This page 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.

Archives

2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Hi, I’ve added the original source of the voicemail on the files page. Bunnies959 ( talk) 09:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The source you added only will make a difference if it can be verified that the original copyright holder is the person who released the voicemail. Non-free content has to have been WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion per WP:NFCC#4 by the original copyright holder. Since the original copyright holder is the person who left the voice mail, it seems unlikely that Alec Baldwin uploaded it to YouTube or any other website and released it for anyone to listen to and it also seems unlikely that Baldwin himself leaked it to TMZ. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 11:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Can the recording be linked to as an external website? Bunnies959 ( talk) 12:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

To the YouTube page you previously listed as a source, most likely no per WP:ELNEVER. To the TMZ you replaced the YouTube link with, again probably not for the same reason and also for WP:BLP reasons. TMZ is considered to be sort of a questionable source for Wikipedia purposes, particularly when the content is about living persons. Since the audio was leaked to them, its acceptability as even an external link seems a bit sketchy. I'll ping Masem, Hammersoft and Beetstra since they are editors who might be able to help clarify this.

FWIW, if you look at Alec Baldwin#Kim Basinger, you find content about the voicemail, but no link to it. If you check that article's talk page archives at Talk:Alec Baldwin/Archive 1#Relationship with Kim Basinger and daughter, Ireland and Talk:Alec Baldwin/Archive 2#Voicemail for daughter, you see it was quite a contentious discussion; moreover, if a link could've been added, it would seem likely to have been added to the Baldwin article. So, perhaps mentioning the incident in a neutral tone supported by proper sources without any links to the actual voicemail might be the best thing to do for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Bunnies959 and Marchjuly: These are likely copyright violations (likely ..), which plainly means that we should not upload those to commons, or here, or link to them (at least until the copyright issue has been clarified, and that may still result in no link). The only place where you can link to is to a copy that is made available by the copyright holder. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• I found this discussion (see Emily Bass response) from an IP lawyer on the subject. While the answer is not definitive, it raises enough issues that we'd have to assume a voicemail is copyrighted. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the best course of action is to remove all links to the voicemail and go into more detail about it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnies959 ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Bunnies959: If you want to try that you can be WP:BOLD, but you also need to be sure that whatever content you add is not WP:UNDUE. If you're bold and someone disagrees and reverts the change, you should then follow WP:BRD and seek consensus for the change on the article's talk page. Try not to do things like this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz concerns about the content should not just be written off, and that section does have a bit of a WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:BLPGOSSIP feel to it. Perhaps by discussing things with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, the two of you can figure out a better way to incorporate such information into the article if its needed.

When you edit, you need to try and remember WP:CONTENTAGE means that it makes no difference how much time has passed between when the content was added and when someone came along to remove it. Unless the removal was a clear case of anadalism (which Hullaballoo Wolfwitz's removal clearly wasn't), it's up to you has the person wanting to add the content to the article to convince others that it should be added to the article, and the way to do this is through WP:DR, not being bold, being reverted by another editor, reverting back again to your preferred version, and then finally deciding to discuss things. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Marchjjuly: Thank you for that information and ongoing support, I will attempt to contact Hullaballoo Wolfwitz and see if a resolution can be reached— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnies959 ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I just want to say thanks for taking up the issues with Wang Zheng (pilot). When I bumped into the article I easily recognized COI, edit warring, and sourcing issues but I'm pretty inexperienced and wasn't totally sure how to proceed. Hydromania ( talk) 22:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thanks too for your calm head and clear explanations. Melcous ( talk) 10:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There may actually be something to the BLP concerns which were raised by that editor, but the almost certain socking/meat puppetry and the undisclosed COI/PAID editing also needed to be addressed. Moreover, there seems to be a pretty big disconnect between what that editor thinks the purpose of Wikipedia article should be and WP:ARTICLE. Being indefinitely blocked does not mean blocked forever; so, if hopefully he will see that what he was doing was wrong, and not repeat the same mistakes if he decides to try and come back per WP:UNBLOCK. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your ongoing support! Bunnies959 ( talk) 03:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You are REALLY important Curtainsider ( talk) 09:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You guys are too far up your own arses for me, I’ll leave all the fiction and false hero’s/records for you guys to make up how you see fit. Fascism is not my thing. Curtainsider ( talk) 07:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to post questions here and I will do my best to answer them; but WP:NPAs against other editors will not be allowed and an administrator will be asked to intervene if you continue to do so. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I will try to remember that, thank you headmaster sir, oops wrong username, Marchjuly, sorry for the mistake because I realise you are very important. Curtainsider ( talk) 09:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I left thanks on the edit, but wanted to drop by and thank you personally for reverting that mess on my userpage. It's very much appreciated! NekoKatsun ( nyaa) 17:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Curtainsider just chose the wrong way to express any frustration they were feeling and most likely could've avoided getting blocked if they had just slowed down a bit and tried to engage others instead of lashing out. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not edit warring... I am trying to publish the truth on the issue of Grand Mufti of India SWADIQ D MUHAMMED ( talk) 00:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You've been trying to make the same edit over and over again, and have been repeatedly been reverted by others. The changes you're trying to make are damaging the formatting, etc. of the article and have nothing to do with whether the content you're adding is "true". As for publish the truth, please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth because publishing the "truth" is not necessarily the same thing as publishing what can be verified about the subject in reliable sources, and it's the latter that Wikipedia values more. If you have concerns about the content of the article, then feel free to discuss them on the article's talk page. Explain why the content is not true and show how it isn't true by citing reliable sources. If you can convince others that the content should be changed, then they will help do so without creating problems with the article's formatting, etc. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from CommSuite 95, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Pavlor ( talk) 07:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notificaiton, adding {{ Old prod full}} to the article's talk page, and for taking the time to find sources for the article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly and thank you so much for your advice and your time.

