User talk:Woodroar/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Exmor".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

— AP 499D25 (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

ayo

why did you remove the very true happenings that (Redacted)? i think that's VERY important information to include, victim of gamergate or not Xchan100 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Xchan100! I've removed your claims above, and also left some important information about Wikipedia (in general) and our policies regarding content about living persons (in specific) on your Talk page. I suggest taking the time to read those links (and the ones below) in full.

Content on Wikipedia should summarize claims made by reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We have to be strict when it comes to negative or controversial claims about living persons, and we also require top-quality sources for those claims. (I suggest reading our guidelines on reliable sources and also browsing through WP:RSP for details on which sources we consider reliable or unreliable.) We're not here to spread gossip or say whatever we want—in articles, on Talk pages, or anywhere on Wikipedia. So, to answer your question, those claims were removed because they're not supported by reliable sources. It's that simple. Please let me know if you have any other questions! Woodroar (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Manveer Heir

Hey there! I've been having some difficulty making edits to this page, particularly to remove some strange editorial choices and to add highly relevant (and in my opinion, extremely important) counterbalance to the person's comments on race and diversity. You seem to be interested in keeping a bit of a stranglehold on even word-choice edits, which I'd like to get some sort of explanation on so that those edits might cease to be regularly undone. I've done my best to become familiar with Wikipedia's policies on the matter and tailoring the edits accordingly, but it maybe I'm missing something. For instance, my reference (17) is taken directly from the subject's own Twitter posts, identical to reference 3 which you have evidently accepted into the article. Kindly advise what differentiates these references. I don't believe the subject should be able to use Wikipedia for flattery or promotion - as it appears might be happening here (extremely positively-slanted wording is being vigorously defended whereas more neutral (though of course unflattering) wording is not) - I'm unsure why and would like to avoid a battle of edits here by understanding. Thanks WhereIsFibonacci (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @WhereIsFibonacci, welcome to Wikipedia! We have intentionally high standards for content about living persons, particularly when it comes to claims that are negative or controversial. Such claims should always be directly supported by citations to reliable, secondary sources—ideally, multiple sources. (You can read more about this policy at WP:BLP and WP:V.) On the other hand, primary sources like reference 3 can be used for some basic, non-controversial claims (like leaving a job), as outlined at WP:ABOUTSELF. Claims like "criticized for some comments" and "criticized by the video game community" would need to be cited to reliable, secondary sources discussing that criticism. I'm no expert on Manveer Heir—I only found out about him and this reoccurring issue when it was mentioned on a noticeboard—but I think it's pretty clear that he's being sarcastic with hot takes on a nuanced, controversial subject (structural/societal racism vs. individual racism). That limits how we can use those primary sources to...pretty much nothing. There's also the fact that half of the tweets are photoshopped and not even his. (Which is why we don't consider Know Your Meme a reliable source.)

For what it's worth, I agree with some of your other changes. The article has some puffery that should be removed. But that doesn't mean that we can introduce unsourced or poorly-sourced claims as some kind of parity. Wikipedia does have a Neutral Point of View policy, which (contrary to how it may sound) requires that we (as editors) neutrally summarize what reliable sources say without inserting our own interpretations or maintaining a false balance. If reliable sources are overwhelmingly positive (or negative) about a subject, our articles should reflect that.

I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the points of clarification! So the source I cited was Manveer himself stating that he stands by "all of" those tweets he made. Now, they may have been collated in that KnowYourMeme page on the tweet he replied to, but I believe every single one of them (and more) are available directly on archive.today as links to his previous (now-deleted) Twitter account. Would it be better to provide these direct links as references? Or am I to understand correctly that, simply: flattering primary sources about a subject are accepted, but unflattering primary sources aren't? For example, I couldn't even get some of the puffery removed until now. This makes me question whether the article was read at all by those undoing the edits, as half of it was dedicated to specific slides on a presentation he once gave. For crying out loud, the article read that he was named "one of the top 50 people in the video game industry" which is simply wrong. Further, the links to Wikipedia policies you provided seem to focus a lot on the fact that primary sources should be considered unreliable unless it was made by the subject directly. Perhaps an article from OneAngryGamer (https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2017/03/mass-effect-andromedas-racist-game-designer-no-longer-works-for-bioware/) would be more suitable as a source, since that blog has been used in other articles....

