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.

I'm writing this warning to you for your own good. You are in danger of falling into a bureaucratic mindset. You referred me to another department that would merely be another head of the same multi-headed serpent. And you must have realized that you did so. It was the typical bureaucrat's move. You've been involved in this for too long. 122.2.121.104 ( talk) 18:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And some advice for you: it might be time to drop the stick regarding Derry and WP:COMMONNAME. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And so should you. 120.29.76.131 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've barely edit there, whereas you only seem to be interested in the name of the Derry article. I suggest finding something else to contribute to Wikipedia - there are plenty of articles that needs lots of work. Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I share your suspicion and I'm watching his edits with interest to see if he is yet another sock of User:Gadri. The use of tildes in the name is a bit too coincidental. Is that the symbol you would think of when told your username is too similar to an existing user (incidentally I think this was MMACB - another Gadri sock)? Nthep ( talk) 12:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about MMACB, Nthep. That pretty much confirms it for me. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I filed a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadri, Nthep, and was reverted by our friend. Cordless Larry ( talk)

Im not a sock, similarities doesn't mean that. You have a mistake. Larry ~MMAKB~ ( talk) 12:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case, ~MMAKB~, explain that at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadri rather than blanking content there (which will get you blocked even if you're not a sock). "Similarities" is putting it mildly though. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not a good thing to to call innocent user, a sock. Why you call me a sock. Its lie you have to remove me from gadri investigatins...... similarities occured between users, but I doesn't mean. ~MMAKB~ ( talk) 12:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

No. On the one hand, it is possible that MMAKB (tildes omitted) is an innocent user and that the sockpuppet report was in error. On the other hand, after the sockpuppet report was partially blanked, to persist in the claim that MMAKB is not a sockpuppet is incredible in the etymological sense of not worthy of belief by a rational human being. That would really be the sort of assumption of good faith that chokes the ability to think. If, indeed, MMAKB is not a sockpuppet, then they should voluntarily agree to a block of at least two weeks for vandalism. While sometimes things do happen that are not worthy of belief by a rational human being, it is far more likely that MMAKB is simply a vandalizing sock. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Well put, Robert McClenon. Our friend ~MMAKB~ has since been blocked for sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok i read you warning message at my talk page but You also have to tell truth. ~MMAKB~ ( talk) 12:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) ~MMAKB~ ( talk) 12:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I have only presented evidence. If you think it's incorrect, then explain why. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your sweet answer on the Teahouse question forum! Elsa Enchanted ( talk) 13:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Larry,

You helped me out by giving me advice on how to deal with an edit war at the TeaHouse the other day. Unfortunately, the editor in question continues restoring unsourced and plagiarised material to the article ( American Council for Capital Formation), even after being reprimanded by the BLP board. She still refuses to engage substantively on the talk page, though she did threaten to block my account.

I looked into her history to what I'm dealing with, and it looks like she moves from target to target, copying in every negative story she can find--first about Kyle McCarter, then about the Dish Network and its CEO Charlie Ergen, now about the ACCF. Most of these edits look like plagiarism or close to it--sometimes she just cut-and-pastes sentences from hostile news stories, sometimes she copies in the paragraph and then changes a few words. I know we're supposed to accept good faith, but is it possible she's some kind of Wikipedia gun for hire? To whose attention should I bring this? Also, how do I avoid this user blocking my account?

Per your (or somebody's) suggestion, I'm going to try to edit elsewhere for a bit, but if there's any way that someone else could look in at the article, I'd appreciate it. I'm sure my own edits aren't perfect, so a second opinion would be very helpful.

And I've gotta ask--is Wikipedia always like this?!? So far it seems more like the kind of arguments you'd have in a newspaper's online comments section than an encyclopedia, though I guess I can see how those demographics would overlap.

