the trio Atlantic306, Skirts89 and Overzwotan to repair a damage they have brought and left around for more than one year now. As you will see, none of the three has any tangency with my domain -- yet they dared bring down a page which has been functioning for 15 years like the german counter part that I showed you, and write the offending suspicion for "self-promotion" on the talk page. The page was created by serious mathematicians, they inserted of course two books in the literature, which were all it takes for this smart three to verify and find out that there is no "self-promotion". But they didn't make any slightest verification, instead they left the page in a damaged state, so that obviously every second person looking for my biography, would also try to find out what is wrong, discovering on the talk

Now obviously, every second mathematician discovering the smart dialogue "This article seems to be a self-promotional article especially as it has little external sources and he claims a theorem is called by his name. No proof that I've found. Thoughts? Skirts89 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the article does pass notability guidelines (see WP:ACADEMIC) but might need some COI cleanup. The source I would like to see is proof that Catalan's Conjecture is actually called Mihăilescu's theorem. Do we have an accessible copy of this book? Overzwotan (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)".

So an amateur of skirts and a novice to Wikipedia and studies, want to know better than professional mathematicians, and spread their offenses irresponsibly, in public: the phrase "self-promotion" means in academic clear-text "self-praising with achievements which are not true", it is a degree 1.0 accusation in the academic world! Yet they find no way to make a search in the internet, case in which they would have found multiple references to "Mihailescu's theorem", using minimal googling skills. Now I do believe that the googling skills of these young people are better than mine! Yet I could find within minutes some references. So there is no way to see anything else but bad intentions in this story, they did not even intend to clarify the issue, they left it hanging and went on.

Things got worse when I informed Mr. Overzwotan that in Wiki, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tijdeman%27s_theorem, there is a reference to "Mihailescu's theorem", so he should have solved his problem in the very Wikipedia. I really believed this should be enough for him to take some correcting actions. No, what he did instead you can find out in the history of the same page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tijdeman%27s_theorem&action=history, by reverting the action he took yesterday at 23:05, minutes after my message. He simply removed the reference to "Mihailescu's Theorem". In a page about mathematics, of which he has obviously no minimal understanding of, just like that, he decided on his own account that the reference had nothing to do there. To hide his error, why else?! How can such a thing be acceptable?

It is more than a week since a good friend pointed out to me that there was something wrong with my biography on Wiki, and it makes me look ridiculous to people who visit it. My first click went automatically to the german site, which is intact, so I almost believed in a false alarm! Until I saw the english damaged site. My oh my, it is true -- my reaction is the same, when I see a Wiki page with phony signs on top of it, then I definitely grab the message that there is close to naught confindence in it, and skip. If in addition, I am more interested in the topic, then I go to the talk page, to understand what is wrong. I guess I am not an exception, and can only bitterly laugh imagining serious people reading some anonymous "volontairs' " remarks on the suspicions they have. I mean, a biography -- most of all, of a living person -- should be treated with a certain concern and seriosity, respect for the living person and for the professionals who produced the biography to start with. With the conscience that every comments left behind are two sided weapons, insults on one side, and commitments on the other. The commitment to investigage and clear up was not respected, the suspicion hangs around since more than one year, and as Overzwotan proved, they did not even do a google search to clarify their problem. What remains is the offense.

Mr. Schatzjmd, I think I do not need to explain to a military senior, the kind of effect it makes to one, when seing the irresponsibilty with which the dignity of a person and the institution he serves is treated by some anonimous players. I was really angry yesterday, when in addition to all the damage they have done, instead of taking a minimal responsibilty, correcting the error and appologizing, they believed to be in a position to hide behind who knows what rules of Wiki -- which of course would in no way cover up the kind of offense they brought.

This simply cannot be tollerated -- I offered them two days to bring everything in order. But at their quotient of youthful arrogance divided by responsibility (tending to 0), I fear, they really do not understand the seriousness of their action, neither am I willing to spend more time explaining what happens more often. Therefore I do count on you, as a senior and apparently Wiki experienced person, to make them understand inambiguously that they made a severe error, and should act fast and correctly. I thank you in advance, and if anything of the context is not sufficiently clear from the pointers, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely

PMPredaMi (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PredaMi, you have been leaving walls of text on multiple user talk pages, most of them filled with accusations and outrage. This is not an effective approach. Please stop making accusations. Please use the article Talk page, and clearly state the specific changes that you think should be made to the article.

I've read your various posts and have no idea what changes you want in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schazjmd Sir, your are the first to ask also a constructive question, so there is progress! The answer is simple:

1. There are examples how the normal state of the page looks like, in other languages. This is how it used to be in English too. I want it back the way it was -- two or three years ago, I do not know when they transformed it into a garage place, but I want it back without the phony header, suggesting something is wrong with it. And complete. Fair enough?

2. Meanwhile, Overzwotan was so efficient as to do inadequate and incompetent changes on the Tijedeman theorem page -- revert that too.

3. The way this action took place yesterday, I have more reason to suspect that they are out for an action against me, than they had any reason to suspect whatever "issues" about the biography; they could not make a case of such reasonable concern. So I would like you, Sir, as an authority person, to ask them to think well, if they have done other action against me in the process, and revert them. (I mean: I would not have thought someone would remove a reference to my theorem, on a foreign page, I discovered the deed by coincidence, when trying to offer a link to Mr. Hockett. Well, maybe they have done more intrusions of the kind: ask them, please!

4. In real life when a facility of service (and a public biography is in a way such a facility) was unduely long out of order, someone appologizes to the public. I want them to compose a short and clear sentence, appologizing for the inconvenience of having made the page uncomfortable for too long a period. And put that somewhere in the biography page at a visible, yet discrete place, and let it there for six months!

If they have any problems or doubts, they can contact me. But let them be real, I want to see a determination to remove the problem, no hiding behing words. Period.

So much for bringing things back in order. There is more: I do wish that this bad experience becomes a lesson on Wikipedia, and provisions are taken so that it does not repeat. It should become obvious that incompetent manipulation of biographies (at least) of living persons be totally forbidden, and disruption of the functionality of such biographies, on unverified grounds be punished in some appropriate way. It is not in order to act irresponsibly, and being a volunteer is not an excuse. Given that Wiki seems to almost intentionally hide its personnel (which to me simply means: whoever enjoys more editing priorities than the common mortal!) and it is impossible to approach any decision level -- less you invest more time than you can -- I address this wish to you personally, in the hope that you will know to whom to bring it, so that it is taken serious.

Finally I wish to have a short answer from you, to the following question:

Q. Imagine: You are some ranked officer who has brought effective services to your country and army, maybe even the world... And the community rewarded this with a recognizing biography, written by experts who know your activity and achievements. It stayed around for almost 20 years. You do not watch it, until one day a friend tells you: Your biography has been put on "multiple issues" since more than one year, some chap wonders if you have "notability problems" an other one asks if you have "self-promotion" intentions and fakes, and nobody seems to do more, than just ask silly questions and let the page in a dismanteled condition. He tells you that he found it offensive and other people you know, laugh -- you verify, and the people who did that, go and make changes also in other Wiki pages which prove them wrong. This is the situation. Please tell me sir, what would you do? In sincerety! After asking yourself how you would feel and react in this situation, you may talk about the walls, huts or skyscrapers that I wrote. Only then, when you identified yourself a bit with my situation. I do look forward to an answer, I should have something to learn. Thank you.

PMPredaMi (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PredaMi, please make your specific edit requests on Talk:Preda Mihăilescu without all of the accusations and complaints. Every editor on Wikipedia, including you, is a volunteer. When editors fail to comply with the policies, they are blocked or banned. For example, the editor who made a number of edits on the Preda Mihăilescu article in 2018 was blocked indefinitely some time ago.

We are not going to revert an article to a state that it was in several years old simply on your demand. In your edit requests, just state clearly what changes should be made and why (the sources). If other editors agree, the changes will be made.

