This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Greeting. Can you return the NATO-participants to the infobox of the article Kosovo War, given that the editor who "pushed" this edit is blocked? Ruach Chayim ( talk) 21:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The editor concerned only appears to be blocked from editing Battle of Košare, Ruach Chayim. You did the right thing in starting a discussion at Talk:Kosovo War#Sides. Unless consensus there opposes the inclusion of those participants, I suggest restoring them. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Three years ago you opened this SPI related to Doon Business School. I'm wondering if it's worth adding the creator of Draft:Doon Business School Group to it? Obviously I can't see the content of the earlier deleted versions, and the time gap between the attempts is also considerable, so the only 'evidence' I have is the subject connection which may not be enough. What do you think? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I was mulling the same, DoubleGrazing, in relation to the most recent creator of Doon Business School, but had forgotten the previous SPI. The deleted content doesn't look that similar, so you're right that it's mostly the subject connection that stands out. Perhaps Liz has a view? Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The article Mick Fealty has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 09:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, appreciate your work here so far and thank you for the steer. I see you added a {{Peacock}} and {{Third-party}} tags to the article this morning. Wondering what specific areas you need me to tweak on this article as learning from an admin like you can help me get better at my work. I look forward to your reply. Many thanks :) Oceanview1590 ( talk) 08:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

See Melcous's edits to the article for some examples of the problematic wording, Oceanview1590. On the third-party source issue, things like this or this are not independent of the subject. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just replied to @ Melcous on one of my previous articles over 1 year about editors tagging pages when they are part of the Wikipedia community that needs to collaborate to make pages better. If an article has problematic wording and an editor discovers that in an article, I should think the fair thing to do is to try and correct the error as part of the process to aid the contribution aspect. I would try and fix a page that's having issues as much as I can rather than trying to make the creator of the article look ridiculous.

As an administrator, you are a perfect example to try and help fix and correct issues like this rather than adding a tag to make a point which is the point am making. That same article was reviewed by another administrator who added tag and later removed it when I fixed some issues at the time and all the entries are still on there. If you read most of the comments on @ Melcous page, you will discover that most editors are complaining of same issues of having to add a tag when these issues could also be fixed as an editor as well. Such practice will go a long way in helping the Wikipedia community. Oceanview1590 ( talk) 23:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Oceanview1590 when you say here "trying to make the creator of the article look ridiculous", that to me displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of maintenance templates on wikipedia articles, and is also close to assuming bad faith. Nobody is trying to make you look ridiculous, we are all trying to improve the encyclopedia, but there are various ways to go about that - it can be by fixing issues when you have time, interest, and knowledge to do so, but it can also be by flagging issues for other editors to address. Melcous ( talk) 00:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my reply to your message, your explanation has clarified lots of understanding. I will keep tweaking the page to improve most of the issues as I have done for the latest article that Cordless Larry tagged which I have just updated, the key ones he pointed out accordingly. Thank you! Oceanview1590 ( talk) 00:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just removed those 2 references which you have highlighted as third-party sources. Thanks Oceanview1590 ( talk) 00:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Oceanview1590, I had Vusi Thembekwayo on my watchlist because of a previous, highly promotional version of the article, which was speedily deleted. You recently created a completely unsourced version of the article, which I moved to draft space. You then created a sourced version that included promotional language. It's not an expectation of administrators that we should go around "try[ing] and help fix and correct issues like this rather than adding a tag to make a point" when poorly sourced or promotional content is repeatedly added about a subject; it's your responsibility not to post it in the first place. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I appreciate the clarification provided. It seems that the previous deleted version of the subject lacked proper resources, and it also appears that it did not meet the notability criteria several years ago. Regarding the unsourced version of the article, I sincerely apologise for the error. While I was in the process of creating the article, my computer was open, and my son accidentally pressed something while I rushed to stop the triggered alarm. I won't bother you with all the details, but I immediately responded to you to explain the situation, as I already had a version of the article in my sandbox. Before publishing an article, I always conduct thorough research on the subject and I am mindful of promotional aspects, ensuring that I address any issues brought to my attention in order to comply with guidelines. I want to clarify that I am not questioning your authority as an administrator on Wikipedia. I understand the immense pressure you face in ensuring ethical practices are followed. In reference to your tag, you will notice that I have removed the promotional content you mentioned and made the necessary adjustments to the article. If there are any other issues you would like me to address, please let me know. Thank you for your time! Oceanview1590 ( talk) 09:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you were questioning my authority, Oceanview1590, and in any case I have little authority compared to a regular editor. What I was trying to explain is that being an administrator doesn't oblige me to tidy up articles rather than tag them. I don't face "immense pressure" but I do have a lack of time for editing. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Are you happy with the adjustment made to improve the page and remove the tag now? Otherwise, I am happy to improve the page further if there's anything left you would want me to tweak. Oceanview1590 ( talk) 08:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I have just tweaked the article and removed the non-neutral language used as suggested. Thank you for the steer, please kindly review and advise if you are happy with the updated narrative and to remove the tag. Cheers Oceanview1590 ( talk) 10:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Not really, no - there's still non-neutral language such as "Coming from a humble background, life was difficult". Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I have just tweaked the article and removed the non-neutral language used as suggested. Thank you for the steer, please kindly review and advise if you are happy with the updated narrative and to remove the tag. Cheers Oceanview1590 ( talk) 15:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It still reads as promotional to me, Oceanview1590. Rather than keep coming back to me for advice, I suggest asking for broader input at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry To begin with, I want to clarify that I didn't seek advice; instead, I took action to address the concerns you raised regarding neutrality. I removed the content you deemed biased and made adjustments to the areas you had initially flagged. However, I'm uncertain about the extent of changes necessary to satisfy your broader perspective. I plan to consult with the community at Wikipedia:Teahouse to gather further input on potential revisions. Oceanview1590 ( talk) 10:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry article has been tweaked to acceptable standards and is certainly in better shape now having been tweaked further by Scope creep. I hope you will be happy now for me to remove the tag. Thanks Oceanview1590 ( talk) 06:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

