User talk:Cordless Larry/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Reference

Hi Larry,

I added a source but as soon as I posted it, it disappeared. I thought it had to be approved or something. That has happened to me multiple times YungNwise (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Please use the "show preview" button to check that you've included the reference if you're unsure, YungNwise. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

How do I start a discussion on the talk page first to change the article's name?

Good evening, I am new to wikipedia editing so I dont have the full details I hope I am not bothering you. I realized that minorities in Turkey were called ... in Turkey like Kurds in Turkey, Circassians in Turkey etc instead of Turkish-Kurd or Turkish-Circassian. But Turks in Bulgaria were called 'Bulgarian Turks', I think that page namings must be neutral and follow a similar format. This is why I changed the name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safinazuyuyor (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RM#CM, Safinazuyuyor, but please note that the article isn't just about Turks in Bulgaria, but about Bulgarian Turks regardless of where they live. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Turks in Bulgaria vs Bulgarian Turks

Yes I am aware the article isnt just about Turks living in Bulgaria but rather Turks from Bulgaria regardless of where they live however we are not Bulgarian in origin. Our history doesnt begin with Bulgaria

I myself am a member of the Turkish community of Bulgaria. When talking about Turks in modern day Bulgaria borders but in the Balkan wars, prior to us becoming Bulgarian citizens, the article still refers to us as 'Bulgarian Turks' even though we were just Balkan Turks back then with no attachment to Bulgaria.

We call ourselves 'Bulgaristan Türkleri' meaning Turks from Bulgaria, Bulgarian Turks would be 'Bulgar Türkleri' but no one calls us that in our native language. Balgarski Turtsi meaning Bulgarian Turks is something started by the Bulgarian government to imply our history has always been tied to the country, it was started after communist-era 'Revival process' assimilation efforts didnt work so they started calling us Bulgarian Turks instead

Same for other minority articles, the Kurds in Turkey page isnt just about Kurds living in Turkey but Kurds from Turkey in general yet they are not called Turkish-Kurds on the article page.

A more accurate title would be 'Turks of Bulgaria', thank you for your advice I will take it to the talk page of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safinazuyuyor (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Somalis in Norway

Are you aware of the repeated removal of content deemed negative to Somalis here? You seem to have dropped off the talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge, Buckshot06 - I'd been meaning to comment but have had a few other things on. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

You have the tactical lead on that page -- happy to support when and wherever required. Cannot understand why the content deemed negative should be removed. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Promotional content

Hi! Could you please let me know what content in the Kyivstar article is promotional? --Perohanych (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The tone of much of the article is promotional, Perohanych. "The Kyivstar network covers all big cities and small towns, more than 28 thousand rural settlements, all main national and regional highways, majority of sea and river coasts...", "Kyivstar took an active position and has supported the society since the Coronavirus pandemic quarantine measures have been introduced in Ukraine in March 2020" and similar passages are written in a tone that is more like an advert than an encyclopedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll work on it. --Perohanych (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Cordless Larry! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Vukovar.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 09:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

Mistake reported at User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 13#Rescuing the wrong census reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi there. You seem to be trying to cite non-existent references in articles such as Vukovar and Vinkovci. Could you take a look and insert the full reference? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The official data of the census in the Republic of Croatia for the city of Vukovar from the official website of the Croatian Bureau of Statistics are given on Wikipedia , the data were within the Exel only for now. The Central Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Croatia successively divides the results of the 2021 census, for us it is important that due to the abundance of data we immediately correct the official results, and write them on wikipedia. This, official nummbers, are final and official for the total population of the city of Vukovar for 2021 census.

DerTorx (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to update the figures, DerTorx, but could you include a reference to that Excel file please? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent amendments to Matthew Parish - reversed

Hello Cordless Larry. Thank you for your explanation of why you removed some edits to Matthew Parish. I appreciate your setting out your reasons. But can you explain why you think the edits are less than neutral?

I am not an expert in Wikipedia, but I did read the biography of living persons policy which explicitly states that great care must be taken with contested records of criminal offences. In particular, where there is more than one judgment of a court, going in different directions (as there are in the Matthew Parish case), it is essential to discuss both of them. In this case, the court proceedings had lots of problems. I realise I am probably anonymous to you, or at least that my name means nothing; I am a quiet person. But I am one of the world's legal experts in Kuwaiti politics (outside Kuwait) and I think my edits ought to be taken at face value unless another person with knowledge of Kuwaiti politics comes along and says that they are wrong. I spent great effort trying to make the introductory paragraph neutral, because in its current form it gives the impression that Matthew Parish is in prison which is not true. In fact that court judgment is not being executed at all. Now I don't expect you to know all of these details; but I did cite good quality secondary and primary sources (legal documents) for all the things I said. I made every effort for these amendments to be neutral and to represent the balance of the matter in good faith. There I would be grateful if you could reverse your "undo" actions. Surely that is better than my doing it and then you re-doing it and then we on forever! The issues are serious because we are dealing with serious and contested defamation (and actually it's false. and misleading) in the second sentence of the first paragraph of a living person's biography.

One idea I had to solve this problem is to give my amendments a period of one month during which we will see whether anyone edits them and whether there is really a contents war. Right now I don't se that there is a contents war - there's just your impression, which I will very much respect, is not based upon your expertise in the subject area (if you are in fact a Kuwait scholar, then I apologise and withdraw that remark!) This is a remarkable political affair, which has attracted hundreds of thousands of hits to articles in various fora, mainly because people in Kuwait can't read about this because all commentary upon it is banned. Hence it's not just a question of maintaining the living persons biography rules, but also about getting documented information into the public domain that people can debate and comment.

If you accept my approach then we might delete the ===Legal Issues=== section which is just repetitive. Or we could remove the entirety of the text from the first paragraph to form a new and replacement ===Legal Issues=== section.

I have another issue. Please can you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kuwaiti_videos_affair. I moved this article into drafts, which was very time consuming and document-heavy to write, a few days ago. I then wrote round to people and asked whether anyone had any comments. Nobody had any of substance. One administrator queried whether it was a conflict of interest. Another administrator appeared to disagree because the article was apparently neutral (and I made every effort to make it neutral); so after a few days I published it. That was done this morning. During the course of today a different administrator (not you) reversed it as being an "obvious COI" and used offensive language in the commentary. I don't think being discourteous helps, even in tense or difficult situations such as this one where we are debating the nuances of a foreign country's senior politics. Courtesy aside, if I'be already received the clear from an administrator to publish notwithstanding COI concerns, then why was it reversed by a different administrator? There are some references that need to be tidied up, to avoid what Wikipedia calls "reference rot" (an engaging phrase). But that can be done at one's leisure. It's not a reason to hold up an important article about an important subject. I or someone more knowledgeable than me can get round to that.

Please let me know your thoughts. I understand your philosophy as an administrator; and I am sure you will respect mine as one of several players amidst a complex Middle Eastern political minefield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandypandy (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Because I'm not an expert in Wikipedia coding, could you please acknowledge that you've read this and therefore I know I've got it right how to write to you.pandypandyPandypandy (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandypandy (talk • contribs)

Receipt acknowledged, Pandypandy. The lack of neutrality comes from that fact that your edits added text expressing opinions in Wikipedia's voice, the most obvious example being "the integrity of the Geneva courts was brought into disrepute by a report in Swiss publicly owned media". Wikipedia can report opinions but they need to be attributed, e.g. "according to author X, the integrity of the Geneva courts was brought into disrepute by a report in Swiss publicly owned media". Your edit also included the text "He is assumed to be a member of the British Secret Intelligence Service" with no indication of who is doing the assuming (and as far as I see, the source doesn't support this assertion). On your one-month proposal, the issue at present isn't edit warring but the need for consensus. Your proposal goes against the process by which consensus is reached on Wikipedia, which is explained at WP:BRD. As it seems clear that you have a conflict of interest, I suggest that you make requests for changes to the article using its talk page, where they can be discussed before being implemented if there is consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Cordless_Larry, thank you very much for taking the time to reply. Firstly I appreciate that you are a volunteer, and I acknowledge that Wikipedia is a substantial exercise the public interest. So thank you for your work. Just because we have some difficulties, does not detract from the wider value of what you are doing.

While I am grateful for your explanation, I do nevertheless find some confusions in it that I don't follow.

1. Your primary proposition is that the recent amendments to this article, that you have reversed, is not neutral because it contains the assertion "the integrity of the Geneva courts was brought into disrepute by a report in Swiss publicly owned media". You say that this attributes an opinion to Wikipedia; but in fact it does not. It is written in the passive tense, and it cites a reliable sources, namely an article on the Swiss national public media website. That article is in French; but the language of the article does not change the level of its reliability. It's pretty uncontroversial that right-thinking people would call into question the integrity of the Geneva courts by virtue of a report of a payment of a US$1 million bribe. I used the passive tense in my text to express the generality of the assertion that it looks pretty unsatisfactory if people are paying US$1 million bribes to achieve litigation outcomes. Now I can change the text to "According to the principal Swiss public media outlet, ...". The idea that paying a bribe does not call into question the integrity of legal proceedings is fanciful, and I don't there's a neutrality issue here.

2. As to the intelligence service issue, there are in fact three sources. One is a court document that implies a relationship. The second is a court conviction that implies a relationship. The third is a book that implies a relationship. All these sources seem pretty solid to me. One could change the language "It might be inferred that ...". This might assuage your concerns.

3. Your taking issue with minor issues of linguistic construction, relating to the use of the passive tense, can surely not be grounds for erasing the entirety of the amendments, including the observation that Matthew Parish is a well-known academic in the field of constructivism that sat on the entry for a long time but then was removed and replaced with the "imprisonment" story. To put this another way, and I think you acknowledge this, you should have filleted the amendments by changing the use of the passive tense that you did not like rather than by deleting all the amendments in their entirety a substantial number of which go to the question of whether the biography of living persons policy is being complied with in presenting "the other side of the argument" in relation to a court conviction that all the evidence suggests is being ignored. The implication of the second sentence in the first paragraph of the article as you have reverted it to is that Matthew Parish is serving a prison sentence, which is manifestly false given for example the following academic website article - the website publishes articles from officials related to (present or past) government.

http://www.transconflict.com/2022/02/an-essay-on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-3-why-is-the-diplomacy-failing/

4. I therefore say to you with all respect that a "pruning" approach would have been more appropriate, to ensure compliance with the biography of living persons policy which is intended to shield the Wikimedia foundation and its editors from defamation actions. I am not threatening you with such an action; but you will observe upon rereading of that policy that the policy explicitly states that this is its purpose. The other course you could have pursued would be to suspend / delete the article entirely, pending resolution of the defamatory allegations which subsequent to my amendments it was apparent to you was contested.

5. Nevertheless, and I am very grateful for this, you have proposed a way forward, and that is professional of you and I appreciate it. I will follow your advice.

6. I don't quite understand the concept of "consensus" as you refer to it. Consensus between whom? I assume between you and me. Anyway I will assume and rely upon your good faith.

7. You did not respond to my complaint about the removal in offensive terms ("ducking" meaning "++cking) of the "Kuwaiti videos affair" article. Could I kindly ask you what you intend to do about that, or what I should do. There seems to me both that there is a procedural error here (I was informed that the COI issue was resolved and then when I published the draft article it was immediately removed again for an "obvious" conflict of interests); and a decency error (writing so offensively to an editor who, it can at least be conceded, spent substantial time writing a complex article about a difficult subject). I am also a volunteer in this process. Nobody is paying me and nobody is being paid in connection with any of the things this post discusses. What I am trying to do is to get out into the public domain an important issue of public interest for discussion and wider knowledge. I am doing this because I think it is in the greater good. Whoever the editor was who wrote to me in terms I found offensive, I would prefer not to have any further dealings with, particularly when she (I assume it's a she) cited as her grounds for withdrawing the article an issue which I thought had already been resolved. Please let us consider whether administrators may sometimes overstep the proper bounds of their own discretion.

8. More generally, the concept of "conflict of interests" concerns me in the way it is being applied. It is normal for all sorts of people to have interests in a matter. If Wikipedia had a rule that nobody with an interest in a matter could write about it, it would probably be much the poorer as an encyclopaedic institution. But "conflicts of interest" arise only where the interest of the author / editor is inconsistent with the interests of the Wikimedia Foundation which as I understand it is to publish an international encyclopaedia discussing the balanced truth. That is also what I am trying to do. You will note that I am not trying to delete all defamatory material about Matthew Parish; I am merely trying to ensure that statements on Wikipedia about a very controversial subject are balanced. The reasons it is important to get the balance right here (and I have done my best to achieve that, so I am sorry if you consider those efforts lacking) is to promote the public interest, not to defraud the public.

9. Thank you for your ongoing voluntary work, which I now understand a little more clearly. You must be a saint to do all of this without payment. I can express to you that compliment with ease.

10. Please consider whether the "Kuwaiti videos affair" administrator ought to have her administrative privileges removed for using offensive language, as would an editor. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

11. As an aside, I think the policy against legal threats (and I am not making a legal threat in this text) is quite misguided. Everyone is bound by the law: you, me and the Wikimedia Foundation. Legal threats can be helpful, because they are attempts to prevent legal actions that are devastatingly costly if pursued. The correct way to respond to legal threats, if they are made, is not to ban the person making the threat - they might have a good point and to do so might be seen as evidence of malice. Instead the correct way to respond to a legal threat is to write in a rational and calm way, as you have done to me.

12. In conclusion, I will add the revised "Matthew Parish" text to the talk section of that page so that you and I can agree it; and I ask you to look again at the reasons why the "Kuwaiti videos affair" was peremptorily taken down notwithstanding a period of due process, with a view to your agreeing in consensus with me the process to have that detailed and neutral article restored.