Assuming that you are, in fact, Preda Mihăilescu, I can understand that changes made to an article about you are upsetting. Schazjmd (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schazjmd , Sir. Why do you say "We are not going to revert an article to a state that it was in several years old simply on your demand." Can you give me any reason to refuse the normal action? You raise inacceptable conditions, and then I must spend time to explain you in short why they are not acceptable. Frankly, not fair! It takes less time to write long, than short, and they made me waste much time! But I try this time to be short, yet exhaustive, for you!

A. The normal procedure should have been: once someone was identified with trolling on a page, and was banned, the obvious action is to revert the page to the condition before the first edit of that banned person. Simple as that! Why did it not happen?! The problem that we face now, began actually with the fact that this normal action was not taken. It is not my thing to know how the page looked then: I am the man it talks about, not the author!

B. Please do shake a little bit the three guys who have written on the wall of the destroyed page, what they found to be multiple issues. In my opinion, you are too tollerant, while I see there a major problem! What tells you that at least one of them is not a friend of the banned guy! He could not boycott my page directly, but does it indirectly, by bringing it in a state of unusability! A possible hypothesis, it needs to look into! Any way, we need to find out some rationale, why they acted so wrong?! This is the first priority. You tell me: what normal volunteer, who sees that the same person has pages in seven languages (you would check this first, before deciding something is "an issue", wouldn't you?), and who knows about himself to be as far from mathematics, as I am from the Air Force fights, still decides to take an important decision, and declare the page to have issues!? Why so incissive? Did they defend Wikipedia, or did they try to discredit Mihailescu in an other way? The first alternative is not realistic: if they really believed there are "issues", they would have worked harder, they would have checked, and would have consulted with the other languages -- I do know that this is done. But they did nothing -- just post some doubts and leave the page hanging, during 18 months. If this is not slightly suspect, I wonder what is! Theyn they simply name some issues -- which they could easily verify, yet they do not. This is not suspicious either, to you, Sir? To me it is very suspicious, and I would dearly see these issues clarified before we proceed to the next step. As an officer, you can understand why: unless we understand why the acted so, we will see the problem reproduced.

I hope you understand it is not about my willing to complete the work. But it is mainly about point B: I want that clarified! Believe me, I have no personal feelings in the game, if a proper investigation shows that it was just a chain of errors, and they eventually understood that they did not act properly: so be it, I will be happy! We are far from there though!

As to "Assuming that you are, in fact, Preda Mihăilescu,", before I lose my temper, I politely invite you to help solve your problem. If you have doubts -- please express your reasonable conditions allowing me to remove those doubts! Do not just let it hang around! How do you want me to prove to you who I am -- especially in an environment of people of which I do not know who they are? I am open to suggestions, I respect your doubts, you give me a practical procedure to remove them, and I will comply! I wait.

PM PredaMi (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PredaMi, starting from the bottom: I don't expect you to prove your identity. I'm taking your word for it in responding to you as if you are, but also keeping in mind that we are all basically anonymous here. Anyone could claim to be Preda Mihăilescu, and we have no way to confirm that.

The editor who made a number of edits to the article in 2018 which I think are some of the edits that you're objecting to was banned for reasons other than edits made to Preda Mihăilescu. Unless someone chose to go back through every edit the banned editor had ever made, it's up to whichever editors choose to watch an article to disagree with any edits that have been made. None of those edits to Preda Mihăilescu meet the Wikipedia definition of vandalism.

The fundamental nature of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You know this. Now, some people in the past have made edits to the article about you that you object to. You can tell me calmly what the errors are or you can make heated demands as you've been doing. Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding a reply to the major changes that you just made in your previous post: every day, editors come across an article with issues, leave a tag identifying the issue, and move on. Sometimes, another editor will see the tag and do the work to resolve the issue. Sometimes, another editor will disagree with the tag and remove it. Sometimes, the tag just sits there for years. This happens on thousands of articles a day. This is how Wikipedia works.

If you want to see changes made in Preda Mihăilescu, post the specific requests on Talk:Preda Mihăilescu and I, or another editor, will try to work with you on them. If you want to change how Wikipedia works, I can't help you. If you want to complain about specific editors, I direct you to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents (although I would not recommend it). Now, which of those options are most likely to get the article in a better state?

I will not be responding to you here on my talk page again. Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr. officer -- our discussion is over, I understood that your section of Wiki is not willing to accept errors and improve, so there is no need to leave traces on my own page of useless discussions. And I see no morals in your interfering and menacing around. You claimed one day before that all voluntears are equal in rights -- no you corrected the errors (which was important) and the traces are gone, and nobody menaces you. Make up your mind: collaboration and "volunteer", or power abuse? Let us put an end to it, I see you were very helpfull in putting finally an end to the damaged state of the page, which lasts since 18 months. Thank you. And I see that you are reluctant to accept that this was NOT business as usual, and the marginal conditions are quite specific, in order to make an effort and see that things will not repeat. You made this clear, so there is no need for me for this evidence, since the other one has been removed. I wish you much fun your acitivity, and hopefully you will not be confronted too often with consequences of irresponsibility of colleagues. You know, this hiding of people who can take responsibility on Wiki, leaves one not many chances than yell -- to encounter one. Taking this objective fact serious, would be great for the community. PredaMi (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)Reply[reply]

I have taken the liberty of mentioning you in my ANI report of Neutralhomer's off-wiki attacks. Hope you don't mind, but I felt it was important to include his attack on you. NedFausa (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NedFausa, thanks for letting me know, I'll keep an eye on that discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't edited much lately on Wikipedia. However I'm curious why the edit I made on the May 25 page was reverted, as its own wiki page points out the birth date as this one and there are more sources on Google. Why not just add them instead of deleting the whole thing? The others aren't sourced.

My kindest regards for your work here, User:JoseRodil25.

Hi JoseRodil25, I explained my revert on your talk page. "I had to revert your edit to May 25. Per WP:DOYCITE, editors are going through the day-of-year articles to add sources to each entry, remove any that cannot be sourced, and ensuring that all new entries include an inline citation to a source. If you'd like to contribute to the effort by getting sources from the target articles and adding them to the day-of-year article (event, birth, death), your help is very welcome!" All edits that add new items to day-of-year articles without a source are being reverted. Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Fred Voss
	Thanks for your help. I've added a reference. How do I remove the potential delete tag? Themagicmancunian (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the blp-prod tag since there's a reference now, Themagicmancunian. There should be more, though. Everything you wrote in the article, you had to get it from somewhere, and those are your sources that should be cited. For example, all of specifics in "early life" need a published source to support them. Read WP:Verifiability. Schazjmd (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did not get a response here but if it can be done, WP:VPT would be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vchimpanzee, good suggestion, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good day Sir,

this is somehow random, but a couple of weeks ago I reported a fake account on social media to the Air Force. Some one was using the name of Major General Michael Carey, one of the founders of the ATLAS Space Operations. And now I have the opportunity to get in contact with another member of the Air Force.

To shortly introduce myself anonymously; I’m a German dude who just like to share some true stuff in my early 30st.

To the topic, I just added some missing award to the page of Nestle. I just want to know, if you just couldn’t verify the story behind it or if it’s not “good” for the image of the company?

I look forward to your reply.

Regard, Kurby Kurby147 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kurby147, nice to meet you. When you add information to an article, you need to include a citation that explains your source for that information. The award that was added had no source so there is no way that a reader can verify the information. I'll add a link to your talk page to The Wiki Adventure; it's a guided learning experience to help you learn how to edit on Wikipedia, I think you'll enjoy it. Schazjmd (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for your awesome quick reply. I will have a look at it and try again. The source I used is in German. Maybe i will find an English version as well.