Now, you and I can argue whether he is "being sarcastic with hot takes" (respectfully, it is not "pretty clear" at all), but I encourage you to go and actually read some of his old tweets if you sincerely believe that - as, though I don't know you, I wager that were the comments directed at any other race, you would likely have a different opinion (for example: https://archive.is/RODcy or https://archive.is/t3b9w (which I'd hope would give you pause)). The fact remains that a huge percentage of this article is dedicated to his comments on race, and whether you personally think it to be "sarcasm" or not, the comments made huge waves at the time, resulted in, arguably, his removal from the company, caused him to delete his account altogether, and are relevant to keeping the article balanced. Now, I'm not making those claims in the edits, only to you now as someone who followed it at the time, and only drawing attention that those comments exist and are pertinent. Nowhere in my language did it state he was a racist, nor that his comments weren't sarcasm, or anything else. Only that he made them, and they are related to his views for an entire section dedicated to them (or, why not just remove that section altogether?). If he has admitted to standing by those comments and you yourself don't view them as serious or racially charged, then why the panic to hide them from his article at all?

If your issue is that we avoid terms like "criticized", then this can be done. There is no desire to paint the man as a monster, only to dedicate a measly 5% of the article to drawing attention to the fact that these comments were made and are relevant to the remaining 95% of the article that was biased enough that the man could - let's be honest - add it to his résumé. WhereIsFibonacci (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@WhereIsFibonacci, Heir's tweets are still a primary source, so unusable for claims that are negative or controversial. It doesn't matter if we avoid the word "criticized" or take a "drawing attention" approach, it's still controversial. Ultimately, we're not here to perform our own analysis or interpretation of sources or add our own point of view or opinions into articles—which it sounds like you're trying to do. We do sometimes fill in basic details from primary sources, though there are limitations. Nothing negative or controversial as mentioned, but also no puffery because that type of content is usually considered "exceptional" or "self-serving" or simply isn't a statement of fact. (See WP:PRIMARY and (again) WP:ABOUTSELF for the full policies.) However, keep in mind that almost everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer and we have 6.6 million articles, so not every article can or will be perfect. A few other comments:

One Angry Gamer is considered an unreliable source because their staff largely lacks training and experience in journalism (or related fields), they don't differentiate between opinion and fact-based content, they've misrepresented sources, and so on. You can read more about specific sources at WP:RSP (for general sources) and WP:VG/S (for video game-specific sources).

If the screenshot in that article is real, Heir had written more than 76 thousand tweets at the time it was published. I'm guessing he wrote a few more before deleting his account. Cherry-picking the dozen or two tweets that you disagree with is exactly why we don't do our own analysis and instead rely on what reliable sources have published.

As for why that didn't happen before, my guess is that your logged-out edits were seen as Living Person policy violations and edit warring. BLP-violating content is almost always reverted, even if there are incidental good edits, because the policy is that [c]ontentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I'm glad that you created an account and you're willing to discuss it now. If you have further concerns about the article, I suggest bringing them to Talk:Manveer Heir for a wider discussion. Woodroar (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Understood! Then it seems I understood correctly in saying that primary sources are good for flattering comments on a subject but not for unflattering ones! Thanks kindly for the clarification. I indeed would have agreed that One Angry Gamer might be a questionable source, but then I saw him in other articles (which I'm sure you've been quick to remove now after our discussion ;)). I'm glad to see some measure of consistency from yourself in that regard, even if I do have to say I'm disappointed that the fact he might have made 76,000 tweets at the time of his deletion is considered grounds for dismissing the validity of a great handful of others (except, again, in the case that such tweets are complimentary to him).

Anyway, it seems there's not going to be much progress to made here, and I admit I have been a little dissuaded from even attempting to fix things like puffery or unusual language as a result of this experience, and while you have been perfectly cordial (if a little accusatory) I can only hope that other aspiring editors get a more welcoming experience. Thanks for your time, and I hope enjoy the rest of your weekend! WhereIsFibonacci (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Woodroar. Thank you for your work on Viking-Bergen Banks. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

Hello! I want to inform you that I have checked your article and mark it as reviewed. Have a good day and thanks for creating the article!

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) 04:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Keeps deleting stuff!!

He keeps deleting important things IsaacTheChristianCryptozoologist (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@IsaacTheChristianCryptozoologist, thank you for the message. The list at Fearsome critters is for links to critters with their own articles at Wikipedia—like a directory to the most prominent examples. If you think the Treesqueak should be mentioned, you should see if it meets our notability criteria and create a draft of the article or make a case for its inclusion at Talk:Fearsome critters. I also suggest reading through the links I left at your own Talk page (User talk:IsaacTheChristianCryptozoologist) because they contain a lot of information about Wikipedia, our policies and guidelines, and what the project is all about. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or at the Teahouse. Woodroar (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Mooji page

Hi Woodroar,

My name is Siddhartha, I help to look after the online presence for Mooji, and I've recently been having a look at Mooji's wikipedia page and some of the history behind it.

Thank you for the work you've put into looking after this page and moderating some of the edits.

I wanted to ask your advice for improving the page, as I would rather not make edits only to find out they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. However, I do have two main concerns with the article as it stands now, and I'm very keen to get your feedback and suggestions for how to address them.