Thanks for your advice. Best, Ellen EllenMcGill ( talk) 15:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi EllenMcGill. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look into this, but can I suggest that you either ask for advice at the Teahouse or report the user concerned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Only administrators have the ability to block users, and they are held to account for doing so, so I don't think you need to worry about that. Unfortunately Wikipedia can be like this, but thankfully for the most part it isn't. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Larry! I will see what happens with my post at the edit-warring board (so many boards!), and if they aren't interested in those bigger issues, I'll repost as you suggest. Best, Ellen -- EllenMcGill ( talk) 15:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just seen your post there, EllenMcGill. It might be a bit too long and complicated to get a proper response, but give it some time before taking the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, will do. The first response there seemed to suggest that it's not edit-warring as long as we only delete each other's material once a day, and they're not interested in the other stuff, so I'm not optimistic. For now I guess I will keep deleting LA's material once a day the same as she deletes mine until she agrees to talk on the talk page. Anyway, I really appreciate your taking a look. EllenMcGill ( talk) 18:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like what's called the three-revert rule hasn't been broken, EllenMcGill, but edit warring can also take a slower, more long-term form. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Happily, I'm 99% sure I identified the digital PR firm she works for today--almost all of her edits seem to relate directly to their client list. Maybe she will just go away, but even if we continue to work on it together, her agenda is now out in the open. Thanks again for the advice and for keeping an eye on me. -- EllenMcGill ( talk) 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the further confusion about the correct place to report this, EllenMcGill, but it seems that it is now being taken seriously at WP:COI/N. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all! It was a rapidly evolving situation, and given what now looks to be a big scope to it, it makes sense that it would require a lot of forums. I'm glad somebody else has taken over and I can move on to other stuff, or just take a long break! EllenMcGill ( talk) 13:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment today. The administrator at SPI has strongly suggest that I end my involvement in the case, so I think that's that for me, but hopefully other Wikipedians will be able to see it through (it looks like a clerk there did just endorse it). Anyway, I literally would not have made it this far without your advice and support. I'm probably ending my involvement in Wikipedia after this anyway, but I'm glad to be leaving it with the bullies at FP1 at least partly exposed instead of wholly victorious. Good health and happy writing, Ellen -- EllenMcGill ( talk) 15:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like bingo, EllenMcGill. I do hope that you'll reconsider and stick around to help clean up the articles affected. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The recent edits to Christopher Hitchens in the name of trimming is removing salient details and adding wrong information. Not vandalism but editing a bigger page should be done with diligence. Not sure if anything is deliberate. The edits were done by 130.65.109.103. Please help me revert it back to the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirupur123451 ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please raise this at Talk:Christopher Hitchens, Tirupur123451, to get the attention of a wider range of editors. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your advice on categorisation of articles at the Wikipedia Teahouse - your advice is well appreciated. Vorbee ( talk) 21:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, Vorbee. Thanks for your friendly and appreciative attitude. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You'd think I was a Brit for all of the changes I've made from American English to British English... Amazing those who won't bother to check the links in comments - especially future psychology doctors... Requests / warnings too: User talk:Snailgoop#Hitchens's razor Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 22:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Jim1138. I was more concerned with the original research issues, but I appreciate attention to detail like this. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It's stated once by the summary in the box info box bar and twice in the summary. It mentions its at 49.8. I don't see what the point of having all these figures so close together. Kylebrock096 ( talk) 07:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The comparison with Hispanics isn't in the infobox, Kylebrock096, but please discuss this at Talk:German Americans#The numbers part. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for the much needed feedback... I will make sure to work on the draft more and make the appropriate edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonanza425 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, CordlessLarry, I want to thank you for your cooperation here, Wikipedia. I think we will be good partners. :) For you drink a tea after the web! ... Lhealt (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It is irrelevant in reality, but I am sure that he is trying to make a point, which is that he has a theory that David Blaine vanished the World Trade Center. That is why I warned him about conspiracy theories. By the way, 9/11 conspiracy theories, in particular, are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, but he hasn't stated his thesis, so he is just being a pest. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I can see how this goes: I imagine that people who come here to perpetuate conspiracy theories end up getting blocked pretty quickly, and then claim that we are part of the conspiracy. Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If me add inform to districst should add source? Kuningan Murbaut ^Talk 07:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It partially depends what the information is, Murbaut, as I explained at the Teahouse, but in general, yes you should. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I now see that you previously added this material and were reverted. That material does need to be sourced. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

And for general advice on what to do if you add content and it is reverted, Murbaut, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh What I do? Am I to revert back? sorry for delay and thank before. Murbaut ^Talk 09:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Murbaut, do not revert back unless you can provide sources for the material. The best idea is to discuss your proposed additions on the article's talk page, as explained at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for suggest Murbaut ^Talk 10:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sir,

You left a message saying U removed an edit on a talk page. I thought the talk page was a place for sight editors to view message people left for suggestions, i wasn't aware he public could see it, so thank you for removing it. I was mealy making an plea for someone to add the appropriate information in appropriate form. All i really care about as far as what I wrote is that people know that neutering can lead to health issues and isn't exactly risk-free (assuming that anyone adding the risks would also automatically balance it with including the generally assumed benefits, as was done), which was added, and that tubal ligation is another option.