Thanks again and have a good day! Kurby147 (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kurby147, there is no requirement that sources be in English, although it's helpful if you can find one in English. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for the twinkle suggestion!Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have submitted the page for review, but would like you to see if there are any other things I can improve. ChefBear01 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Draft_UK_Global_Navigation_Satellite_System_(GNSS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChefBear01 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I copy edited the draft, ChefBear01. I replaced the table with a proper template:infobox and removed the over-wikilinking. (Only provide a wikilink on the first occurence of a term, not on every use.) The draft still lacks inline citations. You listed many under Sources but none of them are properly connected with the content in the article. I recommend that you delete the Sources section, and move each of the references to the content in the article that each supports. (See User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners for tips.) Hope that helps, good luck with your article! Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok I have made the suggested changes and added some new parts, do you think it has enough to be published? ChefBear01 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChefBear01, good job on the citations! I did another copy edit pass. Just FYI, GNSS is only put in parentheses when it's following the spelled out term, to show what it is an abbreviation for. After the first time that the abbreviation is defined, you just use it without the parentheses. I think it's enough to publish. You're welcome to move it to mainspace rather than wait for an AFC reviewer, if you like. First remove the AFC submission template at the beginning and end of the article. Then click Page at the top, then Move, change the dropdown menu to (Article), and remove the Draft: portion of the article title in the field next to the dropdown menu. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, and I am only an confirm auto-confirm user, I am not sure I can move it myself ChefBear01 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChefBear01, autoconfirmed users can move pages. See WP:MOVE. I can't move it for you because I think it's important for your article to receive the proper new page review. Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChefBear01, please stop putting (GNSS) in the article. GNSS is the abbreviation for Global Navigational Satellite System. You spell it out once and put the abbreviation for it in parentheses. Like this: Global Navigational Satellite System (GNSS). Then on subsequent uses, you just put GNSS, not (GNSS). Schazjmd (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok thank you I will make the corrections ChefBear01 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChefBear01, never edit another editor's talk page by removing comments the way you just did on mine. You can remove anything on your own Talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok apologies ChefBear01 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChefBear01, I noticed that you're setting up your Talk page with specific sections. That's probably not going to work. All across wikipedia on article and user talk pages, the convention is to start a new section at the bottom of the talk page, and that's where conversations take place. A new conversation gets a new section at the bottom. If an editor uses a tool or script to leave you a message, it will start a new section at the bottom of the page automatically. I think you'll have a difficult time getting other editors to behave differently on your talk page than on every other talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may have to personally move the comments, however it keeps the page tidy if there is no page for what they are wishing to discuss then a new section could be made, it is just for things that I would probably get a lot of traffic. ChefBear01 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChefBear01, you'll want to study WP:INDENT before you engage more on talk pages, so you can learn to indent your replies properly. Some editors get a bit snippy when it isn't done correctly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have looked at the page you requested ChefBear01 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChefBear01, you did it almost right this time. Your reply should have one more colon in front of it than the comment that you're responding to. You replied to a comment that begins with 1 (:), so yours should have 2 (::), and this one will have 3 (:::). I'll fix your response to demonstrate. Schazjmd (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have fixed the indent on my user page and I can see how it helps clarify where the conversation is, and what in particular is been discussed ChefBear01 (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChefBear01, that comment should have had 4 colons (I fixed it for you), and now my reply has 5. I noticed on your revised Talk page that you instruct other editors to add the ((Help me)) template on your talk page. I suggest you remove that part of your instructions. That template is part of a notification system that involves a category, some bots and an IRC channel. It is not for an editor to ask you for your help. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the template and hopefully put enough colons

ChefBear01 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You commented on one of my pages that was still under construction. Your comment was: Hi, I noticed your article International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection. What the article needs is significant coverage in independent sources to support that it is notable. I tried to find sources, but could only find the society's own site and publications. Without the independent coverage, the article is likely to be deleted. Perhaps you can find some offline sources that are about the society but not by the society? Schazjmd (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC).

I have edited the page and it is ready for a review. I think this entry has much more significance that some trivial entries already available: National Council on Family Relations.

Please, let me k=what you think of my page? I would openly welcome anyone to review, comment, and/or edit the page I have created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shaila (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ali.shaila, I've made some format fixes to the article to make it consistent with other Wikipedia articles. Good luck! Schazjmd (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I will be sure to research the linked articles and more accurately tag my rollbacks. JAH2k (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks so much for your message. it sure is nice to hear something positive!! and I sure needed that, right now. much appreciated. thanks!!!! I can't discuss too much now, owing to the goldfish bowl that I seem to be in. but I really appreciate your sentiments. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hate to burst your bubble, but I found that piece from an old article that doesn't exist anymore, so it's useful108.46.251.85 (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's trivia, and it isn't relevant to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reinstated the reverted evidence, please see [[1]], there is not references for any of the ones above or below. This edit did not require a source, it's a blue linked article should be fine. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hell in a Bucket, we commented at the same time; see your talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess you are right. My apologies. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

::Hell in a Bucket, you're welcome to open a discussion if you like. I suggest you ping members of the day-of-year project for their input on it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

might have had an edit conflict and not seen my update, you are totally correct. My apologies. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hell in a Bucket, sorry, I guess we were both typing at the same time again. No apologies needed, I only came across the project's new guideline by happenstance myself. I suggested that they send a mass message to all pending-changes-reviewers to get the word out. Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Quick to post credible information CollegeMeltdown (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any particular reason why you only added the recent information about the planned withholding of GI Bill funds to three of the five institutions named in the source you used? Bellevue University and Temple University are also included. The information needs to be in the articles of all of the institutions or none of them; to only included it in the articles of the for-profit institutions is inherently and transparently biased. ElKevbo (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ElKevbo, because the news articles on the withholding only listed the names, no cities or other identifying features, I wasn't sure our Bellevue University and Temple University articles were the same schools as the ones in the VA announcement. The other three are clearly identified as for-profit schools and already had other investigative/controversial issues noted, so I was confident the announcement applied to them. Neither Bellevue University nor Temple University articles have any pre-existing content on prior problems, and neither is a for-profit school, so I was not confident these were the same schools, so I didn't add the content there rather than perhaps inaccurately label an innocent school that might have the same name as a questionable school. Schazjmd (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I've set up a news alert on the withholding so I can update the articles again if there are new developments (the suspension being lifted, for example, or being made permanent). Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found another source that more clearly identifies Temple University (mentions Fox School of Business, which is also in our article), so will add it there. Still looking for something clear about Bellevue. Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Washington Post article this morning specifies "Bellevue University of Nebraska", so that validates it, added it there as well. Schazjmd (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fantastic - thanks so much for the quick and helpful replies! ElKevbo (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I'm a Cancer patient at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, had radiation and operation. By background I have 17 patents...first Internet telephony patent though I don't get any credit.

I go back every three months for checkups and stumbled upon a very interesting case study with data support that I thought was encouraging. When I went to Wikipedia I found that the article trashes everything related to the article and it just doesn't seem right not to have a balance in info.

So I added ref to the case study but it keeps getting removed. It's a bit funny but also a bit sad cause if the truth is distorted a little then we question everything about the article. I wrote to the NCI about their supporting documents that are referenced in the article that they were bad science. Interestingly they seem to agree and are thinking about making the changes I suggested.

Anyway I dont want to change the world ...Just give credit to some great research doctors at the PM. I'm so thankful they are there otherwise I'd be dead. So I want to see them get some credit for their work and encourage people not to give up hope. The Essiac page basically says everything is bad, herbal is a joke and there are no health benefits...definitely not true.

So can you help me verify the article so it sticks.

