The content in that notable alumni section seemed to me as promotional. That's why I removed that because the people about whom I removed don't even have a wikipedia page to present their notability. Other people who are currently present in that page are notable Indian scientists/actors. Ilikeyoutoo yay ( talk) 17:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Could you please explain your edits at the Istanbul bombing 2022? To unexplained remove a claim by a far right politician is not really constructive. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 16:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Synod of the Oak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theophilus of Alexandria. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
Curbon7 (
talk) 22:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacques-Nicolas Billaud-Varenne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oratorian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
TY for your help. Have a bubble tea. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 23:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
Hello, AgisdeSparte. Thank you for your work on Volos Declaration. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating this article! Hopefully you will write more articles! Have a good day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Your article on the Volos Declaration, while covering a notable subject certainly warranting a Wikipedia article, suffers from a significant amount of unreliable sources, biased verbiage, and original research. I have done some work to clear the article of the issues, but my recommendation is that you don't start your articles in the mainspace and instead build them as a draft or in your sandbox. Let me know if you have further questions. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Chrysostomos Dimitriou is an excellent page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 02:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
An article you recently created,
Cretans (French Revolution), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
Onel5969
TT me 12:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dimitrios Ploumis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi AgisdeSparte. After reviewing your request, I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 2023-04-13. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
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 trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi AgisdeSparte. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
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 trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
On 21 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2023 Saint Petersburg bombing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that blogger Vladlen Tatarsky was killed by a bomb hidden in a bust of himself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vladlen Tatarsky. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, 2023 Saint Petersburg bombing), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh ( talk) 00:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 21:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independentism.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thank you very much for your time, effort, and contribution to improving and enriching the content of Ahmad Zayni Dahlan's article, and for translating it into French on the French Wikipedia. Well done! Best regards. TheEagle107 ( talk) 22:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC) |
A cheeseburger for you! Enfeed ( talk) 11:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mehmed Kemâl Bey, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 01:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nichan Iftikhar.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Djaafar Khemdoudi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Chamond.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, AgisdeSparte. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Cretans".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edit and commented on my page. Just here to say that I’m a good faith editor. Please watch the episodes before reverting edits on Fear The Walking Dead pages. Many of the plot summaries are pretty awful (typos, grammar, style, etc.) and I’m only trying to help. I edit as I watch the show. Thanks. 2A02:8428:1067:9301:413D:B0DE:C603:16A ( talk) 20:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, AgisdeSparte. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗ plicit 23:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
If my edits keep disappearing, I might as well quit Wikipedia. Weatheriscool777 ( talk) 00:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
On my Talk page, you wrote: "Hello, I'm AgisdeSparte. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Denise Richards: It's Complicated because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. AgisdeSparte (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)"
I respectfully believe that you did make a mistake. This is the relevant sentence from the article under the description for Season 2, Episode 5 "Fun Bags or Die": "When Will Ferrell's website Funny or Die asks Denise to star in a comedy video about her "fun bags," she is excited to make fun of her assets."
My edit was solely to the external link to that video on Funny or Die's YouTube channel. It's the specific video referenced in the text in the article. How is that wrong? The link to the video that I provided is 100% relevant to the description of that exact video. I removed ambiguity. I increased reader's knowledge about this subject.
Now, I will admit that, perhaps, I should introduce the link in another way. Perhaps adding a sentence to the description of the episode such as: "The video has since been uploaded to YouTube." and then use a < ref > < /ref > to the video on YouTube. Tell me what you think. I do believe that that webpage deserves a link to that video located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmt0mbYjVXs
Regarding this, did you read my edit summary? Do you still think my edit was unconstructive? And why don't you want to link Asriel to Asriel (disambiguation)? Please reply here, on your talk page, so the conversation stays in one place.
173.67.42.107 ( talk) 01:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Please leave an explanatory explanation, unless you are reverting vandalism. You've not done so, and I have no idea why you made your revert - which was not proper in any event. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A9EA:14C3:9BA8:A24B ( talk) 05:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sharifian Caliphate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Arab Revolt into
Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk) 13:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Could you please clarify how calling Arianism a heresy is not neutral? It clearly falls under the wikipedia definition of a heresy, and the vast majority of modern Christians regard it as heresy. 85.166.156.145 ( talk) 10:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I just improved the lead. The source was already in the main article. 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:9807:6CB4:A4D7:E312 ( talk) 14:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
TryBishop Is The Official Producer Of “Worship” Which Is Number 15 On The Vultures Project & Here’s The Link For Fact Checking ( https://www.instagram.com/p/C0vFoMZIJPK/?igshid=ZWI2YzEzYmMxYg== ) 2601:243:821:80A7:9EE:1027:99CB:C1EF ( talk) 01:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi AgisdeSparte, thanks for your message! My edit was due to the Excessive citations tag. TaurenMoonlighting ( talk) 11:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
You say there is no citation but it is already cited in his Wiki as I stated. There is No citation calling him German, when he is cited as Polish born and trained in hockey.
