Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Notifications

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives.

I've adjusted your edit in regards to Jacobin. I've changed it back to Green, as your own close found no consensus for additoinal considerations. Also I changed a couple of instances where you wrote WP:NEWSOPINION to WP:RSOPINION as that is the correct shortcut, although perhaps a new shortcut is in order. TarnishedPath^talk 23:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the shortcut. I swear I searched a shortcut that resulted in a valid target and previewed...
But as you can see at WP:MREL, a no consensus close is a yellow close; in fact, the table parameter is "s-nc" (source-no consensus). This is longstanding practice, as RSP is just a summarizer for the outcomes of past discussions, and a no-consensus outcome should be summarized as such. You can read the last time this was debated at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 10#No consensus versus mixed consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can see from that archived RSP talk discussion that it was one (maybe two) editor's view that if community consensus prevoiusly to a RFC discussion was that a source was GREL, that a subsequent discussion where there is no consensus shouldn't result in a downgrade. Although it doesn't seem as though that argument was accepted by a number of other editors.

Perhaps it would be best if I request that you reconsider your close, as taking some of the arguments from that archived discussion, it isn't clear to me that, in the Jacobin RFC, those !voting against GREL adequately rebutted the arguments of those who !voted GREL. Too me that would suggest consensus for GREL irrespective of any head count. TarnishedPath^talk 23:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion, the participants were split nearly half-and-half between downgrading or not. As I said in the close, the argument to be weighed was "GRel has misled editors into thinking Jacobin is usually citable" vs. "GRel is fine and the emphasized standard considerations are enough" . As the idea that GRel should always apply—and is sufficient signaling in this situation—does not seem to have any backing of strong precedent, I don't think the latter argument was anywhere near 2x stronger than the former to claim consensus for GRel—especially as the !tally leaned towards the former—and I'd like to see why you think it is. I think a better path forward would be starting the RfC I suggested on whether all sources like Reason and Jacobin should be labeled GRel or additional care. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"GRel has misled editors into thinking Jacobin is usually citable" is not a convincing argument for downgrading and I would have downweighted that argument. It's an unconvincing argument that could be leveled against any source and more importantly it doesn't even tangently reference WP:PAG. I could argue that 'GREL has mislead edtiors into thinking that source x is alwasy reliable' in any discussion and it would be a poor argument. Editors are expected to have some basic understanding of the core WP policy WP:RS and when a usgae of a source (regardless of who RSP records coummunity consensus) is reliable or not.

The argument that standard considerations alwasy apply, WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL, and that a source containing WP:BIAS and a lot of opinion is not a basis for determining GUNREL, is a more convincing argument and one which actually references policies even if only tangently. Arguments from that position should have been weighted higher than the former arguments.

The fact that participants were split should be not a major concern when there is one weaker argument and another stronger which at least references WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 02:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an average Wikipedian would agree with your >2x assessment of the strength ratio between the arguments. GRel, MRel, and GUnRel (which was not even mentioned in my close, by the way) are just markers for RSP, an information page; there is no PaG stating that "sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel" nor that "MRel means editors should pay closer attention to whether an article is opinion". And the downgrade argument was "Jacobin's opinion pieces are far more likely to be misused as reliable straight news", not your characterization that underestimates both this misuse's alleged volume and the unreliability's magnitude (the distance from reliability of opinion pieces is far greater than that of the usual occasional GRel unreliabilities).

If most Wikipedians would indeed weigh these arguments as you did, then the broad RfC I mentioned would not be difficult. Such an RfC would bridge the gap in strong precedent I mentioned earlier. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GRel, MRel, and GUnRel (which was not even mentioned in my close, by the way) are just markers for RSP, an information page; there is no PaG stating that "sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel" nor that "MRel means editors should pay closer attention to whether an article is opinion".