Please make mention of alternatives such as tubal ligation? No disrespect meant, but implying only one option is available by not giving acknowledgement to other forms of sterilization is not exactly neutral and it would be more respectful to the public and suits the interest of neutrality better to be willing to sight alternatives.

Please consider this, and thank you for removing my not-intended-for-the-public posting and for adding the health considerations,

71.201.109.153 ( talk) 18:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Morgan

An article talk page is the correct place for posting suggestions, but unless you tell me what article you are referring to, I can't really help, as I have no recollection of this. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In the clarity of the morning, I see that you must be referring to this at Talk:Dog, but it was Apokryltaros who reverted those edits and Lhealt who left you the message. I doubt I've ever edited that page myself. Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkpages on Wikipedia are not not forums to discuss the topic: talkpages on Wikipedia are for discussing suggested improvements to the corresponding articles.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 15:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, You have disappointed me alot. I just wanna tell you that UAF Community College is a separate institute other than University of Agriculture Faisalabad and work under this university. I'm studying there also. For your satisfaction please search UAF Community college on google or visit website https://www.uaf.edu.com I appreciate your work on Wikipedia, friend. I'm new here so, I don't know about Wikipedia as much as you. Please, direct me if I have done any mistake. Wseef ( talk) 10:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

As I explained at User talk:Wseef#UAF Community College, you can restore the material if you can add sources, Wseef. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Wseef, I would suggest that until you have a bit more experience editing Wikipedia, you should use Wikipedia:Articles for creation for any articles that you want to start. That way, you can get feedback from experienced editors on a draft before it goes live, which will significantly reduce the chances that the article will be deleted. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. With the end of Earwig's copyvio checker, do you know of another that can be used in its place? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw that it wasn't working the other day, but I didn't realise that that was a permanent state of affairs, Onel5969. I'm afraid I don't know of an alternative that works in the same way. Do we know why it has demised? Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that it has something to do with a disagreement over how it utilized Bing. There was a warning on it for the last two months, but I haven't been utilizing it that much recently. Today when I went to run an AfC draft through it, for the first time it wasn't working. And yes, it appears to be permanent. Not sure there's another easy tool. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I see this is being discussed here, Onel5969. It's a real loss if we don't get this tool back - it will significantly impair our ability to detect copyright violations. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, a huge loss. Thanks for pointing me to the conversation. Seems like they are working on it. Not sure of how to proceed in the meantime. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Larry, I don't know whether you checked, but the 'Indy' source fairly explicitly says that these are KLA claims of SAS deaths and implies unreliability. I didn't check the other two refs (Fr For leg and a Serb source), but the reliability of the orig seems in doubt, apart from the edit reasons you gave. Pincrete ( talk) 10:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't check the details of the claims in that much detail, Pincrete, but thanks for letting me know. This confirms that that material certainly doesn't belong in the article in the form in which it was added. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree 100%. The info is seriously out of date and not RS to start with. Pincrete ( talk) 11:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Follow up, neither Serbian source mentions SAS or FrForLeg as far as I could see, 'Politika says "Vidoje Kovačević says … … he personally killed two black persons who fought on the side of the KLA. "They were in camouflage uniforms, the sleeves had French labels," Kovačević testifies. … … while intermagazin says "Official data show that the VJ in combat on (nickname) killed 150 members of the KLA, including two NATO soldiers (one French and one Italian), as well as several volunteers from Algeria". Pincrete ( talk) 18:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the sources, Pincrete. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it was not safe for animal testing. <font color="sky blue"'''Gzkefpro'''</font> ( talk) 23:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write me a note on Teahouse for Draft:ATP Electronics, Would you be so kind to assess how I can optimize my content, specifically notability wise ?? of which references I've included would consider notable