I ordered the reference correctly. There is no controversy as you claim, it is where he was born.
What is your angle that you keep reverting these changes? 188.147.72.189 ( talk) 13:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Straight Outta Compton into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For future reference, please link the page you copied from (
Straight Outta Compton to
N.W.A) directly in the edit summary next time. This message is about
this edit. Cheers, — MATRIX! (
a good person!)
citation unneeded 17:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Please look at the papers in ireland the man that died is a different dean byrne 92.28.114.100 ( talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm CringeyJ50, and my edit of the Oswald The Lucky Rabbit Fiilmography has been removed. The reason a citation was not there was because when i originally tried to put one in, it showed the link to the cite rather then the number that it should be. I removed the cite due to this,and the cite i tried to link was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO3UdcFBYE4 ,becuase footage of the short was shown,and was referenced as such. KelanM ( talk) 15:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I strongly object to the revision of my edit to the immaculate conception page. You claimed that it was "less than neutral", but on what basis? I provided a scholarly source, used information from it and cited from it. None of the principles of neutrality were broken, no side in a theological dispute was taken. The material I added was in line with the tone and approach of the article sections into which they were placed. I see no reason for the edit to be undone. ThePatristicsFan ( talk) 17:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Please just report problems ( WP:AIV or WP:RFPP, depending on the situation) when vandalism become rapid-fire repeated, such as the IPs at Dissociation (psychology), and move on to something else. Vandals often have near-limitless energy and there are presumably more fun things you yourself could be doing. No need to waste your time edit-warring against them. DMacks ( talk) 03:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Its okay but I will add a citation 116.193.142.117 ( talk) 08:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I found a paragraph in Khulna University article is regarding a Hindu temple. before deleting the topic I have had a look if there is similar topic about the central Masjid in the university. It seems that keeping a paragraph on a Temple may raise religious concern among the students as there is now topic on masjid. Hence I removed the paragraph on Temple to make the article focused more on the university's academic and research perspective. 62.78.155.79 ( talk) 15:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, AgisdeSparte. Thank you for your work on Éric Sandillon. Ingratis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thank you for the article, which I have reviewed.
Ingratis ( talk) 03:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi AgisdeSparte, thanks very much for your thoughtful feedback. That was my very first edit on Wiki, and, since you've asked, I do feel you've made a mistake : ). Will you please provide additional information on why you removed my edit? I agree, it's very important to maintain accuracy and neutrality, especially when discussing people's religious beliefs. And, that is why I made the edit. The edited statement, as was (and now is again), seems less than neutral to me:
"When Smith examined the scrolls, he said that they contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph (as well as a story about an "Egyptian princess" named "Katumin" or "Kah tou mun")."
I added "According to Robert K. Ritner" (Dr. Ritner was introduced earlier in the article).
The wiki editors seem to be making a claim that "Smith" said something. The two references are to pages 1 and 2 of one of Ritner's books. The citations don't have any statements by Smith, only by Ritner. As we seek neutrality together, I feel it's important to be clear as far as who said what. That is truly what Dr. Ritner said on those 2 pages. However, since Dr. Ritner doesn't provide a citation to Smith saying anything there, a better citation is needed, or my addition. Without a reference to something Smith said, the citation might be said to be an unsupported opinion of Dr. Ritner's about Smith.
If the reference is to Dr. Ritner, rather than Smith, shouldn't it be clarified? Or am I missing something?
I read the Wiki policy "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three." I'm trying to understand.