You are entirely correct here. I don't like the source and have removed it many times. However my concern is that editors are going to use the yellow marking at RSP as reason to start yanking content/sources with little regards to the content. My concern is that would be occuring when the arguments leading to it being yellow at RSP were weak. If the only substative argument the downgrade side had was "GRel has misled editors into thinking Jacobin is usually citable" then they didn't have much at all regardless of the split. TarnishedPath^talk 03:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I simply don't think an average Wikipedian would find it any weaker than the GRel argument. And there's probably a reason your concern hasn't gained favor in Jacobin's RfCs. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a marker on an information page but it is also a straight description of reliability for which there is a very well established guideline. It is implicit in the description and has been the practice that sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel and that MRel means something more is necessary than standard considerations.

The close is de facto saying (or at the least creating confusion) that it is a valid argument that sources are less reliable if they carry "predominantly opinion" which has no real policy basis and there are many more analogues in this regard. Also I don't think "care because it's predominantly opinion" is a correct description of the comments of most "option 2" !votes, a more substantial section was simply that it was a biased source.

But fundamentally, it is also not correct to characterise it as "downgrade or not", it was a straight question "is this reliable or not" and the responses were to that question, which is natural as that is how any non-RSN RfC is. On RSN, it's the same, the only difference is after the closer closes the RfC on that question, they adjust it into the RSP markers format with the real functional summary of the consensus being the comment in RSP. The fundamental problem here is really this. The close here is extrapolating a consensus to a presumed question of "downgrade and not" and not closing the actual question of reliability. The marker is then updated with the consensus unchanged. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did assess the notability of Jacobin's non-RSEDITORIAL content. On review of my close statement, I found: 1. I confused RSEDITORIAL with RSOPINION 2. the way I expressed my assessment was one mental hoop away from being explicit (although I did explicitly add it to the RSP summary). I've amended my close to hopefully make that clearer. I do not see any sizable group of !voters who !voted based on bias issues (an argument I already discarded), nor why it's wrong to characterize the RfC as "downgrade or not" when there is a status quo.

However, you did make me notice an error I made while !tallying that duplicated some !voters who expressed multiple options that they liked. With that accounted for (plus the downvoting of !votes based on the single incident I had already downweighted) the sizable lean I saw while closing does not exist anymore. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take your amendments are primarily stating that in other words, Jacobin’s non-WP:RSEDITORIAL content is generally reliable and I find no consensus for the reliability of Jacobin as a whole on WP:RSP. These statements seem to contradict. If a source's non-WP:RSEDITORIAL content is WP:GREL then the source as a whole is WP:GREL. WP:RSOPINION and RSEDITORIAL are always considerations regardless of a source being GREL, MREL or GUNREL.

As a comparison, see the entry on The Economist at WP:RSP for example which reads:

Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. Distinctively, its news articles appear without bylines and are written in editorial voice. Within these articles, Wikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Its pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces should also be handled according to this guideline.

By precedent, stating that a source has a lot of opinion is not a policy based reason for stating that additional considerations apply. Additional considerations should only apply if there are concerns which aren't already addressed by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL.