Your help appreciated , thank you T.L Cheng ( ATP Electronics ) ( talk) 02:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, T.L Cheng ( ATP Electronics ). Before doing anything else, you need to declare your conflict of interest, as explained at User talk:T.L Cheng ( ATP Electronics )#Conflict of interest. Demonstrating notability requires you to cite references constituting significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources. There are some links that will help you understand the requirements in the templates at the top of Draft:ATP Electronics. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Larry; as suggested I have put COL declaration on my page , as well as the article's talk page I am creating. Meanwhile, several notable references have also been added; would you kindly assess Draft:ATP Electronics the article and see if this would be eligible to go public ? Thanks T.L Cheng ( ATP Electronics ) ( talk) 06:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, T.L Cheng ( ATP Electronics ). The way to request a review of the draft is to press the submit button on the template at the top of the article, which I see you have already done. An experienced reviewer will provide you with feedback shortly. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black supremacy. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you for explaining to me that who asked for payment to review and publish an article are scam people. Dega ( talk) 05:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, Dega. I now realise that my suggestion about changing your signature preferences was probably unnecessary, as you had manually added your signature to a previously unsigned post. Remember to always sign your comments using the four tildes (~~~~). Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

i want to populate my article please help me out. Sunny Pimpare ( talk) 11:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There are zero reliable sources about you, Sunny Pimpare, so you don't meet our notability requirements (I say you - I presume you were attempting to write about yourself). Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Larry,

I appologise. I tried to add to my questions to you re Marc Clark (Sculptor) on our talk page but ended up putting it on someone elses talk page article.

Re Marc Clark (Sculptor).

Is it OK to use an extract written on the back cover of Marc Clark's Autobiography 'Another Colonial Boy' by Dr Lenton Parr as a footnote?

The reason I ask is that the Autobiography was written by Marc Clark but, of course, the comments on the back cover were written by Dr Lenton Parr.

I value and appreciate your help,

John Flashpepi ( talk) 23:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Flashpepi ( talk) 23:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Flashpepi. You might get faster answers to questions if you post them as follow-ups to your original question at the Teahouse. To answer this one though, yes, I do think you can quote that, although presuming that it is an opinion of some sort, it needs to be clearly attributed (e.g. "According to Lenton Parr, Marc Clark..."). See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV on that. You can also use the autobiography itself for basic, non-controversial facts about Clark. However, material from Clark's autobiography won't contribute to establishing his notability. That requires coverage of Clark and his work in independent sources such as newspapers or other books. Cordless Larry ( talk) 05:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I am attempting to make edits to a university page to include notable alumni. A user keeps removing the new entry simply because the alum does not (yet) have a Wikipedia entry. This has gone through several deletions and re-entries. Please advise how to keep a new entry when other users who, though with good intentions, are too zealous in deleting people they think aren't notable enough. DavidRThomason ( talk) 19:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DavidRThomason. To be included in a list, we don't need an article to exist about a person, but we do need evidence that they are notable. Have you been citing sources when adding the individual to the list, to demonstrate this notability? Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, evidence is listed, both in print and online, for their notability. And a wikipedia article on the subject is forthcoming. Please see the following comment on my talk page by the user who keeps deleting it "Neither Yolanda or the Visitation House has an article. They are simply not Wikipedia notable. With the exception of politicians, the standard on Wikipedia is that if a person doesn't have an article, they are not included in the articles. Plain and simple. 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 18:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)" Thank you, DavidRThomason ( talk) 19:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I will comment on your talk page, to keep the discussion in one place. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that user. I went ahead and had contacted Kuru (an admin), because I dont have the patience to deal with these things. I explained my reason, it was evident they weren't backing down, so I took the next step. I am aware that red links are acceptable, but I was plainly going off of the standard for American universities – "no article = not listed", with the exception of politicians. I had done a quick search as well to make sure this person wasn't a world-renowned person. Thanks again! 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan 🎓 00:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Corkythehornetfan. Where is the guideline for American universities? Also, Trump? Really?! Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is an actual guideline, but rather that's what a majority of the members who edit the articles do. The person to ask would be User:ElKevbo – he knows a heckuva lot more than I do and he's been editing the university articles for a lot longer than I have! As for Trump, yes he's the one I want! I may not agree with all of his ideas, but I agree with a majority of them (e.g. The Wall). I'm all for giving people a chance and I think he'll be better than the others, especially Killary... I mean Hillary! 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan 🎓 21:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that... Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This whole world is in going to be a mess, regardless of who becomes our next president! 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan 🎓 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It certainly will be if Trump wins, that's for sure. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cordless Larry,

Here are some third-party references and links to reviews and comments about the film, FREEWHEELIN' ... The material in my contribution are historical facts pertaining to the film and its depiction of Mountain Biking in the mid-80s ... Kindly advise what portion of these facts is "promotional" or how it should be worded ... Thanks!

COMMENTS & REVIEWS

^[1]

^[2]

65.93.94.184 ( talk) 20:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 65.93.94.184. You need to add references to the Mountain biking article, not to my talk page. Where is the Brian Vernor comment from? If it's not a published source, you can't use it. Claims such as "Possibly the first and only film depicting the state of the sport in the 1980s..." also need to be reliably sourced (also, why only possibly?). I don't think the film's synopsis belongs in the article either - it's about mountain biking, not the film. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cordless Larry,

Thanks for your reply. The links provided in my note to your talk page are all third party articles in published sources available online and in some cases in hardcopy (e.g. Bicycling Magazine) ...

The quoted text from Brian Vernor is from his widely broadcast email which appears in whole or in part in a number of these published sources, e.g. http://theradavist.com/2014/12/freewheelin-one-mtbs-first-videos/, where the text is posted word-for-word by Brian Vernor in the published Comments section.

The synopsis is quoted from the 1985 brochure which accompanied the film when it was first released and distributed in North America. IMHO, it is significant because it describes the state of the relatively unknown sport of Mountain Biking extant in the mid-80s as a new and exciting variation on bicycling ... which no longer applies today, since the entire world is familiar with MTB Biking.

"Probably" is quoted from some of the linked published sources and is inserted in my contribution because of the possibility that there may be other films of that era of which no-one in the MTB Biking community today is currently aware ... (e.g. http://www.thebicyclestory.com/2014/12/the-worlds-first-mountain-bike-film-probably/ )

So, would references to these third party published sources added to my contribution suffice to meet your specs?

Please advise. 65.93.94.184 ( talk) 22:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A film's synopsis is not a third-party source as it's clearly not independent of the subject, i.e. the film. User comments posted on a website aren't considered reliable sources. The amount of material that you want to add just about this film falls foul of WP:UNDUE. It would be better to add it to an article about the film itself, if it meets the relevant notability guideline. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Larry,

Sorry, but after numerous attempts over several days, I`m at a loss on how to simply contribute the fact of the existence of a historically significant film (according to a wide range of current experts on the sport of MTB Biking in the published links) to this Wikipedia article purporting to reflect the history of MTB Biking. The process leaves me doubting the relevance of Wikipedia as a universal, complete and accurate resource ... 65.93.94.184 ( talk) 23:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

e.g. "In 1985, Wolf Ruck, a Toronto-based author and filmmaker, produced the 15-minute long mountain bike film Freewheelin’. It is both the most awesomely 80’s thing ever, and a marker of a major historical change in the way that people thought about bicycles. You should watch it." ^[1] 65.93.94.184 ( talk) 00:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The best approach would be to write a short sentence describing the film and its significance in a neutral manner, with a reference to a reliable source. Note that personal blogs are rarely considered reliable. Newspaper or magazine coverage would be the best source. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democratic Party presidential debates and forums, 2016. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Hats of to you as you have won the Barnstar of Writer for your exceptional contributions of editing and creating articles in Wikipedia. Well done and Keep it up! Amy2563 ( talk) 07:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Amy2563! Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Graeme Obree, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle Mountain. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

On 17 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tour DuPont, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tour DuPont. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Tour DuPont), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Maile ( talk) 13:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox Canadian leadership election. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

These were already accepted by wikicommons and are copyright of the author: Jayne Joso. Please leave them alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because you managed to upload something, doesn't mean that it has been "accepted", Dictionarylady. Please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dictionarylady if you want to prevent the images from being deleted, but note that usually the photographer is the copyright holder, not the subject. Cordless Larry ( talk) 05:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please can you intervene, as someone is taking exceptionally heavy-handed action now, and this seems like vandalism to the page, and most aggressive. Yours sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to remove unsourced material, and I did warn you above that this would happen. Sorry, but I agree with this course of action. If you want to add material to the article, it needs to be sourced (and you need to properly declare your COI). Cordless Larry ( talk) 05:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV only, many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit summary suggests that you know Joso though, Dictionarylady. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV I assure, but sorry for not adding further details, it seems tricky. It seems unfair to delete the page, perhaps remove the new education section if you feel it does not comply? Again, sorry for any mistake in protocol. But is entirely NPOV. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The whole article is unsourced, Dictionarylady. Wikipedia does not publish original research - it needs to be based on what reliable sources say, and we have to be particularly careful about this when the subject is a living person. Regardless of whether you think the article is neutrally written, you appear to have a relationship to the person being written about. How else would you have got the quotes from the person that are included in the article? If that is the case, you need to declare it. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, Dictionarylady. I now realise that this article has existed since 2009. For some reason, I thought that you had created it today. The material still needs to be sourced, but the deletion template I added to the article does not apply, so I will remove it. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, I thought something must be amiss, but you are more expert than I on these matters. You will see that I have made a small edit now in the interests of NPOV, and have mentioned the connection. Yes, it's quite an old page in a way. But thanks you for your concern and taking good care of these matters. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to follow the instructions at WP:DISCLOSE to disclose your COI properly, Dictionarylady. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't apply, no gain whatsoever, no relation in any sense, just updating information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dictionarylady, please see the top of the page WP:COI, where it states: "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict". Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

There could be a tendency to bias by anyone, a fan, an academic, any wiki contributor in fact, in any direction also.

And the information is sourced and noted as the article references The Times Literary Supplement, ICON, and various other notable publications, with links to the exact pages on the Links area of the wiki page. Much less problem perhaps than one might think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links and references are different things, Dictionarylady. If the links in the external links section are intended to be references, then they need to be made into them. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It is tricky to go back and reference sources now, but I will be careful to do so in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but unsourced material is likely to be removed if references are not provided, Dictionarylady. In fact, the longer it has remained unsourced, the more likely it is to be removed. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What part(s) ? I think you need to be more specific, particularly as it escaped your notice that the page has existed for years. Specificity is crucial, you cannot simply write global remarks - they are now appearing biased, and not at all NPOV. Please try to remain objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Dictionarylady, and especially the following paragraph: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately". Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. There is nothing contentious, but thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

There is plenty that is contentious, Dictionarylady. Perhaps you cannot tell that because of your COI, but if it helps, language such as "writing with a deep sense of place" and "embracing her free spirit" is highly promotional and not suitable for an encyclopedia. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

writing with a deep sense of place - is a fact, but it is good that you are being more specific, otherwise your global comments seem as unreliable with your first assumption that the page had gone up today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No, that's an interpretation, Dictionarylady. Interpretations can be included in articles, but they should be attributed to their sources. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) - Hi Cordless Larry and Dictionarylady. I work on conflict of interest a lot here in WP, and I just want to clarify something. Dictionarylady we don't care who you are in the real world, and no one here would ever ask you to reveal your identity. You already disclosed in the edit note that you are a close associate of the subject and that is all we need in terms of disclosure. The next step is for you to simply acknowledge that you have conflict of interest with regard to Jayne Joso. Would you please simply acknowledge that, and agree not to edit the article directly going forward but rather offer content proposals on the Talk page? That's all we need from the COI management side. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 12:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable and notable references up now, so I think it might be acceptable to removed the deletion notice. Would you do that? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionarylady ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Unlike a proposed deletion template, it's not possible to remove an AfD template until the discussion has reached a conclusion, Dictionarylady. See Wikipedia:Deletion process on the distinction between the two processes. You are welcome and encouraged to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Joso. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry. You were right, i had accidentally pasted your comment from the AFD into the COI, along with comment of mine that I also accidentally copied, but since removed. I just removed both the comment and your followup asking about it. We're usually not supposed to remove others' comments from discussions, but I think this is an exception where it's okay, if it is okay by you. It would also be fine by me if you want to restore it so that a strikeout of the comment, plus your followup, would both show instead. Sorry for this confusion added to the rest of the stuff on your plate. -- do ncr am 08:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's absolutely OK, Doncram. Thanks for sorting it for me. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry. I am writing to you directly because I believe you are knowledgeable in the field of my issue. I already requested general support but that wasn't very helpful. I created an article on Refugees of Somalia that was deleted twice by another user. This user suggested that this topic is already covered by the existing Somali diaspora page. Even though I did not fully agree with that I added the information about Somali refugees on that page instead. However it was again (repeatedly) deleted by the same user. Also all my edits relating to Somali refugees on other pages such as Refugees, Somalis in Kenya and Somalia were deleted by the same user (and one other user). I do believe that these deletions were made in order to suppress information about Somali refugees from Wikipedia. For more details and conversation with the other user see Talk:Refugees of Somalia. Any support or advice would be much appreciated. Thanks, Michtrich ( talk) 11:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Michtrich. Given that Refugees of Somalia has been turned into a redirect (rather than deleted), a better place to discuss this is probably Talk:Somali diaspora. You could also post comments on pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somalia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora, alerting other editors of the dispute (in a neutral tone) and asking for their input. I will try to keep an eye on the discussion and provide input, but I don't have much time at the moment. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Denver20. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi ,

I'm stunned that despite all the scientific evidence from labs all over the country that P&F's cold fusion is still treated as a failure, or the successes barely mentioned low down on the Wikis. I've followed the Navy's work for years and NASA's too, I know that NASA told a group of brass at an Ohio facility that they could give them airplanes with "unlimited loiter" using this technology, etc., etc. etc. Here is a large edit I posted on Martin Fleishmann's Wiki, I would like to know how to make it stick. P&F's work is worthy of multi nobel prizes. It will replace every single energy source we now use. Here is my edit, how can we solve the issue that Wiki does not believe "cold fusion" is real, yet Navy and NASA career scientists say it's very real. Why has there been no meaningful and lasting edit of the P&F Wikis? Help!

The United States Navy's “SPAWAR Program” Reproduced P&F's Results Within a Year of the 1989 announcement.   U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Pacific Group (SPAWAR), duplicated Pons and Fleischmann's work by 1990, and by 2009, had published 23 peer reviewed papers saying that the nuclear effect is real, that transmutation of base metals occurs, that tritium is produced, that excess heat is produced, and that low momentum neutrons are produced. Below is the video link that presents Navy's work results, it's a 1 hour and 3 minute presentation by the researchers who actually did the work. Early efforts at repeatability failed due to insufficient gas loading of the metal, which Navy overcame by co-depositing the gas and metal at the same time, onto the cathode. Currently NASA Langley has taken over the research, and are currently running grid testing of different materials to check for the same type nuclear reactions using more abundant metals and gas (Ni & H2). (NASA Langley Chief Scientists Zawodny and Bushnell).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LV8rM7vn0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHc3jOTJYZA 

Wikipedia should stop allowing edits to the Martin Fleischmann Wiki that imply that his most important life work was invalid, and implying that the "cold fusion" reaction is/was unrepeatable. It is in fact highly repeatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Organiclies. I know very little about nuclear technology. If you have comments or suggestions about the Martin Fleischmann article, then they should be made at Talk:Martin Fleischmann. If you want to ask general questions about editing Wikipedia, please do so at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	for your heroic rescue of Jayne Joso E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, E.M.Gregory, although I am still not completely certain about her notability (I sometimes find myself improving an article while at the same time supporting its deletion, despite that being rather obviously masochistic). Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• And therefore deserve a barnstar for diligent, honest editing. She's borderline. I, meanwhile, am merely weary of AFD edits that lack evidence of searching for sources, or, too often, evidence of reading the guidelines they cite, and even, more often than Iwish, evidence of even having read the page under discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Hi, do you mind if I revert you and add the sources later in the day? I think many are available and since I speak Spanish I can add the ones from government agencies etc... Best Asilah1981 ( talk) 09:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Asilah1981. Please don't add the statistic back in until you have found a source. Wikipedia:Verifiability is very clear on this. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was just saying this because I had the sources but had to step out. In any case I have now reverted and added sources and some more info. Asilah1981 ( talk) 12:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, but you have also added another unsourced statement, that "As a result, it is likely that a significant portion, if not a majority of Latin Americans living in other European countries enter as Spaniards rather than Latin Americans, benefiting from freedom of movement and establishment within the European Union". We can't say that unless there is a source. Please stop adding unsourced speculation to articles. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

apologies if I am doing this incorrectly! This is my first article and I am having trouble getting it moved from a draft to getting it peer reviewed and published. Many thanks in advance for your time and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTHK76 ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 8 July 2016‎ (UTC)

I have fixed your post, LTHK76, as you had included a template in it. Can you either give me a link to the draft you are working on, or post your question at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions for someone else to work out? Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry, thank so much for your help! I am very grateful for your help and expertise; I was feeling adrift and had no clue how to proceed. Here is a link to the page. /info/en/?search=Haditha_Al-Khraisha Is there anything I can to do to help move the article to the live site, other than make some edits to articles I might be useful with? Yours LTHK76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTHK76 ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Haditha Al-Khraisha is already "live", LTHK76. The article history shows that Waggers moved it out of draft space yesterday. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)