Wikipedia

User talk:FormalDude/Archive/5

< User talk:FormalDude | Archive
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) in topic Wikidata weekly summary #490
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - wolf 20:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain...

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...what's so unconstructive about my edit on the Lewis (given name) page? What I removed violates WP:OVERLINK. --2A01:36D:1200:4530:B031:9D3D:4BB2:639C (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, the manual of style for DAB pages specifically says that Include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line. So anything apart from the link being disambiguated should not be linked i.e. words like American, Michigan shouldn't be linked in that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #487

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Open request for adminship: BrokenSegue (RfP scheduled to end after 27 September 2021 14:36 UTC)
  • Development
    • Changed the formatting of low year numbers so that they now show as e.g. “5 CE” instead of “5” to reduce ambiugity in dates like “March 5 (CE)” (phab:T104750)
    • Working on fixing an issue where two Properties could have the same label in a given language (phab:T289473)
    • Working on preventing a few more cases where two Items could have the same sitelink (phab:T291377)
    • Mismatch Finder: Continuing to work on showing mismatches on the results page so that they can be reviewed
    • Continuing to work on technical improvements to how changes on Wikidata are propagated to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

no more abandoned

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

i hate dublin metrolink being abandoned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.129.5 (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 07:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC) ––FormalDude talk 07:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC

Draft:Jacky Liew (Si Gongzi)

Latest comment: 3 years ago32 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I would like to ask that why the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jacky_Liew_(Si_Gongzi) need more for reliable resource. The biography also proven by the newspapers and books but it is in Chinese version. May you tell you what other things or which part of references need more sources or any thing that should improve to make the page done? Arrisontan (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Arrisontan!
The main part that needs more sources is the Life section. It names eight magazines that the subject supposedly worked for, but there are only two sources for the entire section. See WP:VERIFY. ––FormalDude talk 06:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, if then, can I just add the reference like update the columns that the writer wrote to archive and cite back to the page, or i just removed? Furthermore, the eight magazines has been written in the reference 1 and 5 to prove that he had been wrote for these magazines, it still not enough right? Arrisontan (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
If he has written for all of those magazine it should be easy to get a source for each one, shouldn't it? ––FormalDude talk 07:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, so now it is allowed me to get a copy from the magazine's column and upload it to the archive and cite it right? Any other i need to improve? Arrisontan (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
That would be the main thing to improve. The article needs some general copy editing as well. ––FormalDude talk 07:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much, i am editing to it right now. Perhaps later may you help me to check for the work? Arrisontan (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely. Feel free to leave me a message when you resubmit the article, or if you want me to double check your work before. ––FormalDude talk 07:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I really appreciate that. Arrisontan (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have done the references, may you double check for my works? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jacky_Liew_(Si_Gongzi) Arrisontan (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Arrisontan: Great, it looks much better! I did some formatting of the sources and other copyediting to make sure it follows the manual of style.
Now, is the pen name "Si Gongzi" or "Shi Gongzi"? The title says the former, the lead says the latter. ––FormalDude talk 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Great!!! Thank you for you so much. It should be the shigongzi but sometimes people write about sigongzi. if need to do the amendment, how to do it? So can i resubmit it for you to get it approve? Arrisontan (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I've resubmitted the article for you but I'm still reviewing it. My main concern now is that it may not meet notability guidelines, specifically WP:WRITER. ––FormalDude talk 09:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The notability is that can be proven by the his books found in some national library and also the universities library?Arrisontan (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Criteria four of WP:WRITER says The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. So being featured in a national library or university library would likely not count, unless it was somehow also a part of one of those four criteria. ––FormalDude talk 10:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
how about if he had been discussed in a master thesis? Arrisontan (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, the criteria is pretty specific. It either has to meet WP:GNG or WP:WRITER. The easiest way to do that is through significant coverage in reliable sources. I do not see any secondary sources much less any significant coverage in them. Being discussed in a master thesis would count as one source, but that does not inherently give notability, it only makes it somewhat stronger. At least two, preferably three significant reliable secondary sources are typically needed to pass WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 10:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
if there is some newspapers that reported about him but in paper version, so i need to update to archive, is that proves notability? Arrisontan (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, the criteria is different with the Chinese version of notability right, as the person has in the Chinese wikipedia. Arrisontan (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
sorry, i need to mention that there was a book at reference 15 has covered up all of the information of the wiki content, it is the book recorded down celebrities in Chinese society of Malaysia, the archive uploaded one of the page related about Jacky liew only, as the other pages is the others famous person. Is it enough for the significant coverage? Arrisontan (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I have added for references 2 and 3 which the reference 2 talks about he is a food critic and the reference 3 talks is a short interview about Jacky. Arrisontan (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Arrisontan are you sure that reference 3 is independent coverage? From my slightly limited Chinese ability, the source looks like a announcement that he got hired by the newspaper that is the source, if the newspaper and the subject are connected it is probably not considered independent coverage (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here).
Reference 15's reliability looks questionable to me, the author listed is "黄福安" on internet archive, which I really can't find anywhere else on the internet. What two sources seem the strongest to you in the article? Justiyaya 12:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Justiyaya: 黄福安 i think you can found that, he belongs to Malaysia Chinese Association which a parties in Malaysia and in charge the Chinese affairs in Malaysia. He is the editor of the book. But he is dead. https://www.google.com/search?q=%E9%BB%84%E7%A6%8F%E5%AE%89&sxsrf=AOaemvKaSu-HwuOlcYtbTsomflb8T6c36A:1631110801189&ei=kcY4YZvtCuzF4-EP5fC10Ak&start=20&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjb-ZKfye_yAhXs4jgGHWV4DZoQ8tMDegQIARA9&biw=1920&bih=969 Arrisontan (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh thanks, I really can't find anything using my preferred search engine, guess google is just better sometimes.
Anyways, what do you think is your two strongest sources?
(Btw use {{re|Justiyaya}} to ping, and also pings only go through if you sign the edit containing the ping, pinging but signing in a different edit will not work) Justiyaya 14:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Justiyaya: Currently, the two strongest sources will be 黄福安 in reference 16 and the reference 2,3,4 which are three different newspapers reported him as the food critic Malaysia, is that enough? I think that those should can regard as the secondary sources and idependent and also covered up the wiki-content to establish he is a food critic in Malaysia. Arrisontan (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Arrisontan My personal analysis of the sources:
The source basically contains what is essentially an announcement that the subject got hired by the newspaper, likely not independent
Mentions name once, in one minor paragraph, I don't think this is significant coverage.
I only saw the subject mentioned once while skimming through it, I don't think this is significant coverage...
Anyways, personally, I would think that it would be best if you added two more reliable sources in order to ensure the article meets GNG. Feel free, if you think any of my analysis is incorrect, to respond to this message telling me to take another look at any of the sources, thanks. Justiyaya 23:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Justiyaya's comment. ––FormalDude talk 23:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Justiyaya:@FormalDude:Thank you for your reviews, really appreciate it. However, the content only focus on his identity as the writer and food critic only and no other informations reveals, so i thought that the reported from the newspapers written that he is the food critic malaysia would be enough for it. Writer can be proven by all of the columns things. It is rare for Malaysia to archive their newspapers so will be hard to get his information and he himself seems does not accept interviews much. But I would attach here what currently I found,
Kindly review for me. Thank you very much!!! Arrisontan (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Arrisontan: At this point we're not really trying to verify anything specifically about him, we are trying to see if he is notable by Wikipedia's standard. Does the subject see significant and independent coverage in existing reliable sources? ––FormalDude talk 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@FormalDude: Yes dear. I think that for the latest 4 references and also the 黄福安 book is independent and significant coverage and also reliable for him. You may also sees that if searching for internet he has widely talked by the people, but most of them are the blogger so i did not cite it 廖城兰 and 食公子. Arrisontan (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@FormalDude: Another updates, This is his most recent news, I got it from China, http://talk.cri.cn/n/20210924/1a5d4084-42fe-8eb4-61b8-2b117359bf20.html from China Radio International— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrisontan (talk • contribs)
@Arrisontan: Thanks for the update, please be patient with the review, it might take a while, also I would strongly suggest some copyediting Justiyaya 18:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@Justiyaya:Thanks, I will do it. Arrisontan (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination)

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This is getting very messy as User:Thewolfchild reinstated your close and then User:GraemeLeggett undid that. Then User:Thewolfchild complained that the AFD and the review both remain open. So please revert your undo of my deletion of the deletion review. Mztourist (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mztourist: Deleting the deletion review is not the proper procedure, it should be archived. And I believe it should not be closed prematurely, we need to allow someone who is experienced with deletion review to weigh in. They can then do the archiving as well. ––FormalDude talk 08:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
An admin has just closed the deletion review for us. Problem solved. ––FormalDude talk 08:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to say it there but I was pulled away, and it was closed by the time I got back again. I have not done AFD uncloses myself but I would think you need to unarchive discussions from the deletion sorting lists where the bot has already archived them. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Um? You okay?

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hey, saw this edit what's up? You okay? Sadads (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sadads: That is an embarrassing accident of me trying to test the edit filter. Sorry for causing any concern. ––FormalDude talk 14:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
No worries, I just wanted to make sure that wasn't a hijacked account issue ;) Or your system not cooperating :D -- Hope you are having a good day :) Sadads (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
You've been whacked with a WikiMinnow..

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you might have done something silly.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I deserve that :p ––FormalDude talk 05:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

NuWave

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You removed my reference to another product on this manufacturer's page citing that it was promotional naming a product. Did you read the article??? It ALREADY SAYS "The company also makes various other culinary products, including the NuWave Precision Induction Cooktop, the NuWave Brio Digital Air Fryer, NuWave Flavor-Lockers, NuWave Nutri-Pot Digital Pressure Cooker and Duralon Non-Stick Cookware." How is my add of a newer product any different? Please reverse your change - thanks SanVeneto (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@SanVeneto: I've submitted the article for deletion. ––FormalDude talk 07:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Smart LOL SanVeneto (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


Red Bull

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! You were kind enough to update the Red Bull entry based on a couple edit requests I submitted on the article's talk page. I've submitted a few more similarly straightforward requests on the talk page, if you're willing to help out again. I don't think any of the three requested updates would take too long to review, and I'm happy to address any questions or concerns. Thanks for your consideration! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly happy to help out again, @Inkian Jason, I'll start reviewing now. ––FormalDude talk 21:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much, once again! I've shared overviews of products and sports sponsorships, which I'd like to think are significant improvements over the article's existing content, if you're willing to revisit. Much appreciated, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help! Much appreciated. I've submitted two additional requests at the bottom of Talk:Red Bull, if you're interested. Like before, I don't think these would take very long to review and implement. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Given all the recent article updates, I've submitted a request to remove an inapplicable field from the infobox, if you're open to revisiting. I've referenced an open request higher up on the talk page which similarly seeks to remove an inapplicable "Notes" section and update a sentence in the introduction. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your feedback is requested at Talk:XXXTentacion on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #488

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Closed request for adminship: BrokenSegue. Welcome onboard \o/
  • Development
    • Finished preventing a case where the same sitelink could be added to two different Items (phab:T291377)
    • Continuing work on the Mismatch Finder. Currently focusing on showing the details of the mismatches to the person reviewing mismatches.
    • Continued work on not allowing two Properties to have the same label after undo/revert (phab:T289473)
    • Continuing work on improving how changes on Wikidata are propagated to Wikipedia and the other other Wikimedia projects. The new system is being rolled out to all wikis now. It should not change anything for editors and just be a technical improvement in the backend.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Wikidata weekly summary #489

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
  • Development
    • Mismatch Finder: We are continuing the work on the review part of the system. We are now working on letting reviewers indicate if the mismatch is on Wikidata, the other database, both or neither.
    • Fixed a bug where it was possible for two Properties to have the same label in a given language by undoing/reverting an edit (phab:T289473)
    • Fixed a confusing error message that was being shown when trying to save geoshape / tabular data that doesn’t exist (phab:T285758)
    • Removing some unnecessary entity link formatting in edit summaries and special pages to improve performance (phab:T292203)
    • Fixing an issue with invalid dates that the API accepts but should not (phab:T289417)
    • Migrated all Wikimedia wikis to use the new change dispatching system. This system is responsible for notifying the other wikis about edits made on Wikidata that affect their articles so the article is refreshed and edits are added to recent changes and watchlists.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your feedback is requested at Talk:DRASTIC on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you please re-add it? Because Somebody removed the Braniff logo.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hello, I am Maurice King. and can you please re add it? because somebody removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:F403:7700:6C58:DE99:F6C3:937F (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "This is the last episode of the series to use the Braniff Productions logo." because it was not sourced. ––FormalDude talk 04:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Billboard 200 AfD closure

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, just letting you know that a speedy keep closure wasn't at all justified as no speedy keep criteria applied. This was a genuine concern I raised which anyone would have seen when reading through my arguments and clarifications and per WP:SKCRIT, speedy keep criteria are not to be used to express strong disapproval of the nomination: a rationale that you don't agree with is still an argument for deletion. That being said, I don't care anymore, so leave this as it is. Just letting you know. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Throast. Wouldn't the WP:SNOW clause apply though? ––FormalDude talk 20:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
SNOW might apply when speedy keep votes are justified per WP:SKCRIT, which wasn't the case here as I outlined above. Whenever there is an actual argument brought forth, the immediate dismissal and piling on of unjustified speedy keep votes is no reason for closing a deletion discussion early. Perhaps, another editor would have come along to support my viewpoint the day after you closed the debate. You just never know. The way this has turned out is more akin to WP:STEAM than anything else. Let discussions like these run its course and only close discussions prematurely when there is actual reason to. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Throast: It was pretty evident that the consensus was speedy keep. I disagree with your claim that it was WP:STEAM, there was a lot of discussion in the time it was open. I believe it had effectively run its course, though it maybe could've stayed open a day longer. ––FormalDude talk 04:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
There was not a lot of fruitful discussion. The discussion was between only me and the steamrolling editors, few of which actually engaged with my arguments. I don't think you quite understand. Just because the majority of votes are "speedy keep", doesn't mean you can automatically close as "speedy keep". You have to evaluate whether the editors voting that way had actual reason to and didn't just vote out of strong disapproval. WP:SKCRIT outlines some very specific cases where speedy keep would apply and strong disapproval is not one of them. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Throast: I think this is a case of you refusing to get the point of about the clear notability of an article. Editors gave their justifications and rebuttals, the majority were not just voting out of strong disapproval. If you have a problem with my closure you can feel free to take it to WP:DRV. ––FormalDude talk 09:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)>

Wikidata weekly summary #490

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
  • Development
    • Mismatch Finder: We are continuing the work on the review part of the system. We are working on letting reviewers submit their decision if the mismatch is on Wikidata, the other database, both or neither.
    • In the previous week we migrated all Wikimedia wikis to use the new change dispatching system. This system is responsible for notifying the other wikis about edits made on Wikidata that affect their articles so the article is refreshed and edits are added to recent changes and watchlists. This week we monitored the new system and investigated and fixed a few issues that came up.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Stranger things

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Following MollyPollyRolly's SPI and realising that I wasn't the only one who thinks that there is something suspicious about that account, I kept an eye on their edits until I discovered that they were in fact caught socking, but were later unblocked and asked to disclose on their user pages that they operate both of accounts. Not only they didn't disclose the accounts, but they are editing the same articles[2][3][4] with both accounts (MollyPollyRolly and Filmomusico). I hope you won't mind if I ping Bbb23 since they have expressed some concerns regarding the account's activity. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out, @M.Bitton, very diligent of you. ––FormalDude talk 22:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
This was handled by Oshwah. It would seem best for him to follow up to determine if any action is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Oshwah, shouldn't this user have declared their operations of multiple accounts on their userpages? ––FormalDude talk 22:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

“Links To Nazism” on Ace of Base’s page

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

My removal of that section was completely neutral. Two reasons:

1. A BAND MEMBER’S PAST, BEFORE HE MET THE BAND, IS IRRELEVANT INFO ON THE BAND PAGE. One member of the band was briefly in a skinhead gang in the early 80s. He left that gang years BEFORE joining Ace of Base. Ace of Base itself has zero ties to Naz*sm or any hate groups. That band member has vocally condemned his past since news articles in 1993. Attributing his past, which he condemns, to the band and its other members is the opposite of neutral. Anything that happened before Ace of Base and doesn’t have anything to do with Ace of Base doesn’t belong on Ace of Base’s wiki. Having a section on the band’s wiki saying “Links To Naz*sm” is NOT neutral. Ace of Base has NO “links to Naz*sm”. This isn’t 10 degrees of Kevin Bacon.

2. THE OTHER RUMORS ABOUT SECRET NAZ* MESSAGES IN THEIR SONGS HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED AND DISPROVEN. The “source” of alleged secret Naz* messages in Ace of Base’s lyrics and videos is a self described conspiracy theorist, and none of those claims are based in reality. I could make an article about how I think Tom Cruise has been making secret hand signals to convey that he enjoys eating children - that doesn’t mean it belongs on his wiki page.

LoveinDecember (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@LoveinDecember Hello, if you are referring to this edit, it is in my opinion that the section that you are trying to remove does contain useful information, and personally, I don't think that the section is a WP:NPOV violation and the section seems to be supported by reputable sources. Assuming that your claims above are true, it would be useful for the article to contain such information, however, the information should not be added without citations supporting your claims, also, I would not suggest editing the article directly. You should leave suggestions on the article's talk page instead, you seem to be particularly passionate about the topic, and while it could definitely be a positive trait while writing articles, might lead to minor incivility while having a conflict with others, thanks! Justiyaya 06:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

@Justiyaya “useful information”? It’s fake news, which I posted proof of in the Ace of Base page’s talk section. I’ve cited printed news articles that directly contradict the Vice and Cracked articles. This is easily findable information that the conspiracy theorists would have found out by doing basic research. LoveinDecember (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Answered on Talk:Ace of Base#Request for wider feedback on Nazi claims, would appreciate it if you (Formal Dude) gave your opinion on the suggestion that I made there. Justiyaya 15:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FormalDude/Archive/5&oldid=1147479670"