Going back to what I've said a few times above, a headcount is entirely meaningless when there is one obviously superior argument which references policy and guidelines, and which goes substantially unrebutted, and another argument which is along the lines of 'I think people are behaving in this way because it is green'. TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obviously superior that sources whose non-RSEDITORIAL content is GRel yet are very predominantly RSEDITORIAL should be marked GRel, especially with the sway this argument found among the RSN participants. A broader RfC would clear up whether it is superior in a much more assured fashion.
Only about 4 mentioned the Economist versus 1 who offered an counterargument against the analogy; that counterargument was not engaged with, and I don't think I should downweight the counterargument that much simply because the arguer did not bludgeon the process. I do agree that it's a shame this line of reasoning did not find much dialogue. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That counterargument, put against me I believe, wasn't engaged with because it was weak. They argued that The Economist was different because it has sections which clearly have opinion and others which clearly have news. As I quoted from RSP above that position is not community consensus and therefore I should have had no need to counter it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you see this counterargument. I do not see anyone arguing that Economist has delineated sections. I am referring to whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. As evident in the rest of that comment, a few from the option 2 side also cited precedent in magazines such as Spectator, which is MRel as listed at WP:SPECTATOR. The Economist argument is no stronger than this argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomline your contention is that the argument 'Jacobin having a green rating confuses editors about its reliability' is of near equal weight to the argument that 'we already have policies which cover editorials and opinion, and that is not a reason to judge the reliability of a source'? TarnishedPath^talk 04:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed that there is no PaG stating that "sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel", i.e. there is no strong precedent that general reliability in non-RSEDITORIAL content equals general reliability as a whole/as a source. There was consensus for the former but not for the latter. The Option 1 argument is only much stronger for the former. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "sources whose non-RSEDITORIAL content is GRel, yet are predominantly RSEDITORIAL should be marked GRel" wasn't the question of the RfC for arguments to be for or against it. Though it has been the practice generally (even if not written down), one can think that it's not obvious and a broader RfC would indeed clear it up. But that is besides the point, why is the close itself determining a "no consensus" for it?

One doesn't presume a different extrapolated question to an RfC question. You may think it's the question and some participants may as well take it as that but others won't. The "additionally considerations/option 2" on the RSN RfCs is also very broadly interpreted as different participants interpret it in different ways and not necessarily as a direct analog of the RSP marker (even if derived from it as the wording between the marker and the RfC option is different, if you read the previous close this exact problem was mentioned).

These things aren't something that is quantifiable, which is why the consensus of RfCs are strictly about the straight question (which is visible to everyone) and never for things not explicitly asked by the RfC question (which may be in the minds of some, may not be in the minds of other, another thing in the minds of some others, etc). It is also why the consensus is determined on the basis of what participants say with respect to the straight question and not what !option they pick (a "delete" !vote on AfD with a keep argument will be read as keep). That's the problem with characterising the RfC to be a question of "downgrade or not on RSP", that wasn't the question. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of note is also that, as TarnishedPath says, the two lines appear to contradict each other and that's because the RSP markers are a straight description of reliability i.e, WP:RS doesn't say sources which are predominantly opinion are less reliable and a normal reading of the MRel RSP marker instead of GRel RSP marker for this kind of source would say it is. This also likely makes the question of the broader RfC for RSP moot (requiring a policy level change for it to be anything else; also why the practice has been the way it is as I mentioned above) though it would be helpful to have it written down at this point and maybe even a RfC for it even if perfunctory. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the RfC was whether Jacobin as a whole is GRel, not just whether its non-RSEditorial content is GRel. While discussions usually treat the two as the same thing, half of the participants argued that these have different answers which do not contradict each other. That is answering the straight question. It is extremely common to summarize arguments and contentions that affect the consensus in closes, as I have done here.
I've already mentioned that both sides had enough argumentation of equal persuasiveness, including option 2's citation of Spectator. And the previous RfC close was already highly contentious as I have mentioned below, and one of the contentions was that it ignored what Option 2 usually means.

This also likely makes the question of the broader RfC for RSP moot

I don't follow. Not to mention RSP's legend is still not a policy, and it's not like "additional considerations apply" means a source is less reliable than GRel either.