1. There seems to be a strong emphasis on the monetary aspect of Mooji's satsangs

I find this emphasis a bit suggestive in a negative way, insinuating that Mooji's teachings are just about making money. I'm not sure why it is relevant to list the number of people coming to retreats, how much they are paying, the number of hectares of Mooji's retreat center, the annual income of the organisation, etc.

I feel some implicit bias in the way this information is highlighted, but I'd be happy to hear what you think about it.

2. Poor and vague representation of Mooji's teachings

I find that most of the descriptions of Mooji's teachings revolve around journalists' subjective experiences of attending a talk. For example, it's attended mainly by "mostly well-off whites", it's a "riff on faith", his focus is totally on you "making you feel like you really matter"... and so on.

It's reasonable to include impressions and experiences, but seems misleading to present these opinions as a description of Mooji's teachings.

With so much of Mooji's teachings publicly available on YouTube or succinctly explained in his books, it feels to me that Wikipedia should give a clearer overview of what Mooji's teachings actually are.

I found the page of Gangaji, a comparable teacher, to be a good example of what I would expect to see on the Wikipedia page of a well known spiritual teacher.

I'm happy to draft an overview of Mooji's core teachings that references source material, if that could help.

Again, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts about these points. I feel the article could give a deeper insight into who Mooji is and what he is sharing without losing its objectivity. Would be very grateful for any help along these lines.

I'm sorry if this is a bit much, but I'm hoping that asking for help from someone experienced in editing and moderating Wikipedia pages would be more effective than trying to make or fight for changes on my own.

Wishing you all the best, Siddhartha Siddcorsus (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Siddcorsus, thanks for reaching out, and for mentioning your own conflict of interest on this subject. (Many editors don't!) In general, articles on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, independent, secondary sources. That means news articles, scientific journals, books from reputable publishers, and so on. We can use primary sources—for example, the subject's verified social media posts or interviews—to fill in very basic details, like their birthdate or gender identity. If what the subject claims is different from what reliable secondary sources claim—say, conflicts over a birth year/age—we generally trust those secondary sources. What we, as editors, can't do is analyze or synthesize primary materials like the subject's teachings. Unfortunately, if secondary sources tend to focus on the monetary side of things or they misunderstand some teachings, that's not something we can fix. In that case, your best course of action would be to reach out to those news outlets, or perhaps request coverage from other reliable sources.

You mentioned our article on Gangaji, which I've never seen before. I'll be honest, it's pretty bad. It's largely based on primary sources, and plenty of claims aren't sourced at all. The article's history shows a great deal of promotional editing, too. That's essentially the opposite of what a Wikipedia article should be. Our article on Mooji, on the other hand, has been mentioned at high-profile discussion pages like our noticeboard on articles about living persons and the consensus among seasoned editors has been that it meets our standards.

I've left a welcome message on your User Talk page. You can click on "Learn more about editing" for an introduction to why we do what we do, but please let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

(Note: I'm aware you've received these notifications before for other areas, and apologize for the additional talk page clutter but the filter does not indicate that you've received it for the GG area yet. As a reminder, you can always use the Ctopics/aware template mentioned above to indicate your awareness of various contentions topics, if you do not wish to be notified of them in the future). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I totally understand! That's weird about the filter, though, as I've been editing at Gamergate (harassment campaign) since the first couple of weeks. Oh well! Woodroar (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Alexa Nikolas

Hello is the source from her Instagram not reliable? It is coming directly from her verified Instagram. 2600:100C:A20E:2:E039:B781:5D41:E35E (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi 2600, her Instagram can only be used for basic claims about herself, and cannot be used for claims involving third parties. See WP:BLPSELFPUB for more about that. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

So would third parties include children? 2600:100C:A20E:2:6907:8F90:6CAE:AB92 (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Children, husband, any living person. Woodroar (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Participate in this discussion. thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UEFA_European_Championship_records_and_statistics#%22Semifinal_appearance%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoomia (talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Xoomia:, thank you for the message, but I have to ask: why me? I've never edited that article before and I'm not a member of WikiProject Football. In fact, I don't even watch football. Woodroar (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The Oxford Student and Cherwell

I can easily find other sources for O'Neill's views regarding freedom of speech. However, the student papers seem to have been the only ones covering the protests over his 2018 visit. I am not using them to make controversial claims - I am using them to verify that Oxford students protested O'Neill's 2018 visit. This should not be an issue.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It is an issue, as protesting someone for their views is inherently controversial. We need high-quality sources to support such a claim regarding living persons. Additionally, if only one source is reporting on the situation, that's a sign that it's an undue or minority viewpoint. Woodroar (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, what if I reframed the wording to say that "In 2018, Oxford student newspapers reported that..."?--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

