![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
In the artical John Draper where someone removed allegations made against this person (Who is alive), according to Wikipedia policy if the person is not a public figure it should not be mentioned as per WP:SUSPECT and if the person is a Public Figure the allegations should stay there.... Any thoughts if he is considered a public figure? (I am sort of new to Wikipedia if i am making any mistakes let me know!) Thank you. Csar00 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugh Bennett (political adviser) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Bennett (political adviser) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlasdairEdits (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that there's a discussion regarding Randall Miller's article on the BLP Noticeboard. As someone who's also been invested in the article and the discussion on how much of the incident should be discussed, I thought you might be interested. JellyMan9001 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Smartse, I just stumbled upon a recent change you made to the Robert Bosch GmbH article. In my opinion the additions made by Palosirkka were quite valid and backed up by recent, legitimate sources. Could you please elaborate on your decision to delete the paragraph? Thanks for the continuous work, SouthAsiaFTW (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Others, including Adidas, Bosch and Panasonic, said they had no direct contractual relationships with the suppliers implicated in the labour schemes, but no brands were able to rule out a link further down their supply chain.which wasn't clear from the content that Palosirkka added. SmartSE (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
SouthAsiaFTW (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I understand you requested for ShareBuyers to be blacklisted and it's now showing on Wikipedia's spam list. Please can you review your stance on this. You have also called the site a 'dubious source', it certainly is not a dubious source, the source is the announcement from the company itself, just as the FT would report on it.
The markets and relevant information is moving quickly, so naturally some of the team will update Wikipedia where it felt relevant, it didn't think it was doing harm and was contributing in positive ways (some examples below).
An acquisition of Oasis by Boohoo in which the entry was left intact but the source changed to FT.
Highlighting that the Edinburgh Investment Trust had changed its portfolio manager and a new investment approach (this is like a new CEO taking over a company and changing strategy). This is v. relevant.
Highlighting that the UK economy fell by its biggest amount in history recently.
Highlighting a change in strategy by Greggs with a view to accelerating click & collect as its stores reopened following the lock down under an existing section titled coronavirus impact.
I hope you understand that this was just updating Wikipedia with timely, relevant information. The fact that much of it remains in some guise really does show it is not 'spam' and keeping people up-to-date with what's going on in the present day.
Again, please can I ask that you review the request to mark the site as spam and confirm how best to resolve this and avoid it from happening again in future.
Thank You
JXChurchi (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see the dialog on my talkpage (feel free to join, but please don’t take any action yet). I am currently awaiting their answer, which I doubt I will get. —Dirk Beetstra T C 21:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi there,
Noted your warning to User NewsEditor1959, and subsequent editing here notwithstanding. Clearly a WP:SPA and I guess no hope of neutral editing. We will see if further edits follow or if the warning is heeded. Aye Springnuts (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Re this, I agree the citations in the body are sufficient. And despite that, we got a poorly-thought legal notice. The edit was about that.
acagastya 03:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking into it and found other users...apparently it started some years ago (2014?) :O (big G's translations are quite good) :-) The central page on meta is this one? Thanks! --Civvì (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Ten years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Stray point agenda.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Smartse,
My name is Holly Searle, and I am head of PR and Communications for Faculty AI. I’m writing as someone who values Wikipedia immensely and respects the Wikipedia community and its rules.
In recent weeks, the Faculty entry has been the subject of a number of edits which, in my opinion, are not consistent with Wikipedia standards for neutrality or citation quality. It now includes a number of comments which are overly opinionated and not grounded in fact. As a result, I believe that the entry is now unbalanced.
I have made an edit request on the article’s Talk page with four specific suggestions which I believe would help restore its neutral point of view. But I am conscious of my conflict of interest, so would be very happy to have editors simply subject the entry to fresh scrutiny in an effort to ensure it is consistent with Wikipedia’s standards.
I wanted to draw your attention to this as a UK-based admin who will, perhaps, have greater familiarity with the strength of feeling around Brexit-related issues and, indeed, the issues themselves than others in the community. I also wanted to escalate this to an Admin because the current state of the entry is damaging both our reputation and our team, and in our view, unfairly so. I recognise that Faculty can be seen through the Guardian's coverage as a business with controversial political entanglements. While my colleagues and I would argue that this portrait is unfair, I accept that the articles cited do create that appearance. And I’m conscious of the strong feelings across the UK about anything related to Brexit. Nevertheless, we are a UK-based business with dozens of colleagues, with many different political beliefs, working on technology that we believe can deliver real benefits in both the short and long term, and we hope to continue doing so.
I’m also conscious that Wikipedia has well-tested rules for dealing with controversial topics to ensure fairness and accuracy, and I have tremendous confidence in the community’s ability to apply those rules appropriately. But I wanted to write to you in hopes of accelerating that process.
I’m happy to answer any questions or provide additional information – although I know that first-party information probably isn’t very useful. I’m incredibly grateful for your attention to this.
Finally, please forgive any errors or syntax or etiquette in my approach. While a big fan of Wikipedia, this is my first foray into the community, and I’m conscious that I have much to learn.
Many thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Hsearle-faculty (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Moved demography page to bracketed page to redirect base page to the disambiguation - or alternatively to the page on the music festival? Seems like all google results for "boomtown" are for the festival, so it would make sense to update the main article? Many thanks Orangeisacop (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Blocking a paid Wikipedia editor. --Softlavender (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure if you have seen this, apparently the editor “Lapablo” is one & the same person as Ukpong1 whom you correctly blocked for UPE in 2018. Two days ago when the good ol’ Bradv blocked “Lapablo” for socking/UPE, I was mad angry at “Lapablo” but today it all became funny to me. I mean, he casually just resumed editing under a different username after the 2018 block & successfully fooled the community yet again into giving him Autopatrolled & NPP, the same perms you correctly pulled off his account when you suspected him of UPE in 2018. If you have read a book titled The Alchemist (novel) it states somewhere that “if something happens once it may not occur again but if it happens twice it most definitely would happen again” , what’s funny is for all we know he is setting up his third account & would successfully fool the community a third time. I’m sorry if you don’t/didn’t find this amusing. Celestina007 (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi SmartSE, can you please see my reply at Talk:Steph Korey#Edit request from article's subject? I have a few more suggestions for the article, but would love to get closure on this first before moving on. Thanks, Stephkg (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |