Firefangledfeathers

Contentious topics awareness notices (reviewed July 29, 2024)

IP35

Hello @Firefangledfeathers,

I encourage you to participate in or at least look at my report on IP35 located here.

Thank you for your help. ItsCheck (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

A terrible turn. Sorry ItsCheck. I blocked the IP for 3 months. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Firefangledfeathers, do you think there is enough evidence that User:DementiaGaming is an account that belongs to IP35? Even though DementiaGaming has 1000 edits, they possess the same defensive behavior as IP 35 and make edits on similar articles if not the same ones, almost like they are a mirror of IP 35. I'll let you know if IP 35 starts bothering me again, but there could be something deeper going on. Anyway, I'm not asking you to do anything. I just want to know what you think of all this. Would a Check User be necessary? Thank you, ItsCheck (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This is undeniably, laughably untrue. It is based on a few threads related to or on the 2006 talk page which got out of hand, starting with you putting a complaint on my talk page about a video game that I didn't even knew existed being released to the public, which will never be a notable enough event to be on the page. You also do not have nearly enough evidence to prove I am that IP. My real IP is vastly different from that one, even if I "mirror" or "possess the same defensive behavior" as them. So please, do not bring me into this and figure out the children's video game argument on 2006. DementiaGaming (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

ItsCheck, I don't think so. There are a lot of editors whose main focus is date/year articles, and it would be hard to see overlap as evidence of sockpuppetry. I don't get the sense that the behavior is a match. CheckUser would not be helpful here, as they will not publicly connect a user to an IP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

ItsCheck, I got a ping from IP35, and they're suggesting that you've been going through and reverting a bunch of their changes. It does seem like maybe you've done that at least a couple times. Since there's so much to improve on the years and date pages, it would be very helpful if you would focus on other things. Please be careful also about calling things "vandalism". Like "unexplained removal", we have a very specific definition of it, and accusations that don't hew to the definition can themselves be personal attacks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Yes, I have been going through their old edits and cleaning up the unconstructive ones, as well as bringing back events that IP 35 removed because they were uncited and adding citations to them. As for calling them vandalism, this is simply false. I even called some edits good faith and explained why I removed them, but I left most of the edit summaries empty. Unless twinkle labeled my reverts as vandalism, I’m not sure why IP 35 thinks I’m trying to attack him. Besides, 90% of their edits that I reviewed were good, so I left them alone. As for the others, I had a good reason to revert them, like the one mentioned above. If leaving them alone would help, I would be happy to stop reverting edits from them and also stay away from the year articles in the near future. Edit: I just noticed that I did call an edit vandalism, one that did not necessarily condone it. I’m sorry about that. ItsCheck (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

ItsCheck, I was referring to this edit. I don't think you need to stay away from year articles. If you're looking to remove uncited entries, there are hundreds to work on, though it would be better to attempt to find sources, which are frequently available at the linked article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Just saw your edit. Thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Yeah, I’ll just stay away from IP 35 so I don’t make myself look bad. ItsCheck (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did acknowledge that in a edit I made to my reply before you added that. ItsCheck (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

More

I opted not to open another discussion for GS/AA in ANI because these are fairly straight forward, I hope you don't mind me posting on your page: two other users who were warned about GS/AA continued editing articles covered by it, [1], [2] Can you take a look? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi KhndzorUtogh. I don't think the first edit is AA related, but you

may want to warn them about WP:GS/KURD. For the second , I think the best next step is for you to discuss with them at both their user talk (why was their edit problematic) and the article talk page (why do you oppose their change). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted both users because of the restrictions (I think first article might also be under GS/AA if you see this section but it's covered by GS/KURD regardless as you pointed out. I didn't know about the latter). I also made comments to both users like you suggested [3], [4]. Will let you know if there are further developments, if you don't mind. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The user you've topic banned and blocked for a week, soon after the block has expired, they've gone on reporting IPs in AA. Isn't this another violation of their topic ban? [5] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:WITCHHUNT Göycen (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

KhndzorUtogh, it's possible some of those IPs edits are covered by GS/AA, but Göycen's report doesn't mention or inherently rely on any particular edit. Göycen, you should expect that editors will be reviewing your upcoming changes to ensure you aren't violating your TBAN. This edit was close to the edges, so I urge more caution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes a page GS/AA? Is there a distinction? For example, can I create a village page for a location in Turkey near the Armenian border? Can I create a page for a food from eastern Turkey, which shares cultural elements with Azerbaijan? Does the GS/AA designation apply to any page containing text about Armenia and/or Azerbaijan, or is there a specific list? Göycen (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no specific list. The general guidance is at WP:TBAN, and you should ask questions if you're unsure. A village near the Armenian border would probably be fine, as would a village within Armenia or Azerbaijan, unless the village is related to politics, ethnic relations, or conflicts. If it's part of a disputed area, that would definitely not be permissible. The food might be fine, as long as the page and the specific edits you're making are not tied to some Azerbaijan–Turkey cultural conflict. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the users I mentioned here that was warned of GS/AA and GS/KURD [6], BaharatlıCheetos2.0, has been sockpuppeting with a new account named BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı (talk · contribs) ("devamı" at the end translates to "sequel”). They went against GS/AA again several times in spite of the warning on their first account’s talk page [7], [8], [9], and they have created a bunch of articles that are at least broadly covered by GS/AA (see these sections for instance: [10], [11], [12]). There is also a sockpuppet investigation [13]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I commented at the SPI, and I think it's too soon to say if something bad-faith is going on. I'll give a formal warning about the GS/AA violations. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, they've violated GS/AA once again [14]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

They've violated GS/AA once more [15]. The article is about Armenian genocide perpetrators' party, and they're specifically editing the name of the main perpetrator, Tallat Pasha. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi KhndzorUtogh. This is not one I want to act on, administratively. Consider seeking enforcement from another active admin or bringing it to WP:ANI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Minneapolis

Hi, FFF. I believe that you considered reviewing the Minneapolis FAR at one time. Can you possibly consider that again? The FAR is stalled, and has gone on almost a year. One keep vote but nothing since then. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi SusanLesch! Hope you've been well. It's on my to-do list, and I'll focus on it once I finish an outstanding GA review. Hopefully later this week or next weekend. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Much obliged! -SusanLesch (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: Possible 'article' about the Pensacola Historical Society.

Hello Firefangledfeathers my amazing mentor. My inquiry is about a possible 'article' about the Pensacola Historical Society. It Looks like there was a specific page associated with this topic (maybe). There is no article however it seems that there is a near/topic 'redlink' subject. It seems that there (maybe) once was such a 'society'. However, it became defunct & later regained recognition ... As well, this same 'society' has since been renamed. So, here is my question. For 'historical reference' can I write an article about this subject ? TriosLosDios (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside notability for a moment, yes, you could definitely write an article about the organization. Even if it hadn't regained recognition, an article about a defunct historical society would be fine. The question as always is: will it meet any notability criterion? The specific notability guideline for organizations, WP:NORG, is fairly strict about the need for independent sources. I would read and re-read all the sections of WP:ORGCRIT and refer back to it frequently while evaluating sources. I might be able to help. The society seems like the kind of thing that could get newspaper coverage, and I can check out Newspapers.com—one thing you can look forward to in September is access to the Wikipedia Library, which includes the free use of many high-quality research tools, including Newspapers.com. I have a chunk of other work on my plate right now, but if I haven't gotten back to you in a week or so, you should ping me a reminder. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Revoke TPA

User:2600:1006:B065:70C8:0:0:0:0/64? They’re not so good. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 20:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Discospinster did it. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 20:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Question

I wonder if we can ask for an acceleration of the check user because of the daily conflicts. (is it common? is it permitabble?) Surely its implementation would give a different, the right, direction to things. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but SPI is really backlogged right now. Hopefully a CU will be along soon. Again, your filing will be more attractive if you convert those revision links into diffs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You've told me this before, but the point is that I want to show the participation in the same topics. It's not a matter of edits within the same article. Unless I don't understand exactly what is meant. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't think there's any similarity between their edits to those articles? If not, overlap on two Greek political parties and the practice of blanking talk page notices (which is very common) do not constitute enough evidence for a CU check. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

you mean to point out similar edits within the same articles; that is more important; D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. I will change it as soon as possible. D.S. Lioness (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the strongest evidence I have is because of our personal acquaintance on Greek Wikipedia. The alleged, new user knew some details about me, which he could not have known if he had not participated in our discussions in the Greek WP, as deepfriedfeta and as Nikolaos Fanaris. But does that count as an argument capable of triggering user check? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Svampesky (21:40, 8 July 2024)

Hey. How do I link articles to Wikidata and other language Wikipedias? I need to do it on the article I published, Holger Rosenkrantz. --Svampesky (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Once you log in to Wikidata, use the search bar to find the right person. There's a section on his page for "Wikipedia", which you can edit to add "en" and the name of your article. That change will mean that the article here will automatically link to the other language versions. If you know of other language versions to add, keep adding to the "Wikipedia" section at the Wikidata page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't provide translation copyright attribution on Præsidenten fra Nordvest or Holger Rosenkrantz. I have the wikicode for both. Are you able to delete both of the pages and I'll recreate them with the correct copyright attribution. For both pages I'm pretty much the sole contributor in terms of content. If so, can you delete Præsidenten fra Nordvest first, then I recreate it. Then I'll reply to this for you to do Holger Rosenkrantz after. Svampesky (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No deletion needed. In your next edit summary on each article, use the message provided at WP:RIA in addition to your explanatory edit summary. If you're not planning to edit again soon, use a dummy edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Done and done. Thanks! Svampesky (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Niki (Greek political party)‎

Hi, I assume you intend to actually semi-protect the article? Don't mean to be pushy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Done! Feel free to be pushy when it comes to slips like that! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I could see you doing all the paperwork and just wasn't sure if you hadn't gotten to it yet. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Svampesky (17:06, 9 July 2024)

Question on copyright and translation. On articles, when I use sources that are in different language, what's the legal stance on copyright with providing a translation? WP:ENGLISHPLEASE says Do not expect readers to translate your content themselves, not even when modern browsers have machine translation built-in., however, if I provide a translation of an extract I will be infringing on the copyright of the source. --Svampesky (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Svampesky. When you provide a translation, it should be clear that it's quoted material. Use quotation marks or a block quote template. Make sure the citation makes it clear where the text originates, and consider in-text attribution. As long as the quoted material isn't excessively long, you'll be fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I mean in the references, not the actual body of the article. On Holger Rosenkrantz some of the refs are in Danish and there isn't a parameter for 'translation' in the citation. What's the legal/copyright stance on this in providing a translation in the ref? Svampesky (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Most citation templates include quote= and trans-quote= parameters to include quotes and translated quotes. Inclusion of a quote is not necessary, but if you do include a quote, you should provide a translation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What about using quotes from sources that are not publicly accessible? I borrowed a book from the state-owned national library and the collection is only accessible to citizens and residents. The library permits the use of its materials for research purposes (including Wikipedia) but clearly states that only citizens and residents have access to the actual content. Svampesky (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

First of all, thank you so much for doing that research work! It's nice to include a quote if the material is hard to access. At the very least, keep a transcribed version with you so you can justify the content later if questioned by another editor. A quote is still not required. One other bit of unsolicited advice: make sure all the sources you use were published. See WP:OR for the importance of using published material. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Every single book that is published in a country is available in its respective national library. Is there anywhere where I've done original research, so I don't do it again? I don't think I have access to research material like academic papers or journals. Svampesky (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you've done any OR. I just know some people get into the national library and are seized by research mania. Access to things like unpublished letters, diaries, etc., can tempt even the best of us into OR! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay cool. I don't even think I have access to academic papers or journals (and I'm assuming they have all the non-peer-reviewed work too), or anything that would require me to wear those white archivist gloves. I do have a question about the reliability of books though. Most national libraries are legal deposits, so any book that is published in a country has to be in the collection. This includes books that are unverified. Theoretically, I could find a book full of lurid conspiracy theories and cite it. For example, in Holger Rosenkrantz, I cited a book published by Christian Focus Publications; I think they could be biased on certain topics so I only extracted the factual information. But Oxford University Press and University Press of Liverpool I would deem them reliable as they are academic institutions. I know about WP:RSP for online sources, but does Wikipedia have any assessment scale for book publishers? Svampesky (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not really. RSP is not just for online sources, but it does not weigh in on very many book publishers. If you don't trust your own judgment—which you should in most cases—you could ask at WP:RSN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Regoregitated (14:53, 11 July 2024)

Hello hope you are well. I’m not sure if you’re the right person to ask but I’d like to create a page. Could you give me some info on how to do this? I’ve checked the notability guides and the person I want to create a page is all good.

Thanks :) --Regoregitated (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Regoregitated. There's some good guidance at Help:Your first article, which advises that you use draft space for your first article. If you'd like to skip that recommended step, there's Wikipedia:How to create a page. If you're writing an article about a person, there are also some guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Question about special:redirect/logid/163138137

Hello, I have seen that you blocked Special:Contributions/2409:4085:2E19:0:0:0:0:0/48. Do you think simple:Special:Contributions/2409:4085:2E19:0:0:0:0:0/48 is the same editor, and can you explain why? Any kind of information will be appreciated. Thank you for your attention and assistance. MathXplore (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi MathXplore. I'll have some time to look into this later today. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi MathXplore. I'm confident it's the same user. I sent you an email with my explanation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. MathXplore (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from TriosLosDios (04:49, 13 July 2024)

Hello my amazing mentor @Firefangledfeathers:. Good day to you. I hope you can take a look at my sandbox. There's an 'article' draft that I started in hopes to create a new 'article' Re: Dubose Oil Products Company. If you can take a look at it let me know what you think. I am open for any suggestions of improvement here. Thanks! --TriosLosDios (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey TLD! You're catching me just before I have to log off for a while. Will get back to you as soon as I can. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

TriosLosDios, an interesting read! The first thing you'll want to do is collect some independent, non-government sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree {ping|Firefangledfeathers} this is definitely an interesting read. Now that the government sources have been applied to draft. I looked into locating a non-government source. I'm still not upto par w/ ... even using visual editor to add Cite source ... I'm still having some (possible) difficulty. Also, if there is any way you can explain the purpose or similarity between what topics are used in references & see also sections ? Think I'm almost there but looks can be deceiving. Thanks, for your phenomenal inspiration 💯 TriosLosDios (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't use Visual much, but maybe we can try an example together. Looks like you want to cite an epa.gov source right after "... protect people and the environment." You should

1. Delete the url and brackets you currently have there
2. Have your cursor right where you want the citation to be, just after the period after "environment".
3. Click the "Cite" button in the top menu. It has a quotation mark icon.
4. Stay on the "Automatic" tab
5. Paste the url
6. Click "Create"
7. Click "Insert"

If that works, I can help you with the next couple steps. The "See also" section is just for links to other Wikipedia articles, not for sources. Sources that aren't used in any citations but that might be interesting to the reader go in a "Further reading" section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes & think I messed up my references & see also sections of the article. Overall the article turned out to be pretty interesting. As for your additional suggestions for using Visual editor; I will keep those tips for future use. However, I mainly use source editor. Thanks, for being an Amazing Mentor ! TriosLosDios (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I misunderstood! I only use source editor. Would you like some help formatting the references? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes there's an obviously learning curve here that I am interested in participating. Help, with formatting the references will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! TriosLosDios (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

• One new partner
• 1Lib1Ref
• Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Category deletions

Hello, Firefangledfeathers,

Please use Twinkle to delete pages like categories that are deleted as the result of a CFD, in this case, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 6#Category:Tourism in the Republic of Artsakh. Right now, the page's deletion notice says that they were deleted as the result of CSD G6 "Housekeeping" when the deletion tag on the page actually linked to the CFD discussion where it was decided to delete them. Then editors will know not to recreate them because of the deletion discussion but G6 doesn't refer to this at all If you just use Twinkle, select CSD, it will have the field all filled out with the link to the CFD, please do this rather than just doing a page deletion and selecting CSD G6 that provides no information on why they were deleted. This also works with PRODs as well. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks Liz! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wladekimperialny

I don't think I ever thanked you for relisting the above SPI on July 16 to get an answer to my question. With Spicy's helpful response today, I was able to act and close. Belated thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem, Bbb23! Glad it helped. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Svampesky (16:58, 23 July 2024)

Hey. I'm copyeditng one of my Signpost reports with a recommendation in the comments, and I'm going to link to this this page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fair_use. Is there a way of linking to it as an internal-wikilink, and not as a external-hyperlink? --Svampesky (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I worked out how to do it! Svampesky (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

GS/AA violation

Hello Firefangledfeathers, hope you're doing well. Sorry for bothering you. User:Hew Folly has already been told of WP:GS/AA at least twice [16] [17], but today they once again violated it through WP:TENDENTIOUS editing [18]. Would greatly appreciate if you could deal with this. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Gave a formal warning. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Firefangledfeathers! HistoryofIran (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The Qajar Iran is related neither to the Republic of Azerbaijan nor to the Republic of Armenia. hence, i edited it. Hew Folly (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

More AA concerns

Hello Firefangledfeathers, sorry for bothering you again. But this user is still causing trouble, and I think they're bad news. Not only do they seem to be farming easy edits (eg [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]) to get those WP:GS/AA rights, but they also blatantly misrepresented a source [24] (I've linked a older idiff on purpose to make it more reader friendly, they do try to defend their actions afterwards but it makes absolutely zero sense), taking part a text out of context and then giving their own personal interpretation to push a view only supported in the widespread historical revisionism in Azerbaijan [25], in other words, WP:TENDENTIOUS. This is just scratching the surface. There also seems to be WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issues. Despite being told several times that we rely on WP:RS, not our own personal deductions/opinions (eg [26] [27] [28] [29]), they still recently sponsored their own WP:SYNTH/WP:OR yesterday [30], as if it had any meaning (and the "note" barely makes sense as well). HistoryofIran (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Firefangledfeathers!

If the topic is not related to the GS/AA violation, I propose to add a new topic. Hew Folly (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not related to GS/AA violation, it's related to disregard of countless policies - I just put it here instead of creating a new thread. And I assume you're referring to the distorted, cherrypicked, seemingly Russian [31] to English Google Translated WP:TLDR you created? [32]. Also, I find it odd that you refer to me as "HoI", it's an old name I am rarely referred by, and you are quite new here. The last new user who did that was exposed as a sock and meatpuppet [33]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hew Folly, in case it helps, I've made this a new subsection. I'd prefer to keep this whole discussion together for later review in the archives. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Simply put, the entire debate was exclusively on the Talk page. @HistoryofIran accused me of violating WP:No original research,[34] although the policy doesn't apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards[35]

For more details: [36] Hew Folly (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I've made a response [37] to these distorted claims. Hopefully it should be enough proof. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi HistoryofIran. I won't have time to look into this for another day or so. If it's urgent, consider filing at WP:AE. If not, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hew Folly, the community is very sensitive to possible permissions gaming when it comes to topics covered by extended-confirmed restriction. The diffs provided by HistoryofIran are concerning, but not damning. Expect some scrutiny, and consider avoiding minor changes and sandbox edits until you are extended confirmed.

Still looking into the other matters. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

HistoryofIran and Hew Folly, I'm not going to take any action here except to give some advice:

1. We have a source that HistoryofIran praised and that Hew Folly has criticized. It's common argumentation to say something like what Hew Folly has here, along the lines of "even this source that you prefer supports my side in these ways". I don't see this as straightforward misrepresentation, and since Hew Folly had previously quoted the intro to the numbered list, I don't think the cherry picking charge is quite right either.
2. HistoryofIran, you're running into the classic problem of uninvolved admins tending to be less informed than the involved editors. I can't appropriately evaluate, for example, your claim that Hew Folly's view is "only supported in the widespread historical revisionism in Azerbaijan". I can't rely on the Wikipedia article you've linked, and I wouldn't care to read the books you could likely cite supporting that point. Consider raising your threshold for seeking sanctions.
3. Hew Folly, you now have a pattern of line-crossing and borderline conduct in the AA topic area. Consider radical changes to your approach and conduct, or a topic ban is likely. If you're not sure what policy-compliant editing looks like, spend some time in less contentious topic areas.
4. Hew Folly is right that the OR policy has a specific exemption for discussion on talk pages and other discussion venues. HistoryofIran, consider rephrasing similar warnings in the future. I'd say something like "We have to engage in some critical evaluation of sources in order to create a quality encyclopedia. That said, it's rarely productive to engage in lengthy argument with expert sources. Unless there are some obvious falsehoods, we are prejudiced in favor of the reliable experts and against the opinions of anonymous non-experts. If you have an equivalent level of expertise to the subject, please publish your analysis in a reliable source and we can then consider your points on equal footing here." Hew Folly, please consider that moving forward.
5. HistoryofIran, you need to find a more restrained way of criticizing Azerbaijani sources. Statements like "Azerbaijani "sources" are not WP:RS because they engage in historical falsification/negationism" are overstated and inflammatory.
6. Hew Folly, there are many sites on the internet that post copyrighted material without permission. Do not link to them on Wikipedia.
7. Hew Folly, this is not the most important issue, but you're creating a lot of improperly formatted links. You can link to Wikipedia pages using double brackets and to external sites using single brackets. Formatting like ":~:text=HoI vs Hew Folly[,to HoI and created tables." when appended to the end of your links does nothing except complicate and confuse.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

We have a source that HistoryofIran praised and that Hew Folly has criticized. It's common argumentation to say something like what Hew Folly has here, along the lines of "even this source that you prefer supports my side in these ways". I don't see this as straightforward misrepresentation, and since Hew Folly had previously quoted the intro to the numbered list, I don't think the cherry picking charge is quite right either.

But that's the issue. The source does not even support their side in another way. This is what was omitted right before the quotes; "Although the overwhelming number of nineteenth-century Russian and Iranian,2 as well as present-day European historians view the Iranian province of Azarbayjan and the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan as two separate geographical and political entities, modern Azeri historians and geographers view it a single state that has been separated into “northern” and “southern” sectors and which will be united in the future.3 This unsubstantiated claim rests on a number of factors:" So Bournoutian does not even support those claims.

And thanks for your whole response, I will try to do better. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I do understand how that intro to the numbered list recontextualizes the following items. I may be reading him wrong, but it does seem like Bournoutian is stating that those factors are factual. His conclusion appears to be that the factors do not fully support the claim you've underlined. It's not clear if Hew Folly is making that same claim, or one adjacent to it, but if Bournoutian's factors are factual, it's not overly tendentious to cite them as evidence. it seems like it brings you both back to the administrative vs. geographical debate, which is not addressed by the Bournoutian quote, at least not explicitly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

But Bournoutian refers to the claims of the Azeri historians as "unsubstantiated" and describes what WP:RS actually says just before that. Moreover, Bournoutian literally uses the word "administration/administrative" in b) and d). And in c), he simply says "Following the Treaty of Gulistan, the khanates of Nakhichevan and Yerevan and their khans were subordinate to `Abbas Mirza, the commander-in-chief of the Iranian forces in Tabriz (Azarbayjan)." [38]. So never does Bournoutian say that "the toponym of Azerbaijan was used in reference to the territory of the contemporary Republic of Azerbaijan long before 1918" as claimed. Heck, in a) which was also omitted, Bournoutian says "Hence, after the rise of their national consciousness at the start of the twentieth century, it was convenient for the Muslim Tatars living in the South Caucasus to refer to themselves as Azeris and to their newly formed independent republic (1918) as Azerbaijan." Following pages after, Bournoutian goes into even further depth in criticising historical rewriting by Soviet and Azerbaijani historians. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Speaking, again, from a place of ignorance, I can't tell if he means "unsubstantiated" in the sense of "everything I'm about to list is false" or "everything I'm about to list is true, but it doesn't prove the claim". I suspect it's the latter. Good point on "administrative". I hope you don't feel you need to convince me further. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers thanks for your time, comprehensive response and helpful advice! Hew Folly (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, sorry for barging in, but I would also like to comment here, as I also had a dispute with HistoryofIran at Talk:Karabakh_Khanate#Language a while ago. I made no actual edits to the article, I just proposed at talk some improvements and sources, and was not particularly impressed by HistoryofIran accusing me of violation of pretty much every rule in existence and threatening to report me to AE over a content dispute. We had a lengthy debate, but failed to reach a consensus. I would appreciate if you could provide a third opinion or advise on the best way of dispute resolution. I will present below my vision of the situation. The main dispute is about the line "The administrative and literary language in Karabakh until the end of the 19th century was Persian". That is not accurate, as every literary encyclopaedia writes about rich Azerbaijani literature flourishing in the region (Azerbaijani Khanates/khanates of Caucasus, the territory of modern day Azerbaijan Republic), describing the most prominent figures. I have collected relevant sources at User:Grandmaster/Literature. These are specialist sources on the Azerbaijani literature written by the top international experts on the subject. HOI presented a number of sources that state Persian was the main literary language in the region. However those sources are mostly one-liners that do not elaborate what kind of Persian literature existed in the region, and who were the Persian language writers/poets. The fact is that all known literary figures from Karabakh and other khanates were Azerbaijani Turkic poets/writers, such as Molla Panah Vagif, Molla Vali Vidadi, Khurshidbanu Natavan, Gasim bey Zakir, etc. I'm not aware of any 18-19 century Persian poets from the region, the sources do not mention any, and HOI also failed to name any either. Another thing is that many Azerbaijani literary figures would occasionally write some Persian poetry too, which would make them bilingual. My proposal was to simply mention that both Persian and Azerbaijani Turkic were the literary languages in the region, as we have sources supporting both. HOI wants to state that Persian was the main literary language, and Azerbaijani was secondary, as some sources appear to make such claim. But there are also sources that say otherwise. For example, encyclopedia Iranica states that "writing is almost exclusively in Azeri Turkish" to the north of Araks in the 18th century. If we are unable to name any more or less well-known exclusively Persian language literators from the region, and sources conflict on what was the main literary language of the region, isn't the most reasonable solution just to state that both languages were literary? Sorry if this is too long and hard to read. I'm just interested in an outside opinion to resolve the dispute by consensus. Grandmaster 07:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Grandmaster. If you'd like to restart that discussion, a request for a WP:Third opinion would probably be wise. Since the discussion was so lengthy, it might be helpful for both of you to provide a one-paragraph summary of your position and the strongest bits of evidence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grandmaster:, we were getting closer to reaching an agreement but you stopped replying. There many errors here, two of the poets you are mentioning were not even active in the Karabakh Khanate, you already know that yet you still used this argument, which is WP:SYNTH (the Karabakh khanate did not even exist during Khurshidbanu Natavans lifetime). I’m taking this to AE, where I can show everyone what you are doing more clearly. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The article in its present version says that "The administrative and literary language in Karabakh until the end of the 19th century was Persian". If we talk about the end of the 19th century, then those later poets are relevant. If not, then Vagif was the one who wrote in the khanates times. I'm alright with requesting a third opinion on this. Grandmaster 14:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey

@ActionHeroesAreReal keeps removing sourced info from the article Tupac Shakur, he keeps saying the sourced info is original research. He keeps randomly removing info from the article, and Everytime in his edit summary he says "see talk page" when other editors disagreed with his edits on the talk page, so he's basically lying about what other editors are saying. This has been going on for a very long time, and he keeps getting the article locked because of edit warring and content disputes, but he's not really getting any warnings from administrators telling him to stop. Can you tell him to stop, because of his actions now I'm checking the Tupac Shakur article every 5 minutes, and it gives me a headache because I'm usually outside. Someone just have him stop this is extremely annoying. You're an administrator, right? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi HumansRightsIsCool. I'm an administrator, but I've been involved in disputes with AHAR, and I couldn't be the one to act administratively. They've already been blocked once for edit warring, and they previously were warned about edit warring at the Tupac article by Swatjester. Swatjester, AHAR did not engage at the talk page a single time during the full protection period, then they restored their preferred version the day after the protection expired. Enough for another block? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that'd do it. Blocked them for a week, given their recent edit-warring block. Next one should be indefinite. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks for the quick attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Rjmnijman (09:29, 25 July 2024)

Hello, thanks for welcoming me!