If reliable, secondary, independent sources—that is, not the student newspapers but reputable sources reporting on them—have covered this situation, that might be fine. But it would really have to be widely reported, by several sources at least, to be DUE. Considering the number of reverts you're currently at, I would strongly suggest trying to workshop any phrasing on the Talk page rather than adding it yourself—which would likely be seen as further reverts. Woodroar (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I noticed that you just removed a large amount of content from the article because it used "primarily sources". You are aware that linking to primary sources is perfectly fine when it's used to reference the subject's stated views, right? Those links were citing op-eds when talking about the subject's point-of-view, which is the only time that it's acceptable to cite op-eds. Where else are you going to get the subject's stated views?--LadybugStardust (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Where else are you going to get the subject's stated views? From reliable, secondary, independent sources. Coverage from reliable sources is what makes a person's views worth mentioning here. In most other cases, we don't care. See WP:SPS, for example. If O'Neill were a subject matter expert on homosexuality, racism, religion, environmentalism, etc., then we might care. But he's a pundit. And keep in mind that, per policies like WP:BLPSPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, we can never use his self-published sources to support claims about other living persons. Woodroar (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Brendan O'Neill

Look, I get it. You wish there wasn't an article about O'Neill at all. In reality, however, Wikipedia includes articles about people that you don't like. I already discussed this on the talk page and no objections were raised - not even from you. At this point, it's obvious that you are going to revert my revisions no matter what, even though I have reliable sources to back them up and good reason to include them.--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, I'd never heard of Brendan O'Neill until I saw the recent thread on RSN. He does appear to meet our notability requirements so I'm glad that the article exists. What I care about most is that the article complies with all of our policies and guidelines, particularly when it comes to claims about living persons. That includes requiring top-tier sources for claims that are controversial or negative, balancing the weight of sources, and fairly summarizing what reliable sources say. I have no problem removing poorly-sourced controversial/negative claims from articles about people I dislike, or, for that matter, removing poorly-sourced puffery from articles about people I like. Woodroar (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the sources that I cited literally has O'Neill saying "Free speech is absolute" IN THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE, so the claim that none of the sources say that he takes a free speech absolutist position is completely false. There is also no just cause for claiming that the source on abortion is a "misrepresentation" (in what possible way is it?). I have tried to work this out with you on the talk page and you have refused to do so.--LadybugStardust (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Brendan O'Neill (columnist). Going forward, please use the article talk page for all discussions about the article. Woodroar (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Too confusing with the YouTube source on the Alexa Nikolas page

I was bummed when you reverted my edit on the Alexa Nikolas page when I said I had proof that Alexa's middle name is Helen. If you reverted my edits, then why are there YouTube sources on that page. Go check them out on that page. Chidie345 (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I found out that it had nothing to do with the sources. It was the documents. Technically, Alexa just censored her home address on her restraining order document to keep it private. Chidie345 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

For our purposes, it really doesn't matter if she censored one thing and not another. On Wikipedia, we simply can't use documents like that to support claims about living persons. I urge you to read through our policy on content about living persons if you're going to be editing articles about them. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Your changes to Stephenson book articles

I don't care about these changes one way or the other, but how do you see them as related to MOS:BIO? Dan Bloch (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was a mistake. 100% a brain fart.

Now I'd argue that we nearly always include author nationality—by looking at featured articles on novels (Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels#Work to be done), for example—but you're absolutely correct that MOS:BIO is irrelevant. Woodroar (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

David Mearns and Mensun Bound

Dear Woodroar, I have quoted and cited fidedign sources regarding the salvage activities of David Mearns's Blue Water Recovery company, including a masters thesis. I am not sure what else do you need. I have provided articles and sites directly relating his salvage activities to the auction of recovered artifacts. Subarqaz (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear Woodroar, I am a nautical archaeologist with 30 year experience and an expert for the OSCE Heritage Crime Task Force. Believe me when I write that Mensun Bound engaged in salvage and treasure hunting activities - of course, these are now not an honorable activity, that is why people like him have been scouring the internet clean of previous evidence of this. Again, all references that I quoted, cleanly tied Mensun Bound with salvage and treasure hunting activities both in Mozambique and Cape Verde. Subarqaz (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Subarqaz! Unfortunately, the sources you used don't meet our strict requirements for negative or controversial content about living persons.

For example, we can't use self-published sources like auction house publications, forums, social media, or press releases to support any content about living persons. Masters dissertations and theses are only acceptable when they've been shown to have a significant scholarly influence, which is typically rare. I also noticed some news aggregators, like afr.com and allafrica.com; for sources like these, you would need to track down the original article, wherever it was published. In most cases, we require citations to reliable, independent, secondary sources like newspaper articles, magazine articles, scholarly article published in a reputable journal, and so on. When it comes to claims about living persons, these sources need to be the best of the best. For negative or controversial claims, we'll likely need multiple sources.