As advised above, please ask this at Wikipedia:Teahouse, Oceanview1590. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Done, thanks. Oceanview1590 ( talk) 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to address some concerns I have regarding the recent tagging of certain articles and the perception that my efforts to comply with guidelines and seek community input have been disregarded. I have always aimed to maintain a respectful and cooperative relationship with you, but I feel that there may have been a misunderstanding or oversight in this case.

Firstly, I would like to discuss the article that was tagged despite being worked on diligently for a considerable period. As you may have noticed, the article in question was tagged for a year, and both I and another experienced editor, Melcous, have made significant adjustments and improvements to it. We ensured that all the necessary links were included as well. Therefore, it came as quite a surprise when the article was tagged again, even though I believed all the requirements had been fulfilled. I must admit that I find this situation disheartening, as it seems to infringe upon my rights as an editor.

Similarly, I have encountered a similar situation with the article on Vusi Thembekwayo. I made a genuine effort to implement the suggestions you provided and sought advice from the wider Wikipedia community through the Teahouse platform with also an experienced editor - Scope creep doing an awesome job on it too. All these are evidenced in the edits. The input from various experienced editors allowed us to refine and enhance the article to align with the guidelines. However, I now feel uncertain about the value placed on these contributions and whether they are truly recognised as efforts to improve the article within the Wikipedia community.

I believe in fostering an environment of collaboration and open dialogue within the Wikipedia community. It is crucial to acknowledge the contributions of experienced editors who invest their time and expertise to enhance the quality of articles. Therefore, I kindly request you reconsider the tagging of these articles and re-evaluate the improvements made with the assistance of the wider community.

I genuinely value your expertise and guidance as an administrator, and I am open to any constructive feedback or suggestions you may have. By working together, we can ensure the continued growth and improvement of Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge.

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Oceanview1590 ( talk) 07:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I tagged Makoto Furutani-Seiki as needing an update because it appears that he's no longer employed by the University of Bath, Oceanview1590 - that's all. That certainly doesn't infringe on your rights as an editor and you're welcome to update the article. As for Vusi Thembekwayo, anyone who thinks they've addressed the issues highlighted by the maintenance templates is welcome to remove them. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry "It appears that he's no longer employed by the University of Bath" to me is an assumption without the necessary proof to back this up. From all I have gathered through research, the subject is still a fellow of that institute and remains with the University of Bath as their Research Fellow, unless you have a citation to back the assumptions that he's no longer employed by the University of Bath which I am more than happy to adjust accordingly. I have added 2 citations to support the opening narrative of the article. I will appreciate the tag to be removed please, otherwise I am happy to get this done. Thank you! Oceanview1590 ( talk) 09:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the evidence I've set out at Talk:Makoto Furutani-Seiki#Bath affiliation, Oceanview1590. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just replied to you on the article talk page. Thanks Oceanview1590 ( talk) 09:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Larry. With respect to the changes I've made to the page on myself Mike Buchanan (politician) you raise the issue of 'reliable sources'. Of course I understand the importance of reliable sources, but there's an issue I keep raising with Wiki editors, but never get any engagement. Two key points:

- the publications considered 'reliable sources' - I assume you're referring to the mainstream media - are anything BUT reliable with regards to men's issues and feminism. They either give no exposure to Men's Rights Activists and anti-feminists (such as myself) or they mislead.

- conversely, Wiki editors - feminists, many of them - freely use non-reliable feminist sources (e.g. Cambridge University-related website 'Varsity') to corrupt pages such as mine.

I've said it before, but the corruption of Wikipedia by feminists is self-evident on every page concerned with gender politics. Mike3167 ( talk) 11:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

There's been engagement with your posts on the article talk page, Mike3167. You should respond there rather than editing the article yourself, but if reliable sources can't be provided, then the material doesn't belong in the article. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I've just added this on my talk page:

"From my page, credited to The Guardian:

"University staff claimed that J4MB had engaged in harassment of female academics."

University staff LIED but because it's in The Guardian, it passes into the article, and my edit saying the allegation was a lie has been removed.

Another example:

"An attendee at the event was accused of assaulting two of the student protestors."

Another LIE but my edit saying the accusation was a lie has been removed. Any you think The Tab is a 'reliable source'?

The bottom line? Wikipedia editors are using their power to censor this web page (and every othe pages relating to gender politics, feminism, men's rights...)." Mike3167 ( talk) 12:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia editors are basing Wikipedia articles on what reliable published sources say, which is what Wikipedia's policies suggest they should do. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

So you're employing Wiki policies to ensure that false allegations remain on the page, and you're not allowing the publication of refutations on the page, by the person the page relates to? You must be so proud of yourself. And you know as well as I do that very few people will check out the Talk page. Mike3167 ( talk) 15:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit requests posted on talk pages are always responded to. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hilarious. I've made plenty of edit requests and very few have been actioned. Mike3167 ( talk) 15:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Being responded to and being actioned are different things; the latter requires reliable sources being provided. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And here we are back at Planet Loopy yet again, Wiki editors' wilingness to accept lies from 'reliable sources' (e.g. The Guardian - if that's reliable, I'm a sherry trifle) as well as unreliable ones (e.g. Varsity, as noted above), and refusal to allow material not covered by the mainstream media (writings and other outputs of MRAs, challenges of feminism...). Mike3167 ( talk) 15:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to propose a change to Wikipedia's sourcing policy, you'll need to raise that at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be a time-consuming exercise in utter futility. Mike3167 ( talk) 15:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Larry, the first sentence on the J4MB page now has "[men's rights movement|men's rights activist]]". Can it be corrected? Hopefully you got my message about the figure on the front of one of my books being a (waxwork) vampire, not a zombie. I still think it depicts feminism and feminists perfectly. Mike3167 ( talk) 10:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