Alrix27 Alrix27 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alrix27, sorry, I don't work on medical articles. There's a project of editors who do, you can approach them, but first really read through the link I gave you to WP:MEDRS to understand the level of sourcing they require. Btw, you keep saying you "added ref" but you didn't; you made a claim in an article to a study, but never added a citation to a published source that supports the claim. I'm really glad the treatment you're getting is working for you, but you can't add unsupported claims to a Wikipedia article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Schazjmd, I really don't know why you spend so much of your precious time on stuff like this but I'm really impressed and glad there are people like you in the world. I'm pretty amazed actually. Yeah, I didn't ref the article cause I didn't know how, just added enough info so it can be found. I do care that cancer patients to get the full truth, but wow it's a lot of work and learning. I will give it a little more time, but it's complex and "tough sledding" as we say in Canada. Do you think I should keep trying to help get the balance right or give up. I'm ok either way. I feel bad for the research hospital at Princess Margaret Hospital because I was treated so well. When you walk in not knowing if your going to live, and walk out in a stable condition, and don't pay a cent for the treatment or drugs, wow you just want yo help in anyway you can. I will talk to the fi toes who did the primary research, show them the Wiki page and as them how they feel about the page and if it reflects the truth. Anyway, your a wonderful person...keep going, you are inspirational. Alrix27 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alrix27, that's so nice of you, thank you for the kind words! I do understand how you're feeling and that it's frustrating. Sometimes we (any individual editor) know something, and it's aggravating that we can't add it to the appropriate article because we don't have written documentation from someone else to point to. A lot of people give up because of that requirement. But put the shoe on the other foot: if I can put something in an article because I "know" it, we're asking every reader everywhere to simply trust that I'm correct. And then every editor can write stuff, and we're all supposed to just trust that they know what they're talking about. It's simply unworkable. (And of course then you get two editors who each "know" something opposite...) So, we must have some independent reliable source that we can point to and say "there...that is what we used to verify the information". It might be incomplete, it might even be incorrect, but the reader can see where we got it and make up their own minds. It's the best safeguard we've come up with. Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I'll keep going. Problem is I had the Case Study, it was printed in a Canadian a Medical journal, but I lost it...now your making me laugh cause the truth is coming out...next time I go to the PMH I'll get a copy and let's see what happens until then .. Alrix27 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I scan pages or lists, my brain sees pandemic. Schazjmd (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respected sir, I'm thankful to you. I did as you directed. I save twinkle gadget in my preferences to counter vandalism. I'm very much thankful to you for your great advice. I request you to keep advising me in future so that I can improve myself. Thanking you Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conspiracy theories don't have reliable sources and secondly am i not verified human? the title and text says POSSIBLY CONSPIRACY THEORY why should it be printed in a stupid news paperBaratiiman (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baratiiman, I don't understand your comment. You added There has been 7 to 14 million Chinese deactivated SIM cards since the beginning of the outbreak those numbers could point to a massively higher number of the deceased. to an article without a reliable source that makes any connection between number of China Mobile subscribers and the coronavirus, so I reverted it and explained to you on your talk page why I reverted. Please keep in mind that Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is an article that documents (and debunks) misinformation, it is not a place to disseminate misinformation. Schazjmd (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i don't see any sort of documenting misinformation.Baratiiman (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for showing me that most people are simply not reading what I write... I was going crazy. I really have no idea of what is going on. I'm shocked. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gtoffoletto, I'm kind of doubting my own sanity (and eyesight) at the moment. Such a strange misunderstanding! I kind of have the feeling the editor made a mistake and chose to double-down rather than admit it. Striking because I can finally see where they saw an error. Might be best to just move on. Schazjmd (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Such a useless discussion clearly caused by a stupid misunderstanding (or hasty reading). The saga continues here if you have time to follow. Only 4 editors are working on this page right now and we need more eyes to reach a consensus: USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents and related discussions--Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gtoffoletto, I see from your talk page that there are still ongoing disagreements. Tenacity can be a good trait, but I've found it can be misapplied on wikipedia. When I encounter an editor who digs in their heels on issues and gives no indication of interest in working collegially, persisting in trying to engage with them is just an exercise in frustration, in my experience, so I just go edit elsewhere...anywhere that editor isn't. Schazjmd (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for you advice! I'm really glad you took the time to write to me and thank you for keeping an eye on my talk page. It is really greatly appreciated. Unfortunately my "wikipedia style" makes it really hard for me to do what you say. I focus on specific topics for a while before moving on. So it would almost mean giving up wikipedia in my mind. I have tried to apply that principle locally (moving on from one specific discussion or/and letting some time pass) but to no avail. However there is a silver lining to all this. The situation is improving slightly as more editors join in editing the pages. So I would invite you to join if you find the time. It really is a fascinating subject. A couple of relevant articles we are working on:

• Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program
• To the Stars (company)
• USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents
• USS Nimitz UFO incident

I hope to see you there! Given your background your help would be precious and you might know some additional sources of information to use. I'm very interested in the "official" position of the US Armed Forces regarding this "saga". At the moment it seems like an internal conflict is happening within the various branches on how to handle this situation with contrasting statements. Also the Air Force is strangely quiet in all this (looks like they took part in congressional hearings though). Very interesting! Did I tickle your curiosity at least a bit? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ISorry. ignore the autotnotice of my undo. I misclicked in my watchlist. Meters (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schazjmd, thank you for adding a suggestion to my Talk page. (i.e. try posting to Twitter) I'm a very infrequent editor. I must admit I'm confused as to why my latest contribution (to the 'Self-checkout' page) has been deleted. Your talk page indicates you're an experienced administrator. Is there any way you could advise why my most recent contribution to the page was deleted? JamesJHG (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JamesJHG, it looks like it was reverted due to synthesis. In other words, you drew a conclusion (It's been suggested that as most touch screens on self service checkouts are plastic (or glass) it's probable that bacteria and viruses (including the Covid-19 virus) could be being transmitted person to person worlwide via this route) that is not explicitly stated in the source that you referenced. The revert also referred to reliable sources for biomedical. The requirements for medical content sourcing are strict. I don't work in the MED area, so you can ask the editor who reverted for more details, but to me it looks like you cited a primary source and MEDRS requires secondary or tertiary sources. I hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I'm not an administrator, just an editor like you. Schazjmd (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Schazjmd, for having the kindness to help out! I'm looking at the references page now, and with your assistance attempting to document the sources. I would've hoped that might have been my initial experience when I came on board, but it appears someone took some rather perverse and selfish pleasure in putting me through the wringer (since I outed myself) which was never my intention, nor was I trying to show-off...I just wanted to add what was missing in the "mixed" reviews, because it's a serious oversight. The positive reviews that discuss my work specifically, and not the film as a whole, remain as important and as valuable to the film's legacy and success as were the negative ones, because the specific ones have no documentation on the page. In a way, it's quite bias as it is, and not an accurate representation. So, once again, thank you very much for your sympathy.45.50.189.120 (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello sir, thank you for bringing me back to basic Wikipedia nationality. Thank you. It ’s like, can you take a quick look at my new article Bharati bhoogol likhane ke lie and tell me if there is anything you can do? All inputs are welcome, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don't rate this nivel (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Schazjmd, thanks for your thoughts and advice on my work in progress Tony Castro (author). I have done a once-through edit, trying to clean up the bibliography, improving the references, taking out the grade school teacher's letter along with a few other things. I've gotten sidetracked on some Coronavirus caused necessities, but I hope to have the file ready for resubmission in a few days.

Meanwhile, your interest in assisrting me leads me to raise something that thought I'd done on my Talk page but I couldn't find. I'd made a copy of a response to anotheer editor on Notes, so here it is:

-- My question here is a about something a little different but related to the Tony Castro (author) submission. It concerns the response by a couple of other editors. They both left comments saying the article was "not adequately supported by reliable sources."

I have attempted to resolve that issue by replacing some sources with hopefully better ones. I am continuing to do so.

But here's what troubles me:

Would you kindly go to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Castro?

I happened to stumble on it because of the identical name to the person I've written about. To be honest, I'd not paid much attention to it until yesterday when I was wondering about how that page handled being "adequately supported by reliable sources."