That being said, the largest issue was that none of the sources you added supported the claims, that Mearns, Bound, or Rule were "looting" or "sell[ing] the underwater cultural heritage" or anything like that. Not only do we require reputable sources, but they need to clearly and explicitly make the claims that we're using them for. We also can't combine sources to make them say things that neither source says. For example, we can't use one source to say one person was in charge of a vessel, and another source to say that vessel was involved in looting.

If you want to make that claim that any of these people were looting, you'll need to find multiple sources that say this, plainly and unambiguously. If you have any questions, please let me know! Woodroar (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well then, it is time to publish a paper in a Q1 journal. :) Subarqaz (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and good luck! Woodroar (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

"Stalin Strait"

Hmmm, like I need another unicorn to chase. There probably was a "Stalin Strait" "meme" in Stalin's time. There are enough online references to it in historical communities for the period. But, yes, as many hits as you get on a Googling, secondary RS are not popping to the forefront (possibly due to the modern meme). Newsweek has it as mentioned in the context of threats of escalation in Ukraine. Probably, I could ask one of the Russian translators I know; the best secondary RS is probably in Russian. I would have to look at some Russian text for RS in the end, but maps of the "Stalin Strait" I have seen do not correlate with the WIS and for that reason would not belong on the WIS page.

в другой раз

IveGoneAway (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi IveGoneAway! Yeah, I also Googled it and saw that Newsweek source. But I couldn't find anything connecting it to Western Interior Seaway, either. You're welcome to ask the translators you know but I'm guessing it was a random bit of SYNTH someone had. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

AI-generated comments?

Hi, I expressed concern about AI-generated comments and quoted one of them that you reverted. See discussion here: WT:FILM § AI-generated comments? Feel free to share thoughts, or be aware in general. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Number of Polish MEPs

Poland has 53 MEPs, not 51. Please correct this in this articles: Civic Platform and Confederation Liberty and Independence. Moreover, the Civic Platform has 20 MEPs, not 21, because one of the MEPs from the Civic Coalition is a member of the Polish Initiative, not the Civic Platform, so please correct that too, ok? IgnacyPL (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @IgnacyPL! I'm sorry but I won't be able to edit that article for you. It's generally not appropriate to ask others to make editors for you, as it's considered close to meatpuppetry. Perhaps more importantly, I don't know anything about Polish MEPs or where to find information about them. I see that you've started a discussion at Talk:Confederation Liberty and Independence and that's a good start. However, you haven't included a reliable, secondary, independent source, which editors will want to see before making that change. I suggest adding a source to that discussion and wait for an interested and knowledgeable editor to stop by. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

But I am blocked from editing these articles, so I am asking you. After all, all other articles say "53", so please correct that here too. IgnacyPL (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like both articles are locked due to disruptive editing. I won't be a part of that. If you'd like, you can add an edit request on those pages, which will alert other editors to your request. However, you will still need to supply a reliable, secondary, independent source verifying your suggestion. Woodroar (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

Hello, you removed my edits on Ann Lee (singer) (regarding the rumours about her being the voice behind the Whigfield project) claiming that i didn't use a reliable source, which is not true because I've used an official news website from Italy which exposes the rumour. I put the link here: https://www.free.it/2022/07/06/le-sue-hit-hanno-fatto-ballare-leuropa-poi-e-scomparsa-troppe-le-bugie/

So i'd like to know why is this source not valid enough ? Thanks in advance. Miguel098374 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Miguel098374! It's important to understand that we don't repeat rumors and that we avoid gossip on Wikipedia. We're here to summarize facts cited to reliable, secondary, independent sources. When it comes to content about living persons, they really have to the most respected, reputable sources—and multiple sources when the content is controversial or negative. Free.it looks like an unreliable content farm, a mixture of gossip, citizen journalism, and SEO clickbait. That's the polar opposite of the type of sources we want.

I left a note on your Talk page pointing you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sireywan, Whigfield/Ann Lee (singer). I'm hoping that your message here, less than an hour after another editor was blocked for making these kinds of edits, was just a huge coincidence. If Sireywan or someone else did ask you to message me, it would be a good idea to disclose it at that link. Please let me know if you have any questions. Woodroar (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, i don't know about Sireywan and that person never talked to me. I was just wondering because i noticed that my previous edit had been reverted even if i added a source for it. Thanks for your reply! Miguel098374 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That's good to know! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Amazon Redshift