I've been asked to make some alterations and additions on account of outdated and/or incomplete information on an existing Wiki page. However, all of yesterday's edits were overturned. Perhaps it's best that I redo them in a sandbox environment. Can I create a copy of an existing page there to test out my proposed edits? --Rjmnijman (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rjmnijman. It looks like the edits were undone because they contained some copyright violations. Even in a sandbox, we can't host such material here. I would suggest keeping it offline while you find a way to put it all in your own words. Be aware also of close paraphrasing, which is also not permitted. If you are the copyright holder, you may want to republish the material somewhere online with a compatible license (see WP:COMPLIC for some suggestions). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I've placed the desidered alterations in a sandbox environment as a mirror, [39] and will look into the appropriate permissions (as I am allowed to used the supposed copyright protected bits). What are the appropriate channels to offer the sandbox version as a desired new version of the page it is mirroring? Rjmnijman (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Firefangledfeathers, would it be possible for you to have a look at the sandbox @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjmnijman/sandbox? Thanks very much in advance! Rjmnijman (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rjmnijman. Unfortunately, it looks like you copied and pasted material from copyrighted sources, including the company's history page. I deleted the revisions that contain copyrighted material. You need to be very careful moving forward. Continued copyright violation after multiple warnings frequently leads to a block. Have you read WP:COPYVIO? Do you have any clarifying questions? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I did check the links for how to create and edit a sandbox, the page had notations at the beginning and the end; it said "content copied from 1 on 30 July 2024 for purposes of testing and proposing changes to original page." so I don't understand why the text would be changed back?

Also i have permission from the source as I was asked to propose these changes to their original page; how and where can i show that it's not a copyvio but rather a permitted use of text? Rjmnijman (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rjmnijman, it's okay to copy material from other Wikipedia pages, provided you note that you've done so (see WP:COPYWITHIN for best practices). You can't copy material from copyrighted sources, even if it's for testing and proposal purposes.

If Avery Dennison is willing to freely license the parts of the website you're pulling from, they can edit their site to remove the copyright symbol from the bottom of those pages. They should replace it with one of the free licenses that are compatible with Wikipedia (see WP:COMPLIC). I tend to remind people in these cases that the license means that others can re-use the content however they want, including for commercial purposes.

When you say you were "asked to propose these changes", it makes it clear you have a conflict of interest with the company. Please declare it and follow the other guidance provided at WP:COI. If you are being paid to make these proposals, you must declare per WP:PAID and follow that policy scrupulously. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for your valuable insights. It is greatly appreciated. I will add the full disclosure to my User page as well as inform the company that they have to remove the copyright limitations if we wish to add the new information as is. Rjmnijman (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı

Hi,

I just wanted to let you know that BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı has a complaint against them in ANI. I was hoping you might be able to take a look and render judgment on the matter considering you've had some experience with this user in the past. I'm a bit concerned by Special:Diff/1236829027 considering their history of violating WP: GS/AA. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You must be literally obsessed with me. BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I commented there to say I don't have time for this matter. Hope it works out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Looks like everything got sorted out. Thank you for all of your hard working making the encyclopedia better. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Svampesky (15:26, 29 July 2024)

Hey. I'm tidying up my userspace, but I can't work out how to delete User:Svampesky/testcode move and User:Svampesky/testcode.css. I tried moving it should it wouldn't have '.css' at the end, but it didn't work. Can you delete both pages for me? Thanks. --Svampesky (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deadpool & Wolverine uncredited cast

Ayesha Hussain as Betsy Braddock/Psylocke

Chloe Kibble as Callisto

Jade Lye as Yuriko Oyama/Lady Deathstrike

Eduardo Gago Muñoz as Azazel

Daniel Medina Ramos as Mortimer Toynbee/Toad

Curtis Rowland Small as Lester/Bullseye

Jessica Walker as Philippa Sontag/Arclight

Nilly Cetin as Quill (female for some unknown reason)

Billy Clements as Ivan/Russian

Also btw Rob's minuteman is in the movie, in the cage, the scene from the trailer where Alioth grabs him is cut sadly Swordjetska (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Swordjetska. I'm not sure why you're mentioning this to me. If you're looking to include this in the article about the film, I suggest considering the guidance in MOS:CASTLIST. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Svampesky (01:16, 31 July 2024)

I !voted delete in an AfD and fell into a hole researching the topic. Is it bad-form for me to nominate another article for deletion in that same topic while the one I !voted delete is still running? --Svampesky (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey Svampesky. I don't think it's bad form. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Svampesky (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

re: Miraclass article

Hello, Firefangledfeathers. An IP user added an advertisement tag to the Miraclass article. I made some changes to the article, and the IP user commented that it had improved but still needed more work. I edited the article again and replied to the user's topic on the talk page, but it seems that the user is no longer active or may have changed their IP. Is there a way to get a review of the revised article? Rosuacamus (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rosuacamus. Try leaving a message at the IP user's talk page. It's the best way to leave them a notification. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I left a message at the talk page. Rosuacamus (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ygscr (05:14, 3 August 2024)

Hello, I noticed there was some vandalism on the heart and greed television series page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_and_Greed

I have removed the vandalism. Looking at the edit history it seems to have been done by DramsCatte on October 21, 2021. How do I report this user? --Ygscr (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ygscr. Thanks for catching that vandalism. Looks like it was actually added by an unregistered user in May and June 2021 (link to the changes). The user you mention just moved it around. Either way, we don't normally report vandalism that old. If you notice some recent vandalism, you should warn the user. If they continue past a few warnings, report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Both the warning and the reporting are easier with WP:TWINKLE, which you'll be able to install once you're a little bit more experienced. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Svampesky (16:14, 5 August 2024)

In the AfD for Vivian Jenna Wilson, I checked to see if the article needed to be de-orphaned and noticed a redirect using her deadname. I checked other articles about trans people, and found the same redirect issue with Death of Nex Benedict. This seems odd since the deadname is redacted on the talk page. WP:DEADNAME says it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects. Should these redirects be deleted? It's a contentious matter, so I don't want to be blundering about it. --Svampesky (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely a solid case for deletion. I don't think it would be a blunder to start RfDs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

RfD as in Redirects for discussion? I think it would be a blundering, or perhaps even unwise to draw attention to things that have been redacted elsewhere on Wikipedia. WP:DEADNAME is a guideline, so is there a speedy deletion for redirects that would be more appropriate? Svampesky (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I don't think there's a speedy deletion criteria that fits. There's a downside to spreading the deadnames, but RfD is a fairly low-profile place, and in both those cases the deadnames are somewhat widespread on the internet. If you come across a more sensitive case—for example, one where the subject is not out as being trans—there might be reason to tag with WP:G10. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll start by saying I was previously unfamiliar with RfD, so I might be misunderstanding it. WP:RFD#DELETE #3: The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.. How is this not a case of WP:G10 as deadnaming is considered both offensive and abusive? Would the redirect fall under the scope of being redacted anyway, per the talk page? Svampesky (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and nominated it for speedy deletion (this is not a request that you action it). A similar redirect, with a middle name, was unopposed to being deleted, citing WP:DEADNAME too. Svampesky (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It was successful. The redirect was deleted as an attack page. Should this be written in black-and-white on the WP:G10 page for future reference? Svampesky (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected! I'd suggest asking the deleting admin. She's one of our most experienced when it comes to deletion policy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Svampesky (18:29, 7 August 2024)

How do discussions on Commons work? I was tagged in some nonsense, but how do I discuss this on Commons? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:This_Is_Called_Emotional_Abuse.jpg --Svampesky (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What's the equivalent of WP:AN on Commons? I tried searching, but the search results were the Commons media. Svampesky (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Svampesky, their equivalent is Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages. It looks like the issue may have been resolved already. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Newsoup11 (16:26, 8 August 2024)

hello, how do i create a citation? --Newsoup11 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Newsoup11. The full guidance is at Wikipedia:Citing sources, especially the section §How to place an inline citation using ref tags. You were very close in this edit. You got the ref tags right, and you just needed to remove the curly brackets around the url. Had you done so, you'd have successfully made a bare url reference. It's not the most informative citation, but it's something. If you'd like to step it up, I just using Template:Cite web. The formatting would be something like {{cite web|last1=Kuehl|first1=Tyler|title=Former NHL defenseman Oscar Klefbom announces retirement|url=https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/news/former-nhl-defenseman-oskar-klefbom-announces-retirement|website=Daily Faceoff|access-date=8 August 2024}} Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Svampesky (19:22, 8 August 2024)

Can you walk me through the steps of reporting COI please? A BLP for a relatively unknown person Benji Krol was created by a single-purpose account 'User:Joshbanana'. I was going to take it to WP:COIN, but it says I have to discuss with them. --Svampesky (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Can I have some surveillance on my edits to Benji Krol please? I've removed all the poorly sourced content, but now the sexual misconduct allegations section is the largest, which might be disproportionate. I feel like I've turned it into an attack page. Svampesky (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Svampesky. You have more experience with the body of sources on that subject than i do. If your instincts are telling you the current section is disproportionate, it's time to cut. We prefer not to remove material during an AfD, but BLP concerns trump that norm. As a courtesy to AfD participants, you may want to copy over any sources that you remove, so it's easier to analyze notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of this person before coming across the article on AfD. Based on the sourcing, the only reason they're notable seems to be due to sexual misconduct allegations, which makes it come across as an attack page. Svampesky (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If they're only notable for a single incident, we're in a WP:BLP1E situation, and the article should probably be deleted. It seems like that's the way the AfD is heading. If that's the main focus of coverage, the current section is probably not disproportionate. Anything that isn't sourced to high-quality sources should be removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Noted here. Svampesky (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's really much to do now about the COI angle. We have reasonable suspicion, one piece of evidence, and the pattern of editing. It's hard to distinguish for now between someone with a COI and someone with enthusiasm and little knowledge of our rules and practices. If the AfD goes against them and the problematic editing continues, a sanction is likely with our without confirmation of COI. FWIW, I'm not very experienced with COI as either an editor or an admin, so you may want to seek out a second opinion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)