With kindest regards,

Pandypandy (talk

Sorry please again acknowledge receipt because I do not know whether I am adequately adding a digital signature using the correct coding protocols. That's just because I'm not an expert in the coding protocols and I mean no disrespect to you. Pandypandy (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No, consensus doesn't just mean agreement between the two of us, Pandypandy; there are more editors involved. Your comments are best placed on the article's talk page, not here on mine, because we need input from all interested editors on these issues. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

49.194.192.242 ‎

Please remove talk page access for 49.194.192.242‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log). Thank you! --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Baseball Bugs, I was out today. It looks like it got sorted though. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thank you for looking into it. :) --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably not a coincidence that 49. and also 121.44.193.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) geolocate to the same place (Perth). --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

No, probably not indeed, Baseball Bugs, but they're on different ISPs so a range block won't really help. They'll probably get bored soon enough. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. --DerTorx (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Features for new users coming soon (and mentors, like you, wanted!)

Hello. As you're currently listed as a host at the Teahouse, I wanted to make sure you're aware of the imminent rollout of new Growth Team Features which every new account will be getting by default. Each users will soon see a new 'Homepage' tab next to their User page. It contains two main elements which might impact on your involvement - and you'd be welcome to get involved and help out directly with one of them.

• Firstly, they will be offered a range of 'suggested edits', and encouraged to make simple improvements to pages that interest them. (Being aware of this feature would be helpful for all Teahouse hosts if you're likely to offer advice on tasks for them to start out doing.)
• There's also a 'Your impact' box to show them how many people have seen the pages they've just edited.
• Finally, each new user is randomly assigned a 'mentor' from a list of friendly, experienced editors, like yourself. If they get stuck, they can ask a question directly to them via a Your mentor box, and hopefully get a swift, friendly answer from that mentor. Currently, this feature is given to 2% of new users, but it's set to increase to around 10% in the very near future.

To spread the load on our current list of around 65 mentors, I'm reaching out to ask if you'd like to help out and sign up as one? The workload is relatively small; User Panini! reports receiving four questions a month, on average, all of which were simple ones of the type we already get at the Teahouse, whilst I've had just one in the last 3 weeks. To view a list of every question asked of all mentors over the last 14 days, click here.

If becoming a mentor and being available to help new users on their first few days here interests you - just as you already do at the Teahouse - then please consider signing up at Growth Team features/Mentor list. Existing users can already 'opt-in' to seeing the Newcomer Homepage features via their Preferences.

Thank you! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

British Sri Lankans

Hello Cordless Larry! Im new to Wikipedia and I saw some errors but I however added information with original research in my first edit, I apologise. I just wanted to improve the Population regions of the British Sri Lankans wikipedia article and someone already added the cities and links before I made them visible. I could use sources from BBC pages and a few websites that would help. Would it be fine if I add the Populations regions from those websites? And about the number of Sri Lankan people, I think it would be quite higher compared to the other sources as I have found an article saying that the number might be 3 or 4 times more than the population of Sri Lankan born peoples, its from The Sunday Times lk created in 2014. Ill try my best getting the best sources for the British Sri Lankans article.

Thank you. TheCeylon24 (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, TheCeylon24 - I realised after reverting you that the information was already in the code before your edit. I've now added a source for a more general list of regions where Sri Lankans are found, but if you have better sources then please go ahead and use them. Cordless Larry (talk)

Happy Fourth Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Cordless Larry a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

query

Could you please assist in my edits on the Crime and race in the UK article ? I am trying to counter balance the article with references due to it being so unbalanced I reference mostly thd independent bbc or guardian along others any help in properly adding the information of these sources will be appreciated as I know a certain editor just wants to remove any counter view and will be waiting to delete material they do not like. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the time to spend researching material for the article at present, though I'll keep an eye on it for problematic edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

I believe you are being overly aggressive with your warnings and general manner in which you communicate please be aware several sources state different net worths his main page states 3.1 billion for example this is not vandalism nor disruption be calm and assume good faith. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The warnings are the standard templates, 90tillinfinitydue. You've already been temporarily blocked from editing once before, so you need to stick to the rules and only make additions to articles that are supported by reliable sources. This was downright misleading as you changed the source to one that doesn't even mention the Sunday Times Rich List, which is the claim the reference supports. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying my intention was not to mislead. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Refs for 'Reverting addition of external link to see also section, which is for internal links'

Hello I would like the reference for the rule that states 'also see is for internal links only'. kindly please provide it. OR.. if you cannot, you could have at least had the courtesy to go to the talk page or even my page before making the edit. I look forward to your ref.

Dava4444 (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dava4444. The guideline is set out at MOS:SEEALSO, which states that the "section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and build the web". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

AlanCity20 & Portugaltheo20

Hi CordlessLarry, thanks for this edit, adding Portugaltheo20 (talk · contribs) to the AlanCity20 SPI. May I ask how you managed to connect the two? I'm mystified. Mathglot (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I think I figured it out by accident. I wasn't looking for it, I was just continuing to undo the damage by P-20, and ran into an article edited by 89.89.77.159 (talk · contribs) at one of the articles P-20 had edited, checked IP 89's contributions, and then it clicked. Otoh, IP 89 is not listed as one of the socks, should they be? Is that why they're only blocked for 3 mos. and not indef, because their BE is for something else, not socking? Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

As I've commented in the SPI, Davidldn20 says they are 89. --Wotheina (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Just opened an SPI for IP 89. Portugaltheo20 & IP 89 have identical edits at one article that cannot be the result of chance. See the SPI. If Davidldn20 says truthfully that they are IP 89, then Davidldn20 is another AC20 sock. Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wotheina:, unless I misunderstand, I think you've confused two IPs. I think D-20 revealed a connection with 78.123.82.169 (talk · contribs) in this edit at African immigration to Europe, not with IP 89. Do you concur? Mathglot (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right, it was 78. I confused them. --Wotheina (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I saw this revert you made, Mathglot, and the combination of your edit summary and the article alerted me to the possibility it was an AlanCity20 sock you were reverting. AlanCity20 tends to make unsourced changes to economics and demography articles. When I looked at Special:Contributions/Portugaltheo20, there are some common AlanCity20 sock editing targets there (e.g. Migration from Latin America to Europe and Evolution of the French Empire). There's also a pattern to the usernames. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Your Message !

Good Morning ! Thank you very much for your contact, for the moment I am a little busy, I will probably come back to you in mid-July.

Regard Rana Tabassum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.184.117.238 (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what message this refers to. I've not left a message on the talk page of the IP address you're posting from, but perhaps it was left on a different IP address's talk page or that of a registered user account? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Norwegian List of Register

The following email was directly from the Norwegian Register from 2022. Please see below for their full and contact information. Please maintain this well-sourced line in Wikipedia. Thank you

---

Thank you for your email. As far as I can see the Nova Science Publishers is approved in the Norwegian register from 2022. It seems like the publisher has been considered again for approval and was re-accepted from 2022 and forward.

You find the publisher and information we have about it here: https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=12778

Monica

Monica Roos Seniorrådgiver | Senior adviser Department for data and statistics division for analyses and knowledge +47 97 69 34 79

Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills hkdir.no

Vil du abonnere på vårt nyhetsbrev? http://nyhetsbrev.hkdir.no 68.195.229.226 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this justifies including the information in the article lede, which is supposed to summarise the content of the main body of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia

This sentence will be added to the Overview then. Please note: An article lead is supposed to contain neutral information only. This sentence should be removed "A prolific publisher of books, Nova has received criticism from librarians for not always subjecting its publications to academic peer review and for republishing public domain book chapters and freely-accessible government publications at high prices" as its duplicated in the body as well. 68.195.229.226 (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Mario Umana edit

I respectfully request communication with you regarding the substantial edits I made to correct inaccurate, insubstantial and sparse information on Umana bio. I stated I had sources and notice that on similar bios, often narrative info is unsourced or cited. I know you strive to provide the best product to viewers possible. I do not know how to source or cite info. Please assist as EVERYTHING I added...which effort took almost 6 hours...has been reversed by you. There is wrong and insufficient info again. Please assist me. I have not deliberately tried to break protocol.

Thank you, Jeanne KilpatrickReidlove (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Reidlove. The material you added is all there in the article history so can be restored if sources are provided. That other articles might be in a poor state sourcing-wise isn't a reason to add material to this article without citing sources. For instructions on how to do so, see Help:Referencing for beginners, and if you require further assistance, please ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I know this process is simple and familiar to you, but it has been excrutiatingly difficult and complex for me, someone not familiar with the protocols and faceless, inaccessible communications. As a long-time journalist and former professor of law and society, I struggle with the arcana of internet technology. Wikipedia's directions and impersonal research methodology can be daunting as it is mostly faceless volunteers with whom I can't speak or supply information, but if I am to perform due diligence and get this bio correct (there are flagrant errors embarrassing to Wikipedia) then I must persist. I rely greatly upon Wikipedia for all my research and respect its intent, but now must question its content due to this experience. I hope this natter can be resolved as this bio deserves competent, well-researched attention. Reidlove (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, Reidlove, but Wikipedia:Teahouse is designed exactly to give you the sort of help you require. I suggest posting there and some friendly editors will be able to assist you. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, thank you. Reidlove Reidlove (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Amhara page

Hi, sorry to bothering you, but may you explain to me why did you removed all the things on the Amhara people page? What is poorly written I don’t understand?? Tamart0290 (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The image you added to the infobox was massive and many of the sentences had significant grammatical problems, Tamart0290. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

if you think something is poorly written you can fix an error that you think you see. Why removing the whole thing I don’t understand? Tamart0290 (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The additions also included opinions stated in Wikipedia's voice, such as "the Amhara have been the country dominant people". I could have fixed the language but there would still have been fundamental WP:NPOV problems. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And having examined your additions further, they include copyright violations. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I advise you, if you can, to go and check all the sources that I mentioned. everything that I edited on the page is based on what is written on the sources. Tamart0290 (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of the problem, Tamart0290 - you copied text from sources that are copyrighted. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

What is copyrighted? What do you mean by that? if you cheat the sources they from Weill established scholars. Tamart0290 (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So what can I do exactly? if you check the sources they well based from well known scholars. I really don’t understand it?? Tamart0290 (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't just copy directly from sources. You need to paraphrase them. You can use short quotes from sources, but they must be in quotation marks. This is pretty basic stuff. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So you don’t want me to use the quote from the source? You want me to improvise? Tamart0290 (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Look, I don’t want you to delete the sources, so tell me exactly what do I need to do in order for you and the Oder administrations to not remove it? Tamart0290 (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

other* Tamart0290 (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You'll either need to paraphrase or put the quotes inside quotation marks. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the user yhonas J deleted all the sources from the Amhara page. I don’t understand This. How those he allowed to delete all those sources? Why? Tamart0290 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User blocked for block evasion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Conversation about me on Wikipedia that I would like removed

Hi there, someone has pointed out that a wikipedia page was made about me then deleted as I wasn't deemed notable enough. No worries. I never considered that I should be on there. But someone showed me the page discussing why I should be deleted. Again no worries. Delete by all means. But does the page have to stay available on google search discussing how un-notable I am? and how you couldn't find the Sean Hughes stuff (actually you can find it on YouTube, but who cares). Seriously. Please remove your discussion about me. I don't think it's right that it is available. It's not relevant to anything, and I find it somewhat offensive to be discussed in such a dismissive way on such a public forum. Thanks Sarah Waterhouse - non-notable tuba player 2A00:23C6:DF86:3D01:68AE:ED32:F1E8:512F (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm looking into this. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The deletion discussion has now been blanked as a courtesy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In Draft:Peringottukara_Devasthanam_Sree_Vishnumaya_Swami_Temple does this {{AfC submission|t||ts=20221011072510|u=Globifydigital|ns=118|demo=}} mean that you draftified it? The use of AFC there made me think at first that you had submitted it to AFC, but ?now I think I understand. David10244 (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I moved the article to draft, David10244 - see its edit history. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that response, and I had the same thoughts as MarchJuly. Thanks for taking action. David10244 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry. Sort of related to this is that Globifydigital now seems to be back as Globify. When I first saw there username I thought it might be a problem per WP:CORPNAME but wasn't sure. However, even after dropping the "digital" it still might be a problem per this since "Globify" appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME of the company. I've got know idea why this user chose these usernames. They could be associated with the company or they could just like its name. Since Globify seems to be into website development, this could also be some WP:UPE in which someone at Globify was asked or contracted to create an article about the temple. Anything's possible I guess. FWIW, I asked about the draft at WT:INDIA#Peringottukara Devasthanam Sree Vishnumaya Swami Temple since I've got no idea regarding the Wikipedia notability of temples or other places of worship, but have yet to get a response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't seem any more acceptable, Marchjuly. I'll take action. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

ethnic gallery

.What i was adding this isnt a ethnic gallery, it is simply a link to people with arab/european and colombian nationalities. Ethnicity and nationality are two different things. for example, herbert king and and radamel falcao are both colombians of british descent. yet one is afro colombian the other is a mestizo. Ethnicity does equal race or nationality ElMangoose23 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

What you were doing was engaging in sockpuppetry, ElMangoose23. Aside from that, please read WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES, which states "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

List of oldest cats

You removed my cat from the list of oldest cats without attempting to verify the information. What is the reasoning for this? Kurross (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Kurross: You provided no citation for us to verify. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

How do you cite something like this? this comes first hand, I have veterinarian records. Besides, the majority of the citations in that page are to random websites. Kurross (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Like anything else on Wikipedia, we need a citation from a reliable source. Unless you have newspapers talking about the feline in question, we don't care; it doesn't get listed. I did not examine the citations on the other cats listed and maybe some of those should be removed. You asked why you got reverted and so now I've explained. After all, Wikipedia is not a community bulletin board. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I will hire a local newspaper to write a nonsense article. Thank you. Ridiculously unnecessary. Kurross (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

To understand why published sources are necessary, at least according to Wikipedia's own rules, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Kurross. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The only method of verification for nearly every source cited is veterinary records or the owners word. You should go through and check them. The only difference here is small town news papers or paid publications are serving as the "middle man". Why wouldn't uploading those same records to a public commons just as accepted. How else would you verify an animal's age? There are no official government documents for birth records for animals the way there are for people. Under the standard you're forcing none of these cats would be acceptable. Kurross (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Part of what makes a reliable source reliable is a reputation for fact checking - see WP:REPUTABLE. If any of the sources cited in the article don't meet this threshold, then that should be discussed, but it's a core policy of Wikipedia that we rely on published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to have that discussion now. Entries citing the Guinness Book of World Records (the top entries) are referencing vet papers and are paid entries. The cited source for the fourth cat is a Thai newspaper that only references the owner's word (seen here https://www.thairath.co.th/news/local/east/2053480). The Wiki page for reliable sources says "Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form.". Why would a "public" commons such as the case of this cat as well as a cat that was removed in 2018 not be considered "public" by this standard? Further, that same wiki says this "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The key here being appropriate for that content. Medical records for an animal uploaded to a "public" commons in this context meets both standards. The removal of entries in these two cases seem to be complete arbitrary. Kurross (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Without the fact checking of a secondary source, uploaded documents might be forgeries for all we know. Concerns about individual sources should be discussed on the article's talk page or at WP:RSN. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm having the discussion here because it's your editorial standard that is being questioned. In this case you are the one deeming a source credible or not and your standard doesn't seem to meet with the standard Wikipedia has put forth. Making documents public would make them verifiable by everyone. In the context of the list, it seems incredibly unlikely that veterinarian papers would be forged by anyone and would likely be the only source of verification in nearly every instance. Kurross (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion needs to take place on a talk page where it has a chance of being seen by interested editors, very few of whom will see it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this user?

Hi Larry, This IP user is vandalizing language-related articles for a couple of weeks by now, and has been warned repeatedly to stop. He is clearly not here for any encyclopaedic purposes. Can you give him a temporary block to discourage him? LandLing 07:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Landroving Linguist. The user has earned themselves a short break from editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

White British

Re your recent change to White British, it looks as if the figure used is adding together the figures for "White", "Irish Traveller", and "Roma" from the spreadsheet. I don't know whether anywhere in the source explains this. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, David Biddulph. The explanatory note in the infobox states "Northern Ireland (including all White people reporting at least one of British/Irish/Northern Irish/English/Scottish/Welsh national identities)", so I presume this figure doesn't match that description (which I think is a legacy from when the infobox used 2011 data). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Tweedledumb2, can you assist with this, since you added the updated figure? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The figure/source for 2021 is wrong for Northern Ireland, you would be correct, it was changed by an IP here on the 5th. Multi-variable figures for Northern Ireland (that being ones with Ethnicity and Identity combined) have not been released yet so I will go and correct this. (edit: Done!) Tweedle (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Tweedledumb2, and sorry for accidentally attributing the change to you above. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh no worries! Tweedle (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	thanks for the help DMPenguin (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

St. John Mandel

I don't know if you noticed, but Talk:Emily St. John Mandel turned a bit vigorous. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I hadn't seen that. A lot of it is TL;DR but I've left a brief comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

God Jul!

Hello Cordless Larry: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and the same to you! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Donner60. Greetings of the season to you too! Cordless Larry (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Soulbankart

They have requested a name change and I think you might want to take a look at their unblock request, which I've put on hold. What do you think? Daniel Case (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with unblocking them, Daniel Case, if we strongly suggest that they follow WP:COIREQ if they want to add links to their website to articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Arabs in Germany

Source 1.8 million arabs in germany

https://www.rnz.de/politik/hintergrund_artikel,-auftritt-bei-der-cdu-basis-hans-georg-maassen-die-cdu-und-18-millionen-araber-_arid,449854.html

YEA686868701 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

YEA686868701, instructions on how to cite sources are at Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic Minority politicians

The information that I have added to the article about ethnic minority politicians is accurate and correctly sourced. The House of Commons publication from November 2022 has added Paul Scully to its list, so I hope that is ok. ClemsfordB (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Which November 2022 publication, ClemsfordB? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This publication, which first came out in September 2022 was updated in November 2022 (maybe December 2022) to include a few more people such as Paul Scully MP and Baroness Vadera as a minister: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01156/SN01156.pdf. I also note from the publication that Sadiq Khan is not classified as someone who was a cabinet member, which is why I removed him from the list of cabinet ministers. ClemsfordB (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, ClemsfordB. Well, it's all a bit of a mess with different editions of that publication giving different figures for each election. I'm not sure what we can do to best present the figures, given that. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm good point. I think we should go off the 2022 edition as the 2017 & 2019 version are not only out of date but lots of the most recent information, especially about historical ethnic minority MPs have not been included. ClemsfordB (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ibn Zaydun

Hi, I believe this Ibn Zaydun has been incorrectly transliterated in the page and title. Arabic has a clear letter 'و', which makes a 'O' sound. The English transliteration causes the name to be pronounced incorrectly. Please consider changing it to ZAYDOUN. A quick search online and you will see that most pages use the correct transliteration of Zaydoun, with an OU rather than just a U. I think this is quite important considering the little resources available regarding this exceptional poet.

Thanks 82.17.76.152 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to request a page move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Deprodding of Futures of Education

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Futures of Education, which you proposed for deletion. .... If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Lisa Rechelle (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Lisa Rechelle. Rather than nominating the article for deletion, I've removed the most problematic essay-like content from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Move Biography written in French from Wikimedia Commons(CCShareAlike 4.0) to Wikipedia (CCShareAlike 3.0)

Hello Cordless Larry, The author is trying to publish a biography of a notable person, written in French, in Wikipedia (for which all Wikipedia rules for notoriety are adhered). The author uploaded the biography in error, more than a month ago, in Wikimedia Commons using the CC Share Alike International 4.0 license.

There are no photos, media, etc. . The biography consists of a text in pdf. format . The author would like to change the license he selected from CC ShareAlike 4.0 International to the correct license CC ShareAlike 3.0 and upload the biography in Wikipedia.

No one has contributed any information to the biography. No history has been added. Where and how, please, can the change of license be edited in Wikimedia Commons without deleting it, if possible. Or, can it just be published directly (by the author!) in Wikipedia with the new correct license.

I read numerous documents of useful information but still having trouble. Is it possible to edit the draft biography on Wikimedia Commons to change the license? If yes, where and how can the license be changed in Wiki Commons? Can the author just edit the license under Metadata. If so, would it be possible for you to provide steps? We're trying to do our best following directives with technology in our dynamic 70's and 80's. Thank you, in advance, for your time and suggestions. Thank you Keudal39 Keudal39 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Keudal39, I'm not sure how you decided that I was the best person to contact about this. I'm not very active at Wikimedia Commons, but it's not the place to publish biographies. If you need help publishing a bibliography on Wikipedia, I suggest asking at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Can you delete my question to you ? Or, am I able to delete it, since it should have been asked elsewhere. Thank you

Keudal39 Keudal39 (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk page comments are usually kept as a record of discussion, Keudal39. Your question here will be archived at some point though. I've also just realised that your question was about the French Wikipedia, whereas the Teahouse is for questions about the English Wikipedia. The French equivalent appears to be Fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful response. Keudal39 (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

How to find author of an article

Hello Cordless Larry, You have been very helpful so I am back to you with another question. How can I find the name of the author of a biography in English, in Wikipedia. I am publishing an independent, biography in French of the same person, updating the information and sources- awards, books, references, etc. and would like to cite the initial work or author. I checked "History" of the article, and there are numerous names. It will be published with the same license (CCShareAlike 3.0). I printed the English biography and at the very bottom of the page there is a link: "Retrieved from https:// en.wikipedia.org, etc..." . Would it be sufficient to include this link to attribute/cite the work? Thank you again for addressing my question. Keudal39 Keudal39 (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Articles rarely have a single author, Keudal39, especially if you consider minor edits part of authorship. Please see Help:Page history to understand how to use the page history to identify major contributors and Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content on the attribution requirements when you republish content from Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful reply. Keudal39 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverting a sock edit

This edit @ Talk:British Pakistanis seem to be usual signature comment by long time blocked sock NangParbat. I have not deleted similar comment from my own user space but I went on to reply, then I did not know they are a abusive sock. Retaining it on article talk page would misrepresent WIkipedia policies hence reverting the sock edit is better or you have any other suggestion. Just wish to have your second opinion else I shall revert the same. Bookku (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit given that the editor has been confirmed as a sockpuppet, Bookku. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)