Hi. You removed a link from the External Links section of the Amazon Redshift page, citing WP:ELON. I presume you are thinking of point 5. I would argue this is not applicable, as the site contains years worth of unique research, where nothing like that information is even remotely available anyway where else, and years with of ongoing monitoring of Redshift, also available nowhere else, and the link is to that index page of that information. This is not obviously "individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". 89.14.146.243 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are concerned about your personal access to the site that has been removed from the External links section, the link can still be found in the numerous saved earlier versions of the article accessible via the page history. If the external site is a reliable source that contains information that would improve the article, then such information should be added to the article and cited to the website. In general, though, links in an External links section are not protected, and are subject to removal without prior notice. Donald Albury 18:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The site contains a very large amount of detailed technical information about Redshift internals, in the form of about 25 or so white papers. AWS publish no meaningful information about Redshift internals. For people using Redshift, this information is of immense value and is unique. This is why there is a link, and why the material is not in the page. 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

89.14: Yes, ELNO #5, which certainly does apply because it's your consultancy page; also ELNO #13, your personal web page. I would also argue that none of the criteria under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE apply. And certainly WP:COI says you shouldn't be adding the link, either. (If it's that important, then get the information published in a reliable, secondary source and we can consider citing that.)

No matter the reason, you have been reverted at least 4 times now. At this point, it's up to you to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and attempt to gain consensus for inclusion at Talk:Amazon Redshift. I don't think that'll happen, but the onus is on you to get others to agree. Woodroar (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think you have the wrong end of the stick. A link to the site has been on the page for years. The site contains a very large amount of detailed technical information about Redshift internals, in the form of about 25 or so white papers, as well as system table dumps for the last couple of years, and cross-region cross-node type benchmarking for the same time, and so on. AWS publish no meaningful information about Redshift internals, or anything else of this nature. For people using Redshift, this information is of immense value and is utterly unique, and that's why there's been a link. Much more recently, I added a consultancy section, and then more recently still, made that the landing page. This does not change the value or uniqueness of the content of the site, and the link I've made goes directly to, and only to, the index for that information. My argument then is that the technical information on the site, which has already been present in external links for years, remains valid and appropriate. 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What I might suggest, is that I make a separate landing page, which has and only had the index of technical information, rather than link to the anchor which starts the technical information section on the home page. Can you tell me what you think of that? 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the rollback by the other user, by the looks of his talk page he has a history of this, with complaints by other users that it was happening and without discussion or explanation, and he despite my attempts did not engage in any dialogue regarding why it was done. 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so a few things here.

I do think it would help if if the details on Redshift and your consultancy were on separate pages, or even separate sites entirely. But one of the bigger issues is that there's no evidence that you're a recognized subject matter expert or that your content is considered useful. I could just as easily run scans of websites in my own field, put the results on a site with some analysis, and try to force the results onto Wikipedia—but as far as anyone knows, I'm a nobody. The analysis could be faulty or the underlying data could be wrong. On Wikipedia, we look to reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to cite as sources. And when evaluating new sources, subject matter experts, and other unknowns, we look to how those known, trusted sources use the new, questionable material. So my first piece of advice would be to separate your analysis from your consultancy and wait for reputable sources to start citing you. (Note that this is distinct from any "client reviews" on your page. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, they're not useful to us.)

Another issue is that you keep adding the link yourself, which is discouraged by our conflict of interest guidelines. If your site does end up widely cited by reputable sources, the most you should do is mention it at Talk:Amazon Redshift—then let other editors take it from there.

Finally, I'd be careful when casting aspersions about other editors, like vaguely referencing "complaints". That's typically considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. If an editor is truly acting contrary to our policies and guidelines, then start a discussion at WP:ANI. But I'll say this: plenty of people come to Wikipedia thinking they can create an article about a joke they just made or treat their fellow editors like it's 4Chan, and they often complain when someone tells them to stop. Anybody can complain, but nobody's going to do anything about it unless the editor is violating our policies and guidelines. Hell, I've been complained about probably dozens of times in my 18 years volunteering here, and I've never been blocked or banned because I'm acting in the interests of the encyclopedia and its community.

If you have any other questions, please let me know. But I hope you'll take the advise here to heart, to wait until your content is recognized as useful by reliable sources, and then post about it at the article's Talk page. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

> I do think it would help if if the details on Redshift and your consultancy were on separate pages, or even separate sites entirely.

Separate page, yes. Separate site, I'm looking to help people, which is why I've spent now something like 15k USD on Redshift costs during the investigations I've made, which I publish for free, and I spend about 75 USD a month on ongoing monitoring, also published for free. Been doing this for years. I don't want to have to pay for another domain, because I find the rent seeking behavour of the registrars deeply objectionable.

> But one of the bigger issues is that there's no evidence that you're a recognized subject matter expert or that your content is considered useful.

Well, first, I would point you at the client reviews on the site. Those are from people paying substantial sums of money for my services.

Second, a part of that is there there *are* no other people who know about Redshift, *because* AWS publish no meaningful information.

However, I started up a Slack a few months ago.