...many months ago you communicated w/ me re: my father Sen and Judge Mario Umana of Bostoc, career and events spanning 1931 -2005. Since then, I have downloaded from four archival websites (e.g. newspaperarchives.com. ancestry.com etc.) almost 750 documents/articles/sources about my father and his career of which we, his family, are so proud. I wish, as I am so computer and internet-challenged, that I could sit down with someone or talk, not by chatbox or email alone, and be able to paint a more accurate and powerful portrait than the mere thumbnail sketch afforded by the research of others. He was historically a much more significant player in Boston and as a law prof, political press secretary and researcher it lies with me to provide it. I know you suggested Teahouse...it still is so removed and not hands on and unwieldy. Has nothing changed? I have so much source material for footnotes...please advise. Sincerely, Jeanne Umana Kilpatrick

message to cordless Reidlove ( talk) 17:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Teahouse is still your best best, Reidlove (unless you use IRC perhaps, in which case see also Wikipedia:IRC). Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there...i cannot locate the info i inputted that was subsequently removed and archived in 'history'...can you tell me how to find it please. Jeanne

help Reidlove ( talk) 17:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You can locate it using the "View history" tab at the top of the relevant page. See also Help:Page history. If you have any more questions, please ask them at the Teahouse rather than here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Literally from the sources. I am trying hard to get back to Wikipedia, I had a mistake with Greece, if you want to delete Greece do it, but not all countries, if you are going to pretend to be a good admin check one by one the sources, meanwhile return what I was writing these days, or I don't go back to Wikipedia. best regards. Tuxzos22 ( talk) 21:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion at Talk:White people#New countries added to table rather than splitting it across multiple talk pages, Tuxzos22. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry I am reaching out to you since you are an administrator and somewhat familiar with ethnic groups in Britain. An account named Raguzz has been mass deleting information on the British Indian page. This edit here in particular removing information from the politics section : [1] This is clear cut point of view editing deleting information from several well sourced references and replacing them with the views of a very questionable organisation called the Hindu council of Uk which is apparently aligned with far right Hindu BJP in India. Plenty of sources covered the Indian hard line Hindus who wish to influence voters in Britain the CNN itself talk about the influence of far right Hindu groups on swaying voters in Britain along with many others sources [2] as I said its well sourced and most definitely not a "minor aspect" Look at the the flimsy edit summary reasoning of removing such important information is laughable they are unable to provide solid reasons apart from their own opinions its a case of I dont like it. Furthermore they are also removing information on social issues claiming the sources are old. Would you kindly look into this when you have the time as I would like to refrain from engaging in a edit war with a user who is clearly only here to push a particular pov. Mrdabalina ( talk) 21:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I would have considered protecting the article to prevent edit warring and encouraging discussion on the talk page, Mrdabalina, but the disruption seems to have stopped, for now at least. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just an fyi for future reference: you can see ways to request for edits to be suppressed at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. This will avoid making a public request which may garner unwanted attention to the edits in question. isaacl ( talk) 21:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Isaacl. I did contact the oversight team but they initially said the edit didn't meet the requirements and to post at an appropriate noticeboard instead. I later contacted them again to better explain the privacy issue, and they agreed to suppress the edit. I also thought I needed to make a public statement because I knew suppression wouldn't be instant and people who saw the edit might have wondered what was up. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Not sure why they asked you to post at a noticeboard since that would attract broad attention, and the oversight policy still holds in any case... I'm glad though that the edit was suppressed. isaacl ( talk) 21:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

In reference to this, i would just like to say that Information Security Day is my new favourite special day  ; i hope it goes/went well. Happy days, ~ Lindsay ^{H ello} 16:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, LindsayH. It's probably a day we should all make time for every now and then! Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You recently reverted a number of my edits citing: " Reverting categorisation - would need very strong sources (see Indigenous peoples#Europe), I'm somewhat confused about the nature of your dispute, particularly when groups like the Bretons (and a number of others) have that same categorical position. Alssa1 ( talk) 12:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you read Indigenous peoples#Europe as I suggested, Alssa1? As detailed there, the term is only used to describe a small number of European ethnic groups such as the Sámi. It's quite possible that Bretons doesn't belong in the category either. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I did indeed read the piece, it does not justify your editing dispute though. It lists the Basque, Crimean Tatars, and Sardinians is interesting but doesn't really define what makes an indigenous group indigenous. Alssa1 ( talk) 12:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but article categorisation needs to be based on reliable sources, which are lacking in the articles that you categorised, Alssa1. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bretons article was added to that category by an IP editor relatively recently. I've now removed it again. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It was added in November 2022, that's not recent. Alssa1 ( talk) 12:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hence "relatively". Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Then you've got a very flexible understanding of the word. Alssa1 ( talk) 12:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Nit-pick about the timeline all you want, but you still need to cite sources to support categorisation. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Not always, you don't need an explicit source to declare the Bretons members of the 'Brythonic Celts' for example. You don't need a specific source to declare Armorica part of Pre-Roman Gaul. Sometimes articles are legitimately categorised by the content of their leads: "Bretons are a Celtic ethnic group native to Brittany, north-western France..." etc Alssa1 ( talk) 13:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CATV, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable". Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As stated on your cited page: "Indigenous is derived from the Latin word indigena, meaning "sprung from the land, native". As is stated on the Bretons page "Bretons are a Celtic ethnic group native to Brittany, north-western France..." Seems pretty verifiable to me... Alssa1 ( talk) 14:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't need to, the inclusion of the category is long-standing on the Bretons people page and was subject to your removal. Alssa1 ( talk) 14:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice try, but see WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Victuallers (
talk) 16:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Victuallers! Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:GNG is exactly what it says "general" and why WP:NBAND is needed to provide specific guidance for bands.

As far as the statements directly in WP:GNG - Spotify, Amazon, Pandora are all worldwide coverage, I have no participation in their curation process, they are reliable sources and independent of my influence, and I don't see anywhere where it says you need magazine coverage to be a band noted in Wikipedia.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien ( talk) 21:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No, you don't need magazine coverage, but you do need some coverage, Revolucien. What would you base, say, 500 or a thousand words about the band on? If you can't write anything about the band by summarising what reliable sources say, there's de facto no article to write. That's why your draft is so short (and "The guitar playing started in 1980 in the small town of Lewiston, Maine with a couple friends Eric Gosselin (currently in Fierce Atmospheres) and Dave Caron" isn't supported by a source, so it should be even shorter). Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Larry, I appreciate the input. I feel like I met the letter of the law as written and you and a few others do not agree. I am OK that we disagree, but I felt that I provided facts and data to support my compliance and the opposing views were feelings and pointed to parallax interpretation of the guidelines. I hope that changes are made so that clear definition make it more of a open and shut case. Thanks again for the participation.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien ( talk) 22:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You've actually made a good case for not adding listing on Spotify as a sign of notability, Revolucien, as this band is on Spotify yet it's completely impossible to write an article about it due to the lack of in-depth coverage. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Be careful with that though, on Spotify I have 3 monthly listeners - that means those are people who created stations specifically using Chaos Warehouse so they can hear it more often.  Chaos Warehouse still shows up on regular streams that utilize Heavy Metal or similar tag words in their station and it is played world wide at a more random interval.  There is also the combination of those platforms multiplying that field and reaching far more than the standard terrestrial radio audience.  Good luck with it, I'm sure it will be an interesting discussion.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien ( talk) 22:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You know, I actually sleepwalked into marking one of these as reviewed before I realised? Grief. Nice catch! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There are no doubt plenty more for attention, Alexandermcnabb! Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

On 25 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Valerie Cowie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Valerie Cowie was appointed a senior lecturer, one of her referees wrote that his "only reservation is that the post ... does not adequately do justice to her high academic status"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Valerie Cowie. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Valerie Cowie), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

On 30 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Olga Onuch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Olga Onuch is believed to be the first professor of Ukrainian politics in the English-speaking world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Olga Onuch. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Olga Onuch), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede 66 00:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Cordless Larry

Do i really need to add that those stats (re White mortality rates) etc are specifically for England and Wales only? If we look at all the various metrics that have been included on the Black British page health section, such as obesity rates etc...there has been no attempt clarify that those figures are just for England and Wales. Maybe they need to be removed too for the sake of consistency?