When I went to that page to study the sourcing I couldn't help but be surprised. Would you look at it please? Would you agree that the page is... well... "modestly sourced" to be kind about it?

-- FROM THAT PAGE References[edit source] ^ Geneall[dead link] ^ Seen at Wicklow Sailing Club before competing in Round Ireland Yacht Race as 'The Famous Grouse'. ^ Browning, Randy (2017). "Tony Castro". sailboatdata.com. Retrieved 31 January 2017. ^ Yacht Design Awards we have won www.tonycastroyachts.com, accessed 7 November 2019 --

The obvious question is too obvious to go into.

Suffice it to say that I would appreciate your advice on what I can do to improve the Tony Castro (author) submission, especially in the area of sourcing when it would appear that the present sourcing to be far more than the "modest" sourcing acceptable for approval of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Castro.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. --

Schazjmd, I'm a good soldier about these things. I'm just trying to do a good job on this page, get it approved, and move on. Silly, as it may seem, though, I'm enjoying what I'm learning. I'm too young to have experience the editors I hear writers talk about from years past, editors who were exacting and demanding of reporters who were like marine privates willing to do whatever they needed to do. So lead on. Thank you. AshleymchaseAshleymchase (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ashleymchase, let me address Tony Castro first. That article was created about fifteen years ago. Wikipedia at that time was just trying to establish itself. There was more of a "wild west" atmosphere back then. Editors were encouraged to get stubs made because someone would probably come along later to improve them. Sourcing requirements weren't as restrictive or as enforced.

If you stick with the frontier analogy, think of it as the first settlers putting up houses and buildings any which way they could at the time. But now that the bigger cities have taken shape, zoning laws and construction codes have to be met. There are lots of "pre-code" structures still around, but new structures have to meet code. It can seem unfair, when your building has to have steel-enforced concrete and next door is a shack made of cardboard that hasn't been reinforced or torn down yet. So yes, I agree that Tony Castro is weakly sourced. But the existence of any poorly sourced article is irrelevant to any other article. (The essay Other stuff exists is helpful to understanding.)

Back to the new article. Basically, a new article must (1) prove notability, that is that the subject of the article is noteworthy enough to have an article; and (2) contain verifiable information.

Rule of thumb for general notability is three reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:NAUTHOR, include more prescriptive measures of notability, which must also be sourced. There's a chart on my user page that I find helpful in evaluating sources for notability.

Sources for verifiability of specific information in the article do not have to meet significant coverage and not necessarily be independent (see WP:SPS), but do need to be reliable. A reader should be able to verify every statement in an article, and especially direct quotes. For example, the Tom Wolfe quote in your article is unverifiable.

It can be instructive to read through discussions at Articles for deletion (AFD) to see how other editors evaluate articles. Once an article is in mainspace, any editor can nominate it for deletion if they feel that it doesn't meet notability requirements. The purpose behind the articles for creation (AFC) process is to help new editors create articles that would stand up against an AFD discussion. However, except for a few specific instances (paid editors and unregistered/IP editors, for example), the AFC process is voluntary. Editors can work in their own userspace or draftspace and then move the articles to mainspace, and many just create directly in mainspace (many of those are speedy-deleted however). In addition, any content in an article that cannot be verified can be deleted by any editor.

Sorry for being so wordy; hope this helps a bit. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ashleymchase, one more thing. I was hunting around for other sources for the article, and I came across this article. That's a whole lot of notable information about Castro that you did not include in the article. Wikipedia articles are not tributes; both positive and negative information on a subject must be included. Consider whether you want to pursue the article, keeping in mind that the ethical and legal issues will be part of it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Castro has made enemies along the way. I'm not certain about all the details, but I do know the Hamilburg agency vetted him quite closely when I was an assistant there. I know because I dealt with the PI who worked for Mike Hamilburg. A lot of his issues, I think, had to do with having slept with wives/girlfriends/daughters of some of these people involved. It was messy, I recall, and Castro had friends who hired a powerful lawyer who is one of those so-called "lawyers to the stars." I think that's how the guy who wrote the Journalism Review piece and Castro became "friends" afterwards. That guy is dead now, so it would be difficult to go back to him. But apparently while he was editor of LA Weekly, he assigned Castro a bunch of assignments. Los Angeles is also a very nasty political town. There's cliques and cliques within cliques. He angered quite a few people when he wrote a long story that knocked the halo off Antonio Villaraigosa, among them the guy who wrote the piece you linked here. Mike Hamilburg told me Castro back in his day became involved with this guy's then fiance at the LA Times. If you look closely at his blog, you see some stuff that can be easily verified as wrong. I know the author Ruben Castaneda who was mentored by Castro and was his best man. I got him on the phone a few minutes ago. I read him the blog piece, He says Castro certainly did not leave the Herald (where they both worked in the 1980s) "under a cloud." Sports Illustrated, Ruben says, hired him making a hundred grand or so when he was making half that at the newspaper. Then he left that magazine to work for director Michael Mann in television on a show that was canceled after about a year... As for the prison time... I had a chance to read the court transcripts (helping the Baylor library people catalog his papers for the Texas Collection). It is an amazing read, along with what I know from working with his late agent Hamilburg. Castro spent almost two years fighting some charges related to a tabloid story on which he was one of several reporters. He finally took a plea deal when the feds threatened to go after his wife. Castro pled to a count of mail fraud (for receiving payment by mail) and a count of tax fraud (not reporting about $30,000 on about $800,000 in three years of earings). There was no plea to anything about making up stories or sources, though there those were banded about. Good lord, we're talking about the tabloids here, not the New York Times! According to the court transcripts (these I've read), Castro agreed to do two years in one of those Club Fed prisons. But then the federal judge got involved at sentencing. He chided the prosecutors for even making the case. I guess the tabloid tried to avoid paying a court settlement with Clint Eastwood by blaming Castro and taking documents to US Attorney that implicated Castro. The transcript says they had hired a PI who secretly taped Castro's home. Pretty sleazy stuff all the way around. Anyway, this federal judge (I looked him up -- he was a Reagan appointee who is now dead) compared what the prosecutors did in going after a reporter to oldtime feds going after the accountant of the mob and not prosecuting the mobsters themselves. Truly unbelievable stuff. Then the judge reduced Castro's sentence to five months at a prison with no fences in the desert, where he taught GED English to white criminals who were high school dropout in the morning, taught tennis in the afternoon and umpired Little League games at night. All this is crazy and true. When I heard of Castro again in the mid90s, he was editing some community weeklies that one year won a bunch of prizes at the LA Press Club. This much he told me: The guy who wrote the Journalism Review piece was also an editor at a competiting weekly who had just lost out to Castro's weekly. The guy came up to him at the awards show, talked to him and asked him to write an article for him. This guy and Castro had kids about the same age, and Castro asked his kid to join his club travel team which at the time had Pete Rose's youngest son and a bunch of other hotshots on the team. I ssked Castro how he found it in him to get past the article this guy did on him. He acted like it as no big deal.

So what do I think of all this? It's almost like Castro has a couple of other lives. He says he wanted to write a book about what happened to him and going to prison even if only for a few months but that my old boss Hamilburg talked him out of it... told Castro that he should get on with life and write and not be defined by what had happened to him.

I don't see this side of his story as significant as his career. Hold up the blog and Journalism Review story. If they were dead-on rigtht, this guy would never have worked in the serrious writing business. But he wrote for another big city daily in the same town where all this happened. The local press club asked him to be on its board. He has written and had published six books by mainstream publishers that have been reviewed favorably in places that are considered respectable sources.

Finally, I guess I'm a bit confused on so-called "reliable sources." Several Wikipedia editors have harped to me in messages about how blogs aren't "reliable sources" and yet, if that is the case, then what does that make LAObserved.com, a blog that as I've said here, is written by a guy who apparently has a history with Castro that should make him suspect."

