Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The article Flag Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No news coverage apart from its formation

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MT₍₇₁₀₎ 16:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, you were reverted my edit on page Syrian Revolution Victory Conference unnecessarily because of "unnecessary edit". Why? I did this edit, this is necessary because the names of the organizations need to be understood in English. Especially WE MUST rebrand Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) as "Levant Liberation Committee (LLC)". 88.226.104.79 (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the current article title for HTS is Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. You should gain consensus for changing the name first. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please care to explain why you have now twice reverted [1][2] an edit captioned "fix error", and restored a version of an article that lists "March 20, 2024 – Error: All values must be integers"? Did you perhaps think that "fix error" didn't mean my edits were fixing an error in the article? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert a third time. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that, I said twice. You haven't explained why you were restoring a version of the article with a clear error? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the error when I reverted. I should have used the preview and noticed the error, but I didn't. Please WP:AGF. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: please WP:AGF to edits that state that they're fixing errors, instead of reverting them multiple times. Thank you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the underlying hostility in your comment. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any perceived tone. Perhaps this situation won't need to happen again. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gay Valimont image is for public domain use. 8ottle0fChocolateMilk (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that I should try to update his article on the inquiry I raised earlier, or do I lack permissions to? (I'm new to Wikipedia editing so idk) Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and update it. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David, im currently editing Kurdish-Turkish conflict and Syrian civil war sections. But my edits are generally targetted by vandalism. İf you protect my edits and bring protection it would be great mate. Thanks. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nation Alliance (Egypt) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability guidelines with no news coverage

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MT₍₇₁₀₎ 10:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be allowed to be returned to the infobox:

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. File:Gay Valimont ballotpedia image.jpg - Wikimedia Commons Starlighsky (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about this image? It's been uploaded several times. One upload says that it has the campaign manager's blessing. Another uploader says it's their own work. These things can't simultaneously be true. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 00:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it will be deleted again from the Wikimedia commons, so we'll just be in the same boat when someone else uploads it later.

It's becoming a bit of a timesuck, at the very least. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What the user who keeps adding the image doesn't know is that I'm actually a Valimont donor, volunteer, and voter... It's just that I've been a Wikipedia editor for much longer than I've been a Valimont supporter... so I understand that non-licensed images can't be used on Wikipedia. I'm trying to remain neutral... I don't have a preference between no image vs. the one that I uploaded... —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 00:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an unwillingness, it seems, to understand Wikipedia rules. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate for that user. :(. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a volunteer, could you please explain to the campaign how to file the image properly at WikiCommons? I have helped other try to do this in the past, but a volunteer is really the only person to be able to contact a campaign, in my opinion. Starlighsky (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus there's an edit summary clpcarissa on the Gay Valimont article about going to the press... I don't like the sound of that.

"correct image, please stop changing or it is time to go to the local press with this to have the public weigh in on what you are doing" David O. Johnson (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to just email the campaign and ask them if they have a picture that they can license as CC-BY. I don't want to get involved at that level, though. The picture that I uploaded is a candid shot from a campaign event from last week... I wish I had a better picture to upload myself. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did what you could. I'm glad we at least have an image that's freely licensed. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see everyone's points of views.

I have texted the campaign about the issue.

If someone can write here what can be done to save any official image,

I can text the campaign as soon as possible.

I am not with the campaign nor a voter there.

The best thing seems to be for them to provide any needed documentation.

I want to add that at WikiCommons, there seems to be some confusion over images on Ballotpedia versus the campaign. The information on how this can logically be put together, the better. Starlighsky (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I texted the number on the campaign website. Starlighsky (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eyer: I just want to add that the file name with "bad image" is confusing people. If you can possibly change the file name, that might help the situation. I don't know. Starlighsky (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that makes sense. It can have the manager's blessing and can be the work of the photographer. Starlighsky (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or was it the shy hyphen in re­ëlection you objected to? 1101 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look at my Vance Publicly Expressed Interest talk page I added on the 2028 election page since he expressed interest in an interview which I have the refrence for? Bluppyt789 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]