Many thanks for your input

Koppite1 ( talk) 21:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I raised the problem with the other article at Talk:Black British people#England (and Wales) versus UK. There's been no response, but that's not a reason to make the same mistake with other articles. I'm of the view that if we can't find UK-wide statistics, it's OK to include ones for individual countries of the UK, but that that needs to be made clear in the text, Koppite1. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

Apologies. I genuinely wasn't aware that you had already raised a similar point on the Black British page.

I tend to agree with your general point.

Many thanks Koppite1 ( talk) 22:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear @ Cordless Larry, Hello Can you please check my Draft article Draft:VJ Sunny and Requesting you to suggest me the changes for the page creation. Mr.shaikmeer ( talk) 11:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've contacted me about this, Mr.shaikmeer, but I'm not a draft reviewer. I see that the draft is pending review, so I suggest waiting for the outcome of that and acting on any feedback you receive. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you move the talk page Talk:Syrian British back too? Thanks! 94rain ^Talk 08:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like that's since been done, 94rain. Apologies for not moving it to begin with - I'm not sure what happened there. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to bring to your attention user Zaquezipe who insists on editing Colombia's page even though people differ from his standpoint. He has a thing for overestimating the percentage of minority peoples and claims the country has some sort of prosecution policy going on against them with no actual proof to back up such claims. Please help us resolve this, I think he might want to create a page where everyone can discuss and share their point of view and not edit as he wishes. Also, I've noticed the ethnic subsection now is too large, the article is not exclusively about Colombia's ethnic breakdown. Most of his disputes seem to be race-related. Thank you. Dougwash ( talk) 23:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

They are race related because people bring up the notion that Colombians have “European ancestry above most in Latin America” which simply isn’t true, I provided many studies as to why and many of the studies that do paint Colombia in that light tend to be heavily biased or exclusively get genetic results of upper class Colombians which is then used for all Colombians when that wasn’t the purpose. I wanted to add more reliable sources and evidence as well. Zaquezipe ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that you've both been blocked for edit warring, Dougwash and Zaquezipe. If you wish to continue editing in this area when your blocks expire, please discuss changes on the relevant article talk pages so that consensus can be reached. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There is someone who is trying to start an edit war with me. I think its just best to protect it. He won't stop. Abrasax123 ( talk) 23:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I've given JUMPp1harm a temporary block but it takes two to edit war and you've been blocked previously for doing so, so you should know better. Please try to reach consensus on the talk page when your new block expires. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering why you have removed my edit on the page /info/en/?search=List_of_people_who_have_walked_across_Australia ? I thought that I had updated it as I had been requested to, so if you could point out what I have done incorrectly I would appreciate it. Thanks Sharif Sowadally ( talk) 14:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In the article lede, it states "The extremes of Australia for the purpose of this definition are considered to be Steep Point to the (west), Cape Byron (east), Cape York Peninsula (north), and South East Cape (south)", and it didn't appear to me that the addition met those criteria. Furthermore, you really need properly secondary sources here, such as newspaper coverage of the walk, not the walker's own accounts of it. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The Perth to Sydney route is considered a recognised route. I didn't think this would be an issue considering most of the other entries are not between these points. There are a couple of articles relating to Tom's walk and the link to his own site is actually to show the GPS route that was recorded, which is similar to another of the references that have been used. Perhaps I should have labelled that reference better.