I do not see any problems in characterizing the RfC as "downgrade or not". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, there are other listings in RSP, for sources that are GREL, that contain wording about the source having BIAS or lots of opinion and which state that editors should reference the appropriate guidelines in such situations. TarnishedPath^talk 02:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only analogue with comparable levels of packaging is Reason. Looking at its last discussion, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Reason.com seems like it should have a strong consensus for "Additional considerations apply"; in fact, many participants in that discussion assumed the RfC would be closed as MRel as well. Now I'm wondering why Reason is still green. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the 2021 Jacobin RfC was closed as MRel for quite a while, but it was overturned and then reclosed in mid-2022. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#Jacobin, RfC closing review seemed to have near-consensus that the reclose was bad, but did not challenge it at AN. There's also a subsection on how to handle such sources at RSP with no clear outcome (at a glance). You could review that subsection when brainstorming for the broader RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering to take the time to read through and close the discussion. The newly updated WP:RS/P mentions that non-editorial content continues to be generally reliable as a source of fact, though biased. Would it then make sense to split Jacobin into two entries, one for editorial content and one for non editorial content? I would be satisfied with that, though the problem with this would be that additional considerations always apply to editorial content, so it may seem unnecessary (though if everyone agreed that additional considerations can still apply to biased grel sources, or that biased sources can be grel, then there should've been a grel consensus). It's true that there was no obvious consensus in that discussion, which defaults to yellow, but it wasn't a 50/50 green vs red !votes, it was a 50/50 green vs yellow !votes, and there wasn't a consensus for yellow either. There's of course no such thing as an in-between yellow-green category, so splitting it into two RS/P entries might be the best solution to clarify that its non opinion content is still generally reliable as a source of factually accurate information. Just a suggestion though.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we label it as editorial vs non-editorial, that might defeat the rationale behind the option 2 !votes a bit. How about splitting it into "Jacobin" vs "Jacobin (non-editorial content)"?

On "no consensus", I feel like that's a design flaw within RSP. There's been a few murmurs to differentiate no consensus from additional considerations by moving the latter to some other color like blue, but IIRC no discussion beyond the equivalent of a workshop was ever done. (And I don't have the time to start one.) For now, no consensus means yellow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

Well I created A NEW PAGE!

How long before it gets published? --AMCPhoenix (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ALL of my sources are reliable third party good standard so that is BS.

The reviewer wants my subject to have starred in a movie TV show maybe after a Netflix and is ignoring that hundreds of published photos in big pubs IS NOTABLE.

I feel this is hostile picky unreasonable untrue I am mad angry and feel I have been subjected to unjust and unreasonable standards!!! AMCPhoenix (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

The reviewer wants my subject to have starred in a movie TV show

That's not what notability means. I don't see where the reviewer said anything about that. Notability on Wikipedia means we have enough information directly about the subject of an article from reliable, secondary, and independent sources. Nearly none of the information here is actually supported by their cited source by Wikipedia's standards. You can't cite usages of her photos to say "her photos have been used in various publications"; the source itself has to say that. Pure information just about where AMC's photos were used belongs more in a photographers' database such as https://pic.nypl.org/, while Wikipedia is a textual encyclopedia. If you're still confused, WP:Teahouse might explain it better as our forum for beginner Wikipedians!
(Also, I noticed your username. Do you have a ConflictOfInterest, by any chance?) Aaron Liu (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMC is my husband's initials.

yes I want to know more about what consists of notability thank you! AMCPhoenix (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can check out Wikipedia:Notability, which was linked. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did I read over notability and that is why I have questions.

One of the standards for notability IS significant body of work that is listed and I felt and feel my subject is well qualified under that standard.

She has been worldwide not won first place County Art five times!

So apparently I missed something crucial in the reading of it. AMCPhoenix (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You actually seem somewhat combative as if you are trying to trip me up as opposed to helping me learn.

If you have some kind of issue here may I please be assigned to someone who will teach me and help me succeed? AMCPhoenix (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes subject is AAC and my husband is AMC they are similar not the same! AMCPhoenix (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron, I'm trying to get away from visual editing and into more source editing. Could you please tell me what code to use to link a highlighted quote directly to its Wiki page? I've seen it done, but I'm struggling to figure it out. Your help is much appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean lol. By "highlighted quote" did you mean like a selection under your cursor? If so, you just click on the link button after you've highlighted the text you want to link. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (I told you I was a slow learner:-) ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron,