I'm not where this leaves the submission of this file. Perhaps just here.

AshleymchaseAshleymchase (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ashleymchase, I wasn't proposing that you should use the LAObserved.com article as a source. I was pointing out that there's information relevant to an encyclopedia biography that is not included in the article. It's easy enough to find reliable sources now that I'm aware of the issue; The Los Angeles Times and The Sacramento Bee to start, that took me two minutes. (The Sacramento Bee story begins with ""A former newspaper reporter admitted using phony sources for celebrity stories sold to tabloid newspapers.") Failing to include a guilty plea to 8 counts of mail fraud and 1 count of tax fraud and the prison sentence would not make sense. (His wife was only convicted of tax charges).

But your reply tells me that you still don't get it: wikipedia articles have to be based on reliable, published sources. You're doing what is considered original research, talking to Castaneda and Castro, reading court transcripts. You need to base what you write only on what you can find in reliable, published sources. And you need to be objective. There are reviews of his books that are not glowing, but none of those are mentioned to balance the complimentary ones. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has the conflict of interest guideline, because when you're too familiar with a subject, it can inhibit your ability to view the subject objectively. Schazjmd (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are probably correct on all this. Thank you for your input. Allow me to let it sink in. AshleymchaseAshleymchase (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to complain about the removal of my comment and its evidence on the deletion page for TSLAQ article. I don't see why people think they are experts on every subject in Wikipedia. I would be willing to fix the article in question. I spend a lot of time studying stocks and investing. TESLAQ is a fact. Can you give an outline of what in your expert opinion, would be a proper Wikipedia article on this valid and real phenomenon? One example, there has been unprecedented short interest in TSLA stock. But these efforts have had no effect other than losing billions of dollars for these short investors. If you think about the enormous resources of competing interests (BIG OIL), such amounts would be pocket change for such interests. I could cite analyses that document this effect. Which is absolutely real. A quite real and valid thing to those familiar with Tesla, TSLA stock history and value. May we be allowed to document this some way on Wikipedia? Thank you. The age of fable (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The age of fable, I have explained that your comment on the AFD] had nothing to do with the article TSLAQ or its deletion, that is why it was removed. If you want to discuss improvements to the article TSLAQ, do so at Talk:TSLAQ. Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RL's Diary episodes, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RL's Diary episodes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RL's Diary episodes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry. My younger brother stole my laptop and wrote that. --Boil-in-the-Bag (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boil-in-the-Bag, your account has not made a single valid or useful edit, so I don't believe you. Schazjmd (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was really helpful. Although, I still am not sure if I am even responding to messages correctly. Ha!

but when I click on it, it redirects me to the Hollywood Blvd page. What are my chances of being able to create its own page?

Jack Fangles, currently the NRHP listing for the district redirects to the other article. When your article is completed and accepted, the reviewer will overwrite the redirect with your article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your message on my talk page & I very much agree with you to a certain degree I’m disappointed to say this but I deleted the message & left a somewhat nonchalant response in the edit summary for that I render my apology. As for performing a WP:BEFORE, I can promise you that I always perform a WP:BEFORE prior AFD’ing an article but you know sometimes performing BEFORE’s can be tricky & this time it totally failed me as that AFD was due to trusting a software too much. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Celestina007, thanks, I appreciate the apology. Schazjmd (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Excellent job on Shakir Ali Noorie, that draft was in bad bad shape. You made it a good presentation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your help to publish my article as a liveMaizbhandariya (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maizbhandariya, you're welcome. Please don't address me as "dear". It is overly familiar to call someone you don't know "dear", thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. I'm a new editor on Wikipedia not even up to a week and this it the first page I'm creating, I don't want to effort and sweat to go down the drain. Are you a Nigerian? If you are you'll know Duke Elvis to be a public and notable figure. He is popular for his role on a very popular TV series the Johnsons. Please help me add your own discussion on the Deletion page of Duke Elvis so it won't be deleted and it will edited properly. Thank you VictorHB (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VictorHB, you're welcome for the help. I know how confusing it can be in the beginning. I am not Nigerian. Also, please be aware that is not appropriate on Wikipedia to ask other editors to take a specific position on a nomination for deletion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@schazjmd oh I'm so sorry for asking. I was just being curious. Like I said I'm a first time editor. I tired the link you said I should click on and I still couldn't add a contribution on the Deletion page. VictorHB (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VictorHB, you didn't know, that's why I told you. Let's try again: CLICK THIS LINK Schazjmd (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I have clicked on the link, but I can't see any space to add a contribution, so where do I click on again? Sorry for the inconvenience caused VictorHB (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VictorHB, go to that page. Click Edit or Edit source the same way that you edit on a talk page or an article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle on this article, the bit about her having never won a contested election. I would appreciate your comment on this matter. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I wanted to thank you for your helpful comment on Moxy's talkpage, where you laid out how I might update an old and slanted entry.

I am also considering working with some academics to create another related page, but I am struggling with how to format that page. It concerns a 2012 petition on change.org that kicked off a huge debate within the Christian community about Bible translation practices (specifically, whether translators should use familial "Father/Son" language for God/Jesus, or change those terms depending on the reaction of the target audience).

The petition was the subject of numerous prominent articles in 2012, but by 2013 and beyond, the debate had moved into major denominational circles and the petition was no longer part of the larger discussion. I tend to view the petition as a historic event that ignited an ongoing controversy in the Christian world, but perhaps this page would be better structured around the larger Familial Terms Controversy, with the petition as a section within the history of the debate?

I don't know if you can give much concrete advice based on the ambiguities in this question, but I'm hoping you can help me understand a bit more how such a page might work best, as I don't want to run afoul of content standards. Thank you, Noersark (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noersark, actually the best place to bring up that question and get input would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Schazjmd (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for your answer. I have no idea how to navigate all these different forums and talkboards... Even in this conversation, I don't know how to respond to your comment except to edit my original post! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noersark (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noersark, navigating is confusing at first (and maybe for quite awhile, I'm still discovering corners I didn't know existed...). Your response is fine: you just click "edit" or "edit source", and add your response to the bottom of the conversation. Wikipedia etiquette is to indent each reply one additional level. We indent using a colon (:). My reply to your first post used one colon to indent. Your reply to my reply should use two colons (always one more than the comment you're replying to)...I added that for you. Now my reply uses three colons. WP:Indentation helps everyone keep track in conversations of when the "speaker" is changing. That's also why we always sign our comments on any talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~), which automatically adds our signature and a timestamp. Feel free to drop in with any questions you come up with, I'm glad to help. Schazjmd (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks again for the advice. I have added that I started a discussion. Should I also add that I warned the users in question and that only after being warned did they stop with the edit warring, or is that irrelevant? --Tuvixer (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tuvixer, you can mention it, but keep in mind that ANI is not for edit-warring problems or content disputes. It's for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I did not file the report at ANI because of edit-warring. That is just one segment of a problem that I have observed during the past few months, unfortunately. Thanks again for the advice, and any other advice would be really helpful and much appreciated. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish I could be more help, but I don't know enough about those articles to even form an opinion about which editors are POV-pushing and which are trying to edit in a neutral POV fashion. I can't even read most of the refs. But I don't seem to see good-faith discussions on those talk pages either. I wish you luck though! Schazjmd (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. My only concern is that I was maybe to brief in the report. I could have explained in detail everything. There are many segments to this and this kind of behavior was done by long time users who know how Wikipedia should work, which makes it a bigger problem. If something would be unclear (and it could be because there are so many edits and all is filled with national and personal tensions by the users in question) to the administrator who is going to look into it, is he going to ask me to elaborate more? --Tuvixer (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tuvixer, another editor has responded to your post, countering your narrative. So now begins the "discussion". You can reply if you wish. Admins may just watch it develop, or may comment, or may say it's just a content dispute...there's no telling what will happen now. It isn't a formal process. When you have time, you might go back and read through some of the ANI archives to get an idea of how these things tend to go...it's educational. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the update. Is maybe her/his comment to long? Can mine be of the same length as I would like to reply on what she/he said? --Tuvixer (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have placed my reply but it was removed by user Sadko, the users that is in the report. I don't know if this is regular. --Tuvixer (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tuvixer, it isn't regular but I see that it's been restored. Sometimes glitches happen, especially when several people are trying to edit the same page at the same time. I don't think Sadko would have done it deliberately, they're experienced enough to know that isn't appropriate.