An engineer from AWS joined, and he wrote this;

"I am an AWS employee and accredited as a 'subject matter expert' for Redshift and my knowledge in comparison to what is documented on your site is absolutely dwarfed. I just wanted to pop in and say thanks. The work that has been done with the observatory project is nothing short of incredible."

> I could just as easily run scans of websites in my own field, put the results on a site with some analysis, and try to force the results onto Wikipedia—but as far as anyone knows, I'm a nobody. The analysis could be faulty or the underlying data could be wrong.

You mean, the whole site could basically be fictious? that's a very large claim and it doesn't seem reasonable on the face of it. Something extraordinarily would have to be going on for that to be true. It is inherently a lot more likely the site simply is what it is. The site has been around for a long time, it will be in the Wayback Machine, and you can see the white papers building up over time. Try Googling for any of that content; you won't find any, anywhere, because on one else does this work.

In any event, this requires proving a negative - that I'm *not* ripping off another site.

> On Wikipedia, we look to reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to cite as sources. And when evaluating new sources, subject matter experts, and other unknowns, we look to how those known, trusted sources use the new, questionable material.

I would dispute this is new, questionable material. It's been consistently growing and being published for some years.

> So my first piece of advice would be to separate your analysis from your consultancy and wait for reputable sources to start citing you. (Note that this is distinct from any "client reviews" on your page. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, they're not useful to us.)

Why not?

> Another issue is that you keep adding the link yourself, which is discouraged by our conflict of interest guidelines. If your site does end up widely cited by reputable sources, the most you should do is mention it at Talk:Amazon Redshift—then let other editors take it from there.

This falls over where there are no other sites discussing or working on the subject. Try a search. You will pages from Amazon, and SEO pages from people selling consultancy (and they publish no investigations or research).

> Finally, I'd be careful when casting aspersions about other editors, like vaguely referencing "complaints". That's typically considered a personal attack on Wikipedia.

I was referring to his talk page, which other people wrote.

But I think at this point I give up with Wikipedia.

I had an account once, and in the end deleted it, years ago. It was fine, back in the day, but it became more and more that anything you write gets removed by someone else, who then keeps removing it.

Getting past this kind of resistance is not worth the effort.

The wiki page on Redshift now lacks a link to the single and only site which does actual research into the database.

2A02:3100:2275:8800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Twentysided tavern

Hi there! You removed all of the guest stars who have performed in the twenty sided tavern thus far as publicly shown on their instagram profile. I was adding their relevant links when you did another change that ended up making the edits I had worked on irrelevant. Please let me go in and add the proper info for the current cast (as noted on the twentysidedtavern website) and the guest stars (including major names like Neil Newbon, Travis McElroy (of The Adventure Zone) and more Yeehaw711 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Yeehaw711! I'm sorry but I also removed part of your later edit as well. Most content on Wikipedia should be supported by citing reliable, independent, secondary sources. Getting mentioned in such sources is how we decide what's worth writing about. We're also very strict when it comes to unreferenced content about living persons, and any content about living people who aren't notable (i.e., who don't have an article about them). Sourcing also lets us evaluate what's most relevant to cover in each article. For an article like Dungeons & Dragons in other media, it's generally not worth mentioning cast changes to The Twenty-Sided Tavern unless they are widely covered in D&D-centric sources. (In that case, they would need to be cited in the article.) Cast changes would be more appropriate in an article about The Twenty-Sided Tavern itself, if one existed—and that would also need to be cited to a reliable, secondary source. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Muhammad Yunus lead dispute

Hey, I have pasted your comment on the BLP noticeboard about this dispute to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_Yunus#Request_for_Feedback_on_Lead_Edit. Just letting you know. Arknights12 (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! Woodroar (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

West Baray

How would you feel about giving the editor an OR warning. They've had several and deleted them. Problem is they've all been from me. and he doesn't seem to take me seriously.Ok if you don't want to. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

And in any case, what do you think about their latest edit? Doug Weller talk 08:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Oops, I must have missed that edit while dealing with another issue yesterday. I reverted it and left messages at the article and user talks. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

That's great. I'm not sure how long before ANI becomes necessary,. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Right? Well, fingers crossed it doesn't come to that! Woodroar (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Stop Weaponizing

Please stop weaponizing G4, G5, and AfD processes to target university-related articles — especially those documenting the achievements of internationally respected universities like Darul Huda and Al Jamia Al Islamiya and scholars. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Hidaya Chemmad, huh? As I wrote on your talk page, this is the first time I've seen our article on Bahahuddin Nadwi. I've never tagged it for speedy deletion and I didn't participate in any of the previous AfDs. The same is true of Darul Huda Islamic University. I don't even know what Al Jamia Al Islamiya is. A Google search suggests Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya but that seems unlikely. Woodroar (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you were referring to Al Jamia Al Islamiya, which was deleted after this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Jamia Al Islamiya. Again, I had nothing to do with that. Woodroar (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Woodroar,

I noticed your interest in improving articles related to topics like Bahauddeen Nadwi, Darul Huda Islamic University, and Al Jamia Al Islamiya. I wanted to share a few thoughts and possibly open a dialogue.