I hope this explanation is sufficient and I will re-add my entry when I get the chance. Sowadally ( talk) 17:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like the article lede might need revising then. You could do the article a service by raising this on the article talk page (I'm not much interested in the article myself, to be honest, and just keep an eye on it because of previous instances of vandalism and unsourced additions). Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

While acknowledging your long history as an administrator and editor, I am perplexed by your recent challenges to editors on the International Churches of Christ Talk page. In my case, you violated the guidance on the COI Noticeboard that says, “This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period” There was no attempt on your part to resolve any issue that you had with my only edit to the article, a minor edit of repositioning a single sentence in the article, prior to suggesting that I had a conflict of interest on the COI Noticeboard.  Further guidance from the COI Noticeboard states, “The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a ‘trump card’ in disputes over article content.”  I have been diligent in honoring WP policies by only posting substantive comments on the Talk page. Please consider this outreach as my attempt to resolve directly with you my concern about your conduct as a WP Administrator as required by WP:ADMIN. During the past 8 months, you have become a frequent editor on the International Churches of Christ article making substantive comments in the article and on the Talk page about the character of the church. At the same time, it appears to me you are wielding the powers afforded you as an Administrator to squelch the input of other editors, like me, who are wanting to debate WP policies to challenge your position on the subject matter of the article. I believe your inclusion of me in a post on the COI Noticeboard for making a minor, non-substantive edit is one example of your questionable conduct and I have appealed to you to remove that posting, so far to no effect. However, you also referenced in the COI Noticeboard post another of your archived COI Noticeboard postings about another editor where you proposed blocking the editing privileges of that editor. Is that your ultimate intention with me?  According to WP:INVOLVED, “In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings.” An explanation of such curious behavior on your part may be offered by your archived comments in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Reliability and independence of sources for International Churches of Christ. You entered the following comment on the “about-self” sourcing of a book written by a church member that was published by an entity with a connection to the church, "Given that the group has been described as a cult, I'm not sure there are such things as non-controversial about-self details! Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)," To me, this statement reflects a lack of objectivity about one of the issues at hand – the allegations about the cult status of the church. You appear to have already reached a conclusion on the matter. In my view, such bias has no place in the actions of an Administrator. I welcome your reply as we attempt to resolve this issue. Meta Voyager ( talk) 14:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. There's been a very long-running issue with COI editing of the International Churches of Christ article, so while I accept that you've not played a significant part in that and are a new editor, the issue in general needs dealing with and unfortunately new editors with COIs are inevitably going to face some additional scrutiny. If you feel that I've acted improperly, you can raise that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. It's a disappointment that trust is in such short supply among those who are choosing to edit the International Churches of Christ article with the hopes of making it better. If we dialed down the suspicion for a moment, I suspect we would find that we have common goals although probably for very different reasons. In my case, I have read enough of your comments and edits to know that you think there are many aspects of the article that need significant revision or elimination due to lack of independent sourcing. I have a similar view of needed changes, but my reasons are that details about the church's rendition of its history can now be found in other ways and that current portrayals of the church in the article are not accurate nor reflect the efforts at reform that have taken place within the church over the last 20 years. My fear is that if you continue to attack efforts at "about-self" editing, the article will fail its intended purpose of contributing through volunteer editing to global knowledge about the International Churches of Christ. Are you open to a dialogue on what are the acceptable pathways to considering revisions to the article that will not trigger the trip wires that are producing repeated stalemates in the current environment? While you describe a long-running issue with COI editing, I do not share that history and would benefit from a fresh start. I have some thoughts about how that might happen in compliance with WP policies accompanied by some questions but think it best for now to pause for your consideration of this idea. Meta Voyager ( talk) 00:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to dialogue with good-faith editors, but I'll continue to call out COI editing when new editors with links to the church show up making the same argument that's already been tried by others about softening what they see as criticism of the church that's based on reliable, secondary sources and seek to add false "balance". Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

OK and fair enough. It seems that the discussion on the talk page has picked up again with lively debate. I'll give further thought to an approach for a more substantive rewrite of the article and, in the meantime, trust that the specific issues under discussion will make progress with consensus in a positive direction. Until then, I'll shift my comments back to the article's Talk page. Thank you for the opportunity to engage directly. Meta Voyager ( talk) 21:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)