I am looking to create a wikipedia page for my friend who is a musician and toured with Matchbox Twenty. He is already listed on other wikipedia pages and doesn't have his own link. I am not interested in editing other articles. I just want to help him create his own page. Is this possible? His name is Ryan MacMillan if you want to see him listed under other touring musicians for Matchbox Twenty. I appreciate your insight on best way to create this page. Thank you! --Robinc2020 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! First off, you have to make sure your friend meets our inclusion criteria. These requirements exist because we have to make sure our articles are neutral and well-sourced. If you think he does, follow the instructions at Help:Your first article. Good luck! Aaron Liu (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did anyone's says that all rajasthanis are marwari?? You don't know which is Marwar region and --Jodhpur The Capital of Marwar (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I don't see where the article you're referring to ever says that, and your additions were reverted because they were unsourced. On an encyclopedia where anyone can edit, we can't just trust everything random people say without a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello, any ideas how i can set up a wiki page about me --Myles282 (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ey, creating an article about WP:YOURSELF is an extremely bad idea per the link in this sentence. I really doubt that you meet our criteria for inclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i don't want to edit as in change, I thought you meant study. Idon't want to change, I just want to search, right now WWII history. --DorcheatGirl (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for your impartial close and summary, I know it wasn't the easiest discussion to read. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello please how can I write my biography on Wikipedia --Smallmadei (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ey, creating an article about WP:YOURSELF is an extremely bad idea per the link in this sentence. I really doubt that you meet our criteria for inclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello, how to improve my grammar? --Malayeditz (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could try the free reading & writing course at Khan Academy. You could also try Grammarly, but take all of Grammarly's suggestions with a grain of salt. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to create/launch a Wikipedia page. I have the notable links/sources but it will not publish. Can you assist --DJDiamondKuts (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

1. As mentioned on the draft page, AfC review takes quite a bit of time as we are currently a bit short-staffed on reviewers. (It's better than a few months ago where you had to wait like 4 months.)
2. Creating an article about WP:YOURSELF is an extremely bad idea per the link in this sentence. I really doubt that you meet our criteria for inclusion, which is different from the dictionary/common definition of "notability".

Aaron Liu (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yumm While my bass gently weeps (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

too sour :( Aaron Liu (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I edited the "fordite" wiki recently and the edit was deleted by Valfontis. The current fordite wiki contains several false and misleading statements. I contacted the editor who removed my changes and she deleted my comment to her. My intent is to correct this wiki and ensure it is and stays up to date. I have 8 years professional experience working with this material. Is there anything I should know before I continue? Thank you! Brian --Brilewo (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Brilewo, your edits were reverted here. User:Valfontis explained the revert and I agree: the material lacks proper sourcing, the second pronoun shouldn't be used--and there were also references to the article itself, along with editorial commentary ("it's important to note"). Valfontis has some rules for what goes on their talk page, which is at the top, with "READ ME" in big red letters, and those weren't followed. I wouldn't delete the comment because of that, but it's their right. And the comment, FWIW, didn't contain any references to proper secondary sourcing. We're not going to look on Facebook to see if what you think is correct. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can reference laws passed regarding removal of lead from automotive paint to address that part. Only automotive fordite from pre 1978 contains lead per the California law that effectively removed it from the market. CA is such a huge market that manufactures removed lead based paint so that their vehicles would not be prohibited from being sold there. Lead based paint did continue in industrial applications such as painting tractors etc but was completely banned in the 90's. Basically this part about lead as it's written is misleading to the point that it's essentially false. Modern enamel does not contain lead and the info does not mention modern fordite at all. Though people intentionally lie about this often the truth is that less than 1% of fordite currently available is vintage. I value Wikipedia and it galls me when there's false or misleading info on here for a subject that I'm expert in. Especially when there are individuals who've been perpetuating false narratives regarding fordite specifically so they can sell modern fordite at a premium claiming it's "vintage." You'd be hard pressed to find a piece with lead in it today. I only know one artist who has any that's legit. Is there a help article I should read so my edits stick and are not deleted based on procedural grounds? Thank you I really appreciate your time. Brilewo (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The accuracy of information is very important to Wikipedians, so it's not really just procedure. Since you're new, as long as you cite the sources inline and only summarize what's in the sources, we'll fix it up for you! Check out a guide at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1; check whether you're in Visual Editor by clicking on the pen next to the blue arrow/save button. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So what do you recommend when a reference is quoted in the wiki and the referenced page is in fact spreading false information? Brilewo (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which source is misinformation? Do you have a better source? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll do some source research so I can back up a sound edit. Much of the problem is that fordite.com is often where people go to find info and the owner of that domain is knowingly being deceptive. The link in the fordite wiki to that site takes you to a page where they say some deceptive things as well as this, which is blatantly false: "Sadly, the techniques that produced this great rough years ago, are no longer in practice. Cars are now painted by way of an electrostatic process that essentially magnetizes the enamels to the car bodies. This leaves little, or no over spray. The old factory methods that created this incredible material are long gone.