Personally, I believe that all functioning universities should be considered notable under Wikipedia’s WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES guideline. In that context, do you see any specific disqualifying factors for either Al Jamia Al Islamiya or Darul Huda Islamic University that would affect their notability?

Thanks, and feel free to reach out if you'd like to continue the discussion.

Best regards, Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Hidaya Chemmad, that's it? No comments on your unfounded accusations? Woodroar (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You did an excellent job improving the article on Cat Chow! Keep up the good work! GrinningIodize (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Woodroar (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

AFD2

Thank you for your analysis and cooperation on the second nomination of that article we worked on. I apologize if I have sounded rude at first. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad to help! And don't worry about your first experiences here. Wikipedia is a different kind of place, with a lot of rules. Pretty much everyone has a little bit of culture shock! Woodroar (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Is it really been 19 years?

Woodroar, I'm surprised you've stayed here for that long. You've been one of the few people friendly to me after I joined. I unfortunately think I've struck my hand in a Viper's nest by chance (erm, bad luck, actually) after that recent AfD, but that's a topic for another time.

What's it been like? Have you been an admin? How many articles have you edited? What do you like editing the most?

I'm noticing attacks can be very common on Wikipedia. Even administrators have to deal with a lot of hassle and they can't block users freely as in other platforms (which may be a good thing for the project as a whole). You know what, I thought? "All of this animosity may be a good opportunity to become even stronger in the art of caring less".

How have you dealt with that over the years? Deathnotekll2 (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, 19 years, 20 in a few months! According to XTools, I've made 19,792 edits across 6,171 pages. That may seem huge, but there are editors with hundreds of thousands of edits. I don't know how they do it. Many of my edits are reverts of vandalism, but also reverts of good faith edits by editors who don't know our policies/guidelines or aren't aware about some previous consensus. That often involves issuing notifications or warnings on user talk pages. I also contribute to plenty of discussions on article talk pages and noticeboards. It all adds up over time!

I've never been an admin, and I'm on the fence about whether I'd ever want to be one. As you said, they have to deal with a lot.

As for working with (or sometimes dealing with) other editors, time and experience will help. Years ago, I worked a series of customer service jobs. I've been screamed at, threatened, and probably called every name there is. It put a lot of things in perspective, and I learned a lot about ignoring or letting things go, and focusing on moving the discussion forward. It doesn't always work, of course.

I'll end with this: the best advice I can give newer editors is to read a policy or guideline in full whenever someone links to them. They may not say what you think they're going to say. (Our Neutral Point of View policy is a good example.) Wikipedia is unlike most communities on the internet, so there's inevitably friction whenever someone expects it to operate like Reddit or 4Chan or a comment section. I hope this helps! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Since you're a long, long time veteran, I guess it would be easy for you to be approved in a RfA or an election. I feel inclined to support you if you do, because (I). You've been friendly and respectful, and (II). Your analysis of the sources of the AfD we worked on was investigative, precise and very logical. You found, discovered and explained the difference between a press release and journalism, something I couldn't see right away before you pointed it out. I respect people who detail their analysis thoroughly and who search for the truth; this is what I try to do here.

I have high functioning autism, which is really good for projects like these.

I think many organizations in the world have a veiled interest in keeping their articles on Wikipedia so they can grow, and sometimes you can see the company or organization has engaged several shady practices, within Wikipedia and outside of it. Besides my main editorial focus on arts, sciences, pop culture and philosophy, enforcement of policy toward these groups really excites me. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! I'm not so sure that I'd pass an RfA. I haven't written many articles and I'm not as active as some admins—plus, like I said, I'm not entirely sure I'd even want to be an admin. Maybe someday I'll want it enough to look into it! Anyways, thanks again. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Groups List

There is a discussion that may interest you at

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Revisiting the Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Groups List

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Gopnik photos

Hello @Woodroar.

Regarding the removed images in the article gopnik, you mentioned we should find better images from reliable, secondary sources. I was just wondering, do you happen to know where we could find some?

Regards, Dark4tune (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dark4tune! That's a good question. Unfortunately, I don't really know of a good source. I actually hadn't even heard of the term "gopnik" before it came up at ANI.

I would suggest searching for things like "gopnik culture", "gopnik subculture", "gopnik stereotype", etc. I looked briefly and found this article, but it's an opinion piece on a questionably reliable site, so we really can't use that one. Maybe you'll have better luck!

I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)