The dispute that you're involved in illustrates why those articles are subject to discretionary sanctions (WP:DSTOPICS). Schazjmd (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What can be done then, to stop this disruptive editing? It seems that no administrator will intervene. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tuvixer, you only filed at ANI less than 24 hours ago. Discussions there can take days, even weeks, to reach a resolution. edit to add: There are other methods of dispute resolution, but since you opened the incident on ANI, that has to run its course first. But see WP:DR for future instances. Schazjmd (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, I meant to do another revert. Obviously, this article was posted in the first place by either the subject of the entry itself or people close to the subject. The subject of the article was involved in one of the most notorious episodes of sexual harassment in recent times, and that became a historical episode of the #metoo movement. The article began largely as a fan type/promotional vehicle that contained no mention whatsoever of the widely publicized sexual harassment issue. The article was also begun by a single person who had never written or edited for Wikipedia previously. And ALL of the contributions were initially by this same one person until recently. Language used in the writing of the article contained uncommon phrasing in other things in the public record quoting the subject on unrelated issues.

Regarding the boasting about the lavish food at the dinner, one of the quotations is from comments made to the Associated Press, hardly gossip. Another comment was made by the subject of the article himself on Twitter. There was widespread media coverage in various mainstream outlets about these comments. Perhaps additional citations could be added, but some already are cited as footnotes. The comments were controversial-- rightfully-- because hundreds of thousands of North Koreans were dying, including children, or hunger. Therefore,it is pertinent to the subject and the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cathradgenations, go to Talk:Jason Mojica. Schazjmd (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Schazjmd,

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Lawrence_Jr.

Let me begin by quoting my favorite line from so many mob movies, usually said by someone hoping to avoid getting whacked -- "I meant no disrespect".

I see what you did, and agree it is much better.

I cut and pasted that sentence or two a bit impulsively, in part because it wasn't obvious to me how to insert the information while maintaining the overall structure of the page

No excuses. Thank you for the explanation.

I apologize for taking up your time. I will be more careful in the future.

Regards,

BanchangBanchang (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your edits, it's just that you were editing the page at exactly the same time as I was (I had just created the page) so when I tried to save my edits I couldn't do so. Amirah Breen 17:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirahBreen (talk • contribs)

AmirahBreen, thanks for explaining. (By the way, please always remember to end your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) so your signature and timestamp will be automatically added. Thanks for contributing your article! Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Any advice? I could sure use it. feel free to let me know. thanks!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 04:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sm8900, I'm sorry, I don't understand. Advice about what? Schazjmd (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well, the issue has now been positively resolved. but check the last two items on my contribs history; you'll see. but I'm pleased to say, the final outcome of the matter was rather positive. you've been very helpful in the past, so I was going to ask your advice, input and help if it was needed. fortunately, things turned out well. I appreciate your reply. thanks!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 01:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi. would you like to view the conversation at this talk page section? you are welcome to do so. please note, I cannot make any comments there, but if you want to discuss, I can do so at my talk page or at yours.

• Link: User_talk:Nick_Moyes#note_re_your_message

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sm8900, it looks like you got a lot of good advice. Are you looking for ideas on content areas to contribute to? Schazjmd (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well, no, not exactly, but I would sure appreciate any interchange or dialogue that you might care to have. if you want to hear about and to look at some of my current areas of activity, as well as a few areas and pages of my past efforts, you are welcome to do so. Here are some of my recent projects, activities, pages, etc. feel free to look around. thanks!!

• current.
  • 2020s in political history. I have tried to create a whole new type of article with this entry. basically, I feel that Wikipedia could benefits by finding some news ways to cover contemporary history, with as much breadth and depth as we have always covered past history. in that vein, here are some other articles that I have created that are actually good examples of this, as these articles have been embraced by various groups of editors, and have been the subject of edits and updates by a diverse groups of editors.
    • 2010s in United Kingdom political history
    • 2020s in United Kingdom political history
  • also, here is another set of articles that I initiated. this series of articles had originally been created prior to any efforts of mine. however, they had fallen into disuse. I came along and re-established the article for 2018, which had just been a redirect, and then created the subsequent articles for 2019 and 2020. so far, these seem to be doing okay.
    • 2018 in politics and government
    • 2019 in politics and government
    • 2020 in politics and government
  • also, here are some past articles that I worked on, of which I'm particularly proud. I created these articles, and filled in the data as best as I could. some of the broader topics below have since been edited by a multitude of editors, of course.
    • Valley of Peace Initiative
    • parole camp
    • Sono arsenic filter
    • Exploration of North America
  • Also categories are a particular interest of mine. here are some of the ones I enjoyed setting up.
    • category: timelines by year
    • Category: diplomatic conferences
    • Category: political charters

well, that's about it for now. Just thought I'd give you a brief nutshell look at some of my activities here. if you want to discuss any of the above, feel free to do so. And yes, I am always open to input. I appreciate all your help and positive support over the recent past. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sm8900, great list, and I also see that you've found a new mentor which I'm sure will be beneficial for you. I think channeling your energy and creativity into the content side will be a huge benefit to the encyclopedia. Schazjmd (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are really a wikipedia editor they didn't have any articles or Press that the reason i removed his page wiki need reference links and this page don't have so please removed it thanks last warning from my side. don't restore his account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acafix2 (talk • contribs)

(SOUNDZ) This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acafix2 (talk • contribs)

Hello sir, with regard to my edit on the Human Brain page; I realise that you cannot directly copy from journals, my edit was not a direct copy. I have replaced my edit with my own words although for the record I think the original needn't have been removed. Here is the sentence from the journal: Sex-related differences in behavior are extensive, but their neuroanatomic substrate is unclear. Here is the sentence I added which was removed: While sex-related differences in behaviour are extensive their neuroanatomic substrate is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggines (talk • contribs) 01:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siggines, please study WP:Close paraphrasing. Schazjmd (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply on my question. I'm sorry that I broke Wikipedia rules. I will always read the Terms of Use next time. By the way, do you feel my edit was intentional vandalism or accidentally violated the terms? ChessEvan4 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChessEvan4, you're welcome. And no need to apologize. Many of us learn about different rules by breaking them and having someone point it out; it's only a problem if we keep repeating the mistake. Anyway, copyright is a big deal on Wikipedia. It means we can't include song lyrics, we can't copy content from other sites, and we can't just grab great photos off of the Internet and use them in articles. I'll post some links to your talk page to help you get started, and feel free to stop in to ask questions anytime. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I saw you worked on James charles page, I was wondering if you could help on the publication of someone else. I follow this artist on Instagram and YouTube and I created a draft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jonn_Poker?markasread=190085898&markasreadwiki=enwiki Knowledgenerd95 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Knowledgenerd95, I'm sorry but I looked at your draft and you don't have a single reliable independent source to support notability, nor could I find any myself. Please see WP:NCREATIVE for information on how to establish notability. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought that articles on google news would count as reliable sources Knowledgenerd95 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Knowledgenerd95, you can learn more about reliable sources at WP:SOURCETYPES. (But also note that I said independent. Press releases and content written by or sponsored by the individual are not independent.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, was the issue that the studies linked are aggregational studies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applejr35 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Applejr35, you'd have to ask Roxy the dog (the editor who reverted you). Schazjmd (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah ok, sorry, still learning how to read Wikipedia documentation. I saw your name as well. Applejr35 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Applejr35, yeah, there's quite a learning curve. What you saw was that the article had been reverted to the version prior to yours which was the version I had edited. Schazjmd (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serious questions: (**I only posted this question on your talk page because I wasn't sure you'd see it on my talk page and my questions are serious & I'd appreciate answers. Thanks)

1. Did you take the time to go to Hulk's page and tell Hulk to stop WP:NPA attacking me and to be WP:Civility to me? If not, why not?
2. Do you think it was a-ok for Hulk to come to my page and personally attack me and my integrity? If yes, why?
3. Do you think it's ok for an editor to be allowed to personally attack someone because their vocabulary is "in an... artful (?) manner." If yes, why?
4. Do you see the irony in editors coming to my page and telling me that it's a-ok for Hulk to come to my page and personally attack me, but it's not ok if I describe Hulk's real vocabulary in a less than stellar manner - and - not one of you editors bothers to go to Hulk's and tell Hulk the same thing you told me.

