Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

@Belbury could you work on My AFC, i need your help in refrencing. —Raph Williams65 (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raph Williams65: Hi, I don't know if you're asking for help in formatting references or finding them. Try asking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you need help. Belbury (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im a new editor here. I was just how I could source a a musical motif in NFL fox theme of sleigh ride (instrumental) Nick the Napoleon (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick the Napoleon: You'll want to find a book or a documentary or a newspaper article or something that has made this observation. See WP:SOURCES. Belbury (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw that someone added "EPIC: The Musical" to Elpenor's page, and you were unfamiliar with it. It's not just one cut song like they edited, but instead is actually cut from most of the musical. This is likely the cut song that they mentioned, and then this song is another one that he is in. I don't know if that would be enough to warrant the edit, but as he's extremely popular in the community, I just thought I'd give a heads up. BBGDylan (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BBGDylan: Hi, I just removed the paragraph because there is no Wikipedia article about Epic! The Musical, it wasn't clear what this musical actually was, and no source was given saying that Elpenor was cut from it. Everything in Wikipedia should be sourced. Belbury (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury Hi again, yeah, I understand, it's why I gave the info that the original person failed to provide, heh. So you can see that it's true and for proof to be given, and I'll probably make a basic page for it in the future, with sources needed and stuff. :) BBGDylan (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything unconstrutive , revert it. If there's anything useful, don't revert it.

You're adding fire to the situation and the sock is going to constantly return to make their edit, resulting in wsasted time from sockpuppet SPIs who could easily be dealing with better things than your constant reports.

This edit on History of England could easily have been kept. They actually improved the page and added some good detail.

Happy late Xmas! Grometlovescheese (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page jaguar) In my experience, the opposite is at least equally true: if LTAs feel their contributions will be kept as long as they're "constructive", they'll keep trying to make edits. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point but I still stand by my point. Grometlovescheese (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are several different personalities LTAs can have. In general, we shouldn't allow contributions from editors who are not available to participate in the community, due to being banned. Remsense ‥ 论 13:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, user who joined Wikipedia ten minutes ago. Belbury (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies for jumping on what is possibly some bait on your talk page.) Remsense ‥ 论 13:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! Belbury (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Belbury i just added one citation and that is rejected . The message shows that "they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia" ? Could you please help me ? this citation is relevant can you please read the citation content ? or guide what should i do better encyclopedia . 12pound (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@12pound: An anonymous blog entry on a commercial website is not considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia. See WP:RS for further explanation. You should be able to quote a government website or a newspaper for this kind of information. Belbury (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you redo your edits please on the article Generation. Because I used Google & Wikiversity. -FBIGUY81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FBIGUY81 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello and I am Mia what is your name 68.41.155.137 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the editing of my page. There is indeed a clear conflict of interest but my you will see that my edits were minor and stylistic. I don't mind if you restore. I was stung into tidying it up mainly by repeated vandalism.

When the vandalism first occurred in 2018, I attributed it to a drunken student prank but it seems to still be occurring, so maybe someone or several people have a grudge against me. I'm sorry to say that I find that very upsetting.

Blay Blay Whitby (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blay Whitby: All I see is that you added and formatted some references, which seems fine. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of Wikipedia's policies when editing an article about yourself. See also WP:BIOSELF, for what to do if you're concerned that something is wrong with the article. Belbury (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Regarding your comment on the Chhayawad Wikipedia page about AI-generated and unsourced text, I wanted to let you know that I've added credible and reliable sources to support the statements. None of the sources are AI-generated, and any AI-generated text has been removed. With this update, I plan to respectfully remove the "AI" tag. Please take a look and, if you feel anything still needs attention, feel free to leave a message on the talk page. Best regards, Vyom.Y (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you tagging articles, and I wonder if you can see what you can do with the backlog at Category:Articles lacking sources from April 2009. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearian: Not sure I follow you, what do you mean? --Belbury (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a backlog of 15 years of almost 70,000 unsourced articles/stubs. The backlog has escaped many editors' attention. Many of these also have additional, even multiple, issues, but they could be tagged (for example) with expand or notability tags, which could bring them to attention to editors who are patrolling other categories. I've been looking at expanding unsourced articles from translations from other languages that I can't read (say, Cyrillic). I noticed that you have tagged other articles, and this project could be a systematic effort that you could help with. If you can't do this, or just have no interest, no problem. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not much interest, I'm afraid, they seem inevitably niche or specialist subjects. Belbury (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this exists, but I can't find any sources. Please help to source this. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, by the way, for adding the image. That's why I'm asking you. Will also reach out to projects. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, from what I remember someone just mentioned the concept informally to me and I noticed when I looked it up on Wikipedia that it didn't have an example image, so no ideas for sources. Belbury (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry I only noticed this after changing the edit back, the article I used as a citation quotes its sources from the UK GC where it discusses displayed RTP and Variance, as whole the article I edited is extremely messy and the section regarding perception is very vague. Gorgiasofleontini (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorgiasofleontini: So quote the government website rather than the gambling website that's trying to get the viewer to click through and claim some "free spins"?

