• Wikipedia:Template_index: Cleanup (#Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy, etc)
• Meta Category:Editor handbook

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 15 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bosnian genocide denial into Milorad Dodik. 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. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa, I was sort of aware of this but didn't know that it's required to do something in that regard. So, basically, this copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution would suffice and can be used as a template in edit-summary (if copied text is short or not substantial) and in TP (if there is a lot of copied text). I think that in this case - Bosnian genocide denial > Milorad Dodik - I am a sole contributor of copied text, and it is not particularly intricate narrative it's more of a listing, but if I understood correctly, in case of being sole contributor then, maybe, it could be unnecessary. Please, just to be on the safe side, let me know if I understood this correctly? Thanks again, and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santasa99. The edit summary is mandatory whether you place a template on the talk page or not. The talk page template is optional. You are correct that if you are the sole author, attribution is not required, but it's still helpful for patrolling admins if you do so. — Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I know that edit summary is mandatory on its own, that's elemental, and yes, it could be that I have done it before. However I am not sure that I am able to remember where, but if I do I will put this temp to appropriate TP. Also, most likely, when and if i used bits of text from one article for writing in another, then, it was again probably my own. Anyhow, I will be sure to use it every time I am reusing any amount of text from now on. Cheers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Nikola Pavlović-Radinović. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santasa99. Hope you are doing well. I revisited the King Tomislav page and the move to delete the portrait from the page on the grounds of it not meeting WP:PORTRAIT requirements but at the time of removal seemed like this was applied to a fee Croatian kings but I noticed on other examples contemporary renderings of historical figures are kept. Would the same reasoning for not including the painting of Tomislav apply to King Solomon article as well? I noticed an IP bring this up. I also noticed another IP attack that IP for supporting an “ustashe nazi propaganda image”. Is the painting in question actually Ustashe propaganda? I know there were ultranationalist myths generated by the regime. Was King Tomislav, his artifacts or his images part of it? I don’t know luch about this and do not want to be inadvertently peddling fascist propaganda. You insight would be appreciated as you deal with aspects of Croatian history. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oy, thanks I really appreciate. Look, I wouldn't worry about those silly remarks about propaganda and such, but I know User:Surtsicna work and I have to admit he has a point (he is the guy to go to on all issues about medieval bio's). Even though you will be able to find fantasy portraits put into some infoboxes on some articles, they are still against WP:Leadimage as explained in WP:Portrait, and it would be better to try to remove those than to put another one elsewhere. However, you can always put Tomislav's fantasy portrait somewhere else in his article with a caption that explains that it is a fantasy portrait from author so and so, year, and additional info. Cheers and see you around. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I think I understand. Though it seems on these other articles people are fighting to keep the fantasy images for various figures and claim that the Wikipedia guidelines are believed to be not needed? For example I see on the Solomon article there seems to be consensus to keep the fantasy image despite the rules? I don’t see why Croatian Kings are to be held to the rules and all others an exception. That’s how it sort of seems. And i kinda agree with the agree with the editors in favor of the images. It gives a visual. Especially if it is a image commonly used to depict a subject. I also understand that when dealing with non-fiction subjects there needs to be an accurate visual of the real person not what comes from imagination and mythology. I’m conflicted between the two sides honestly. Not sure what is best for the readers and the platform. Perhaps we should consult with editors like Surrsicna and perhaps others rhat deal with the topic of WP Portiat and Lead?it confusinggiven the vastly different consensus on different articles. There needs to be a consistent set of protocols for all articles. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you reviewed Center for Economic and Policy Research in the past and was wondering if you could take a look at Bolivarian propaganda as well (since CEPR was previously included in the article). There is a lot in this article and wanted to know if you could help review it. Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just came by chance to the article and the version history (therefore I saw by chance also this edit), but the CEPR-chapter seems an obvious case to delete. It is for one part original research, on top with own interpretations of the sources. And the used source proveo is not a journalistic or otherwise usable source. I don't know the website, but when I do a quick search for proveo.org on https://www.startpage.com/sp/search the result is "UK based NGO that provides information on the social, educational, financial and political crisis of Venezuela caused by the neo fascist revolution of Hugo.." (seems just a description from the Google cache from the Chavez time, they have a not so direct intro now). Otherwise there aren't many results, anyway not the right source especially for political hot topics. If there will be a debate over the chapter, you or I can copy this statement over there. --Casra (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]