  The Fordite “mines” are dry, so get some while you still can!"

  The worst part is they know it's not true because they are literally selling modern fordite in their store! The jewelry gallery on fordite.com is only their pieces and it's nearly all modern fordite. I don't want to get into a fight with them. If they want to lie on their websites then whatever but wikipedia should be correct. Not all manufacturers use electrostatic painting and those that do often still do have over spray. Where used it reduces over spray but does not eliminate it entirely. For instance I've seen pictures of the jeep wrangler over spray on racks from the plat at Parkway in Toledo. It's a water based enamel that builds up in huge sheets when painting the frames due to the open roof and sunroof areas. Many of the claimed "vintage pieces" on fordite.com are this type. Oh, I also once made a bunch of cabochons for a paint manufacturer who happens to provide the paint to the big 3 auto makers so I got the chance to ask him several questions about their paint. The new stuff doesn't require baking any longer for instance. Some paints require baking others don't. There's another common type painted in Chillecothe Ohio referred to as freight liner, semi truck or Kenworth fordite. This type is hand painted due to the size of the parts they paint for manufacturers of big rigs. It's a very common type and came onto the market roughly 9 years ago. It has and continues to be sold by shady individuals as vintage. Sorry to go into all this background detail on this I just don't know how to explain what's wrong with some of the info in this wiki it without doing so. Brilewo (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron, I'm not new to wikipedia but I am new to posting an article which is something I want to do. But I have a COI, a fairly typical one I imagine. I'm the former founder of a company that helped establish viral video marketing as a tool for advertisers. I have multiple media citations and have written a short, neutral and verifiable entry but am wondering if this connection is a non-starter for the wiki community. Any guidance is appreciated. Josh --JoshWatWiki (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron - I noticed that you removed TurboSuperA+'s comment at WP:Closure requests. I think this was very out of process and wanted to ask you to self-revert. The guideline you cited WP:TALKOFFTOPIC says to only delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article), none of which applied to Turbo's comment. The preceding comment was encouraging inexperienced editors to close discussions, and Turbo's comment was referring to the fact that the community is can actually be quite harsh to inexperienced editors closing discussions. No matter your opinion on the comment, it was in context of the discussion and should not have been deleted, and definitely not gibberish or a test edit. Please could you you reinstate the comment and be far more cautious when doing something like that in the future. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that that it's not harmful, but since TPO says stop if anyone objects I've self-reverted. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Harmful posts are described as follows: personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism, which doesn't apply. It then goes on to say This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a citation...I know brutally Nothin' about this,I'm using this as a way to begin my media house 😂 --Pm Stey'n Media (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Pm Stey'n Media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web hosting service for anything else. But as for the question you asked, you may refer to Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor! Aaron Liu (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Greetings, Aaron Liu. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: LaundryPizza03
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]