I've replaced the reference. It also appears to be misquoting the source, which only refers to "non-remote gaming machines". Belbury (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gorgiasofleontini (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am an expert in meeting science and ROTI and that's why I wrote the articles. Every single sentence has a valid source. In addition, the texts have been reviewed by other experts, I can guarantee that there are no hallucinations. Can you specify the sections that need to be corrected please? By the way, meeting science is about meetings in general, it is about administration (political, associative...) not only about business. Lasourisrose (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lasourisrose, you say that "the texts have been reviewed by other experts", what do you mean by this?

If meeting science is also about political meetings, you and your AI have neglected to mention this in the text. Belbury (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the text has been reviewed by meeting specialists, I asked different experts in the field to cowrite it. Meeting science is the study of what happens before, during, and after meetings in the workplace. Are you saying that government offices are not a workplace? By the way, it is in the 3rd paragraph. Lasourisrose (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury Lasourisrose (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Belbury, regarding this, I have created VWF bot to handle this. Where do you think the reports should be updated at, somewhere in Wikipedia: namespace or the bot's user subpage? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanderwaalforces: That's great news, thank you! A WikiProject subpage like Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/VWF bot log would seem like the best place for it.

I'm sure the bot would also be very welcome to edit Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI images in non-AI contexts directly to include new gallery entries, if it was able to skip (perhaps through a public, manually-curated list of AI articles) images that were being used in an AI context. Belbury (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA filed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Belbury, the report is now being made at the subpage of AI WikiProject as requested. It runs weekly on Sundays. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanderwaalforces: That looks great! Thank you. I'll let the WikiProject know that it's running. Belbury (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really my area, but I'm concerned about recent activity on the Society of Authors and Stabbing of Salman Rushdie pages. I'm asking you because last year, my elderly father, who had been happily pootling about on Wiki for years, got involved in his first dispute with an editor on a related topic, and it really upset him. He mentioned that you had been helpful and diplomatic. I wondered if you could maybe have a look at this? I've noticed over the past couple of weeks the recent addition of "controversies" to articles about individuals and organizations within the publishing world, citing Twitter posts, primary sources and anonymous blogs to draw conclusions that don't seem neutral. But I'm still relatively new to editing, and I don't want to comment inappropriately. Any advice you can offer would be appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Belbury (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a topic on Talk:Society of Authors on the 3rd of Feb asking for contributions and feedback as I worked to remove notices for COI and related problems. I'd be grateful to receive@ArthurTheGardener' s thoughts there. As @ArthurTheGardener is new to editing I will put an explanation of the function of Talk pages and also of COI on their User Talk page. CoalsCollective (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am pursuing this matter on @ArthurTheGardener's User Page because it seems to me that they have not assumed good faith of my edits and may have a conflict of interest with regard to pages related to the Society of Authors and the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie. I would like to clarify that though I have made recent edits to these pages I am not the editor referred to here who upset @ArthurTheGardener's late father. I have entered into no disputes whatever on Wikipedia and cannot see any reason why I should be associated with one. CoalsCollective (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CoalsCollective: Why are you telling me this? Belbury (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply for the record. CoalsCollective (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just like you, I suspected that they were the same person. Even if they are not the same person, they could be meat puppets, because the articles created by LGT55 were created in a badly written way, just like Befor01. If you examine them, you will understand. Moreover, while some of LGT55's articles were moved to the draft, LGT55 refused and continued to move their articles. Without any explanation. Kajmer05 (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what talk page response they give, and take further steps if necessary. Belbury (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I discovered something like this. [1] LGT55 created the article first as a draft, but then BEFOR01 appears. It seems like the things they're trying to try are the same. Kajmer05 (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I understand the concern, and I want to clarify the situation. Yes, I know LGT55 as a friend, but we are not working together or coordinating our edits. Any similarities in our contributions are purely coincidental, and we have both been editing independently.

I respect Wikipedia’s guidelines and have always aimed to contribute in good faith. If there are any concerns, I am open to any review process to ensure transparency.

Let me know if you need further clarification. Thanks!