For the record, I appreciate you giving me advice. I really do. I just question why some editors are allowed to personally attack other editors with no more of an admonishment than a grin and a smile and an atta-boy. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been nice to you since you popped up here on your single-purpose campaign, making factual errors, ranting about Russia and generally making your favourite Talk Page your personal "technical writing" eyesore. Even those are plain facts, painful reminders perhaps, but no malicious intent. I wanted to help you become a better Wikipedian by pointing out your very apparent shortcomings, as most good Wikipedians teach the new class. But not anymore, you're a lost cause, in my opinion, and only paid lip service to wanting concision and precision where you work. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And yes, hello, Schazjmd. I've heard absolutely nothing about you, but I'm glad we finally met, circumstances notwithstanding. How's it going in your department? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case you missed it, I replied to your reply before archiving the page, didn't ignore and delete. But it was a bit of a nutty rant, and you seem like the type to not suffer fools for long, so perhaps nipping our potential conversation there short was for the best. Anyway, I'm not only a loon, so maybe we'll "meet" again over some more dignified topic, maybe not, happy travels either way, sir! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am wondering what might have you been caused to remove all Tags at once at Giorgi Latsos !? The article lacks tremendously of citations and sources (and only one archived link is by far not enough), is obviously self published so I kindly ask you to put the tags back. Thanks. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CommanderWaterford, the article has 55 references. You've added citation-needed where you felt new citations were needed, which is much more specific and effective than to tag the entire article. If there are specific references that you don't think meet WP:ABOUTSELF, you can tag those with Template:Self-published inline (similar to the citation-needed template). It is much easier for other editors to fix errors when they're specific, which the inline tags do. Putting an article-level tag on it and expecting other editors to comb through 55 references to try and figure out which ones you feel are problematic isn't helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive copy edit support/input help any of the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

• Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Advice column

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bookku, you can submit a request for copy edit here from the Guild of Copy Editors. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You've edited an entry I made on Tom Hunt MP. In your message to me, you referred to an edit I did not make: "However residents of the town...". I agree this entry was not in accordance with Wiki guidelines. My entry referred to newspaper articles the BLP had written in the local press. As mentioned on the talkpage for the BLP, I cannot see why this entry is described by you as "snark". It is entirely factual and complies with Wiki English guidelines. If we cannot refer to published articles by the BLP himself, this does seem to make any worthwhile biography useless. Incidentally, please could you let me know why you are interested in this page and have chosen to get involved? I live in Ipswich but I notice you are in USA. Trueblueipswich (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trueblueipswich, I see what happened. This edit that you made was a revert. 00GreenMJ had reverted the editor who added However, residents of the town soon realised their new MP was, in fact, a farce and you reverted 00GreenMJ to put that text back (along with other content). I apologize for not noticing it was a revert. (However, do be careful when reverting that the resulting edits are correct.) I checked out the article because the person who added the "farce" claim bragged about it on Twitter. Schazjmd (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Schazjmd. Thanks for the helpful, and prompt, advice and help. Trueblueipswich (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Schazjmd: Hey, how are you? I have two questions about editing that I would like to request some advice on:

1) Can you create articles for deprecated sources?

2) How do you add templates to articles? I know how to add infoboxes but cannot figure others out. The templates I would like to use are the part of a series on Socialism in the United States, and part of a series on Conservatism in the United States. You can find examples of both here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monthly_Review | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Affairs

BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BuilderJustLikeBob, for #2, templates are added to articles by naming them between pairs of curly brackets: ((template name)). In the American Affairs article, ((Conservatism in the United States)) is entered immediately following the infobox. In the Monthly Review, ((American socialism)) is right after the "Ideology" section header. Those are both sidebar templates. Other templates, such as template:NRHP, are placed at the end of articles as footers. (Whenever I find something in an article that I want to do in another article, I look at the source wikitext to see how they did it. Click Edit source, not Edit, to see the source. Visual Editor isn't helpful for something like this.)

I don't understand question #1. What do you mean? Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate the insight. About #1 I remember watching an interview about wikipedia and deprecated sources, in which it was claimed that those sources cannot have new articles created for them. I might have misheard what was said. So I assumed that if I wanted to create a wiki article for one of those sources it would not be allowed. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BuilderJustLikeBob, deprecated sources cannot be used in articles as references. I don't know of any prohibition against creating an article about a deprecated source, assuming that the deprecated source meets notability requirements and that there are sufficient reliable independent sources to base an article on. If you look at the table at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, you'll see that most (maybe all) have Wikipedia articles, even the deprecated ones. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does help, thanks again! BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Schazjmd for letting me know about the guidelines. I won't do it again. Can I add in the References? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himansh.m (talk • contribs) 04:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Himansh.m, help.dashclicks.com is not a reliable source so links to that domain should not be added to any Wikipedia articles, sorry. Schazjmd (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Lexipol at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the above subject, is there any problem with article please? I just found that you have recovered the deleted box I made. Please help me in accessing and reviewing the Article Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abbas Kwarbai, all reviewer comments and templates must remain on draft article until the draft is accepted. You deleted the first reviewer's comments so I put them back. Please do not delete them again. An article-for-creation reviewer will review the draft and make a determination. When the draft is accepted, the reviewer will remove the comments and templates. Schazjmd (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I want know how many days the reviewers will accept my article. Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abbas Kwarbai, the notice on the page tells you that "This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,212 pending submissions waiting for review.". Schazjmd (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up! The chart on Survivor: Edge of Extinction has since been fixed; basically what it was = top 4 contestants were shown on the chart and everything else just appeared as text below. Anyway, I'll follow your lead from now on. Though I make edits in good faith, I'm mistake-prone, as evidenced by that edit I had made. My mistake! 96.231.250.80 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to help, and call on me anytime you need assistance. Schazjmd (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you are removing contents from Lightstep,_Inc. with the reason that some statements are just copied and pasted from other websites. You removed a line stating that it is copied. I don't get this, if my name is let's say John Doe, I'll say: "Hi, my name is John Doe". A lot of people introduce themselves with this statement but some can say "Hi, myself John Doe". I don't get this how something like this can be called copied? Theproeditor7 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theproeditor7, sorry for the double ping...I was confusing Lightstep with a different article. I deleted two paragraphs about Datadog that were copied from https://paganresearch.io/details/datadog verbatim. Schazjmd (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, it's alright. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theproeditor7 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theproeditor7, on rereading my reply to you, I think I was unclear. I had made a response to your question, but confused the Lightstep article with another one that I worked on, so I deleted that reply and wrote a new one. I did remove two paragraphs from Lightstep, Inc because they had been copied verbatim from https://paganresearch.io/details/datadog. I left a message on your talk page explaining the problem. You cannot paste text from other websites in a Wikipedia article; you must write articles in your own words. Schazjmd (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will take care of this Theproeditor7 (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]