In the introduction, Wiki editors say: "University of Chicago Egyptologist Robert K. Ritner concluded in 2014 that the source of the Book of Abraham "is the 'Breathing Permit of Hôr,' misunderstood and mistranslated by Joseph Smith."[2] He later said the Book of Abraham is now "confirmed as a perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith," and "despite its inauthenticity as a genuine historical narrative, the Book of Abraham remains a valuable witness to early American religious history and to the recourse to ancient texts as sources of modern religious faith and speculation."[2]
This seems to be more neutral, as it acknowledges that these are Dr. Ritner's opinions, e.g.: "He later said..." or "Robert K. Ritner concluded in 2014..."
If my addition of "According to Dr. Ritner..." lacks neutrality (while the above doesn't), is there a way to say "better citation needed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekingtime ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your thoughts and insights! Looking forward to learning.
FYI, if further info interests you: Ritner's claim that Smith "...said that they contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph" may be a reference to June 30th-July 6th, 1835 reports made in hindsight; however, Dr. Ritner doesn't tell us why he's making this assumption about what Smith "said." The second claim in the sentence "(as well as a story about an "Egyptian princess" named "Katumin"..." may be an assumption made by Dr. Ritner, we don't really know without a reference to his reasons for making the claim. There may be a great reference somewhere in his many writings, but pages 1 and 2 do not provide. Assuming that anything said by Dr. Ritner is true, could make the article seem to lack neutrality to anyone who is informed or who has read Dr. Ritner's books.
Seekingtime ( talk) 05:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi AgisdeSparte, thank you again for your efforts to maintain NPOV. Since I haven’t heard from you, and I'm inexperienced, I thought it best to review Wikipedia policies, and also the edited article (to determine what is acceptable practice). I have much to learn, and, in light of the policies, I feel that “Criticism of the Book of Abraham-Wikipedia” needs some thoughtful editing. I’m thankful that you are here to help with that; and am excited that Wiki is focused on NPOV, verification, and so on.
There has been much improvement, Wiki is moving forward, but the article does lack NPOV in several cases. I hope we continue to improve, report on disagreements about the BoA from a NPOV, and let facts do the talking.
The sentence I edited said that “When Smith examined the scrolls,[17] he said…” What follows isn’t a statement by Smith, but seems to be an opinion of Robert Ritner’s about what Smith may have said or believed.
If you’re interested in further details, please let me know. In a nutshell, no evidence is presented indicating that Smith said what Ritner attributed to him. In his book (pages 1 & 2 as cited) Ritner presents his idea that Joseph Smith identified specific extant papyri sources for the BoA, BoJ, and Katumin text. However, he doesn't quote Smith, and, since Robert Ritner's claim is seriously disputed, we should acknowledge that it seems to be based on assumptions.
In my hopes of thoughtfully promoting NPOV, I looked through the article to see if I could come up with a better way to briefly point out that the statement that “he [Smith] said…” is not fact.
I thought perhaps “Ritner wrote…” would work, but he didn’t exactly write that, only implied. "Claimed" and "alleged" are discouraged, since they may encourage bias. Since the editor already said “said,” and since “according to” is one of the most frequently used (see quotes from the article below, some unsupported), I felt “according to” would be best?
However, since you reverted, I’ll try to come up with something else. Any suggestions will be much appreciated. :) Perhaps asserted?
Again, I do really appreciate your help.
From the Wikipedia article: “Criticism of the Book of Abraham”
“According to Smith, the book was…”
“According to Smith, the book comprised "ancient records…”
“According to Smith's explanations, Facsimile No. 1 depicts…”
“...according to M. de Rougé, the fixed points…“
“...founder Joseph Smith[3] that he claimed were translated from Egyptian”
“Joseph Smith claimed that…”
“Joseph Smith claimed that Facsimile No. 2…”
“...from the University of Chicago, claimed the…”
“claimed to have a PhD, despite this being a lie…”
“They have also asserted that missing portions…”
“...to assert that all of the Book of Abraham…”
“...(as is often asserted…).”
“...an assertion that has been”
“...apologists therefore assert that Smith's…”
“Mormon apologists also allege the assertion…” Seekingtime ( talk) 01:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks so much for the recent improvements you've been making to our article on Alexander Atabekian. It's an article I've been keeping my eye on for a while, so I'm very happy to see it expanding. Could you give me a ping when you are done with the article? I'd be more than willing to help copyedit it once you have seen to everything you were planning on. :) -- Grnrchst ( talk) 14:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Éric Sandillon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, AgisdeSparte, and thank you for translating several interesting biographies of women from the French over the last few days. If you intend to continue along these lines, you might like to join WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. You can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Happy editing!-- Ipigott ( talk) 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)