– [BEFOR01] BEFOR01 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not the same person. Let's discuss this on Discord. LGT55 (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to contribute constructively to the situation, but you may want to take a look at this COIN thread. Note that the OP seems to be in the middle of amending their statement. --Richard Yin (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this proposal to merge? Bearian (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: No opinion, to be honest. It was just an article I saw that I thought would benefit from having an image, I don't know enough about stage lighting to know whether it's likely to be a significant enough standalone topic. Belbury (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the 7th of February at 10:31am you received a message on this User page from :ArthurTheGardener who asked you for advice on 'recent activity on the Society of Authors and Stabbing of Salman Rushdie pages' because ' last year, my elderly father, who had been happily pootling about on Wiki for years, got involved in his first dispute with an editor on a related topic, and it really upset him. He mentioned that you had been helpful and diplomatic'. You replied 'I'll take a look.' Belbury (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Apparently you had recognised me in Arthur's description given because 11 minutes later you removed 6,435 characters and 17 citations from the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie page. At 10.45am you left a notice on my user page accusing me of violating Wikipedia policies with original research and 10.46am left a notice on the Society of Authors page saying that that page's neutrality was compromised by a 700 word section with 30 references. There were more than 50,000 words of references altogether I do not think you could truly have read them and formed a fair judgement in those 15 minutes. On the 10th of February you went on to remove most of my work and 30 citations from the Society of Authors page and to make edits to The Royal Society of Literature page. I will not comment further on the edits here, except to say I do think you assumed good faith or worked with the principles WP:NOBITE. WP:GOODFAITH, and that the way in which you followed my edits has made me feel hounded. WP:HOUNDING

I do not believe that you should not accepted a personal appeal such as Arthur's from any user because it appealled to off-wiki evidence. WP:ASPERSIONS I am extremely distressed that you without hesitation accepted from Arthur that I was the same person as, or at the least associated with, the editor who had upset their elderly father. From studying your user page I believed this is a former editor called NoorStores who you said on this page had harrassed FirstInAFieldOfOne. This claim is wholly false. Moreover, I can find no reason whatever why you would think so: I cannot find that I have even edited the same page as NoorStores . WP:ASPERSIONS states that ' a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack.' . WP:HA#NOT also states that unfounded accusations of harassment are a serious personal attack. I feel that aspersions have been cast on me and that I have been attacked.

I have reported Arthurr here and here.. My best construction of the story is that you were upset to hear of the death of someone you had helped and reacted more rapidly than you usually would. I would now like to continue editing peacefully but I am shaken and intimidated. My suggestion is that you stop interacting with me at least until Arthur's case is resolved. I hope if you take time to read my edits you will see that I am in good faith and trying to be a good editor and that drastic interventions are not necessary. CoalsCollective (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user expressed a concern about primary sources and neutrality in two articles, and after taking a look at them I found that I shared their concerns and I took my own steps to remedy the issues. You are free to discuss the changes I made on the article talk pages if you disagree with them.

I haven't mentioned a user called NoorStores in relation to any of these edits. I don't understand what false allegations or attacks you think I have made, or what interactions you are asking me to stop. Belbury (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Belbury, On 13 March 2023 in the article on Colour blindness, you removed File:Braeburn GrannySmith dichromat sim.jpg and replaced it with File:Assorted Red and Green Apples (deuteranope view).jpg. You did not change the caption, which reads "Simulation of the normal (above) and dichromatic (below) perception of red and green apples". Your edit comment was: "clearer example image". I have colour-vision deficiency of the kind the image is supposed to illustrate. The removed "Braeburn GrannySmith" image did, as far as I can tell, illustrate that deficiency perfectly—the lower pair is identical to the upper pair. It was therefore ideal for showing people without CVD the effect of the deficiency. On the other hand, in the "Assorted Red and Green Apples" image it is not clear what is being compared to what. It is just a picture of various apples. I venture that either the caption should be changed or the previous image restored ... or something; I can't tell. Any thoughts or explanation? Thanks and best wishes. - - Frans Fowler (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Frans Fowler: Thanks for the feedback and tracking down the edit! I was replacing an old placeholder example (where someone had found two very different public domain photos of apples and applied a filter to them) with a more natural version that showed red and green apples in the same lighting and context, with the same kind of filter applied. The intention was to give the typical reader a more striking example of how someone might see these apples in a store.

The top half of the image is unfiltered, the bottom half is filtered. To me, the apples at the top appear red and green and those at the bottom appear yellow.

I can see now that the "above/below" captioning isn't clear to all viewers! I've changed it to "top half of photo" and "lower half". Do you think that's enough, or would it help to also add a horizontal separator line across the middle of the image? Belbury (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, and interesting. Thank you. I wouldn't spoil the (to some of us :o) rather attractive photo by putting a line through it. It might be an improvement, though, to add detail to the end of the caption—something like: People with normal color vision see the apples in the lower half as yellowish; people with red–green color blindness may not spot that difference between the upper and lower halves. - Frans Fowler (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not sure it's necessary, so long as the caption has been made clear that the photograph is divided into two halves. The strong and immediate detail that we want the reader to take away from the caption is that red and green can look the same through dichromatic perception; it's less important to think about how yellow also looks. Belbury (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You erased my contribution on this subjekt today due to lack of referencec well I am the reference! I am the one that made the video copy of this fiolm in 1980! The original party so to speak so PLEASE put my text back KInd REgards Hans CRispin Stockholm Clown (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stockholm Clown: Wikipedia users cannot be references. It'll need to wait until a secondary source has documented your discovery in some way. Belbury (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]