I was not writing with a conflict of interest at all - I was just giving editor a heads up that the information on the page about me is outdated. As of today. I am a Guggenheim Fellow (here is the citation: https://www.gf.org/fellows/current/

and I am a Senior Fellow at Yale University Jackson Institute. http://jackson.yale.edu/person/janine-di-giovanni/\\

I was just saying those items should be the opening line as they are the factual job that I now have. I was a past Murrow Fellow.

thanks so much - if someone can correct this - I don't know how to do it..would you be able to correct these things? Janinedigi ( talk) 00:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)janinedigiovanni (i don't know what a tildes is) Janinedigi ( talk) 00:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Janinedigi. Just for reference, you can respond to a post left on your user talk page by another editor simply by adding your post below theirs in the same discussion thread. This is actually better because it keeps everything in one place and makes it easier for other editors to also follow the discssion. So, if you have any questions regarding what I posted, please ask them on that page. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I see that you hide the Penguin Point logo on Draft:Penguin Point (restaurant chain) due to it not being allowed in draft article space as a non-free image. The image is Penguinpointlogo.png. Thanks for that, since I was oblivious to that rule. However, should the article gets moved to a main article, am I allowed to use the logo at that time? Thanks! INeed Support ^:3 01:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi INeedSupport. Non-free logos can be used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of Wikipedia articles as long as their use complies with all ten non-free content use criteria listed at WP:NFCCP; so, at first glance, I would say yes it should be OK to use that logo in an article about Penguin Point. Just re-add the file to the article after the draft is approved. Be advised though that non-free content is required to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7 and those which aren't are subject to speedy deletion after five days per WP:F5. Since you uploaded the file, you should receive a notification once it's been tagged for speedy deletion as "orphaned non-free use". There's nothing you can really do to stop this other than to find an acceptable way to use the file in another article. So, if the file gets deleted before the draft is approved, don't panic and reupload it; deleted files aren't gone forever, just hidden from public view, and they can be fairly easily restored by an administrator by asking the deleting administrator to do so or by posting a request at WP:REFUND. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you! INeed Support ^:3 02:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my use of John Banner's photo on my user page and the work you do to keep people in line. Even though I stared at the page and it's clearly noted, it didn't dawn on me that it was a non-free image. I'm going to replace it with a generic television.

Ira

Ira Leviton ( talk) 15:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no real way to tell from just looking at the image, and the only reason I came across it was that it was flagged by a bot for review. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know Lonewolf2019 ( talk) 01:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. You just need to be really careful when doing such things even if you really mean well. Some editors might not care, but others can and do get really angry about it. If you read a post and see a spelling error that doesn't affect the meaning of the post in anyway, best just to leave it be. It's also probably not a good idea to make posts like this as well in general, but especially when you're responding to a post that was made almost twelve years ago.

Now, if you notice grammar or spelling mistakes in articles, then by all means be WP:BOLD and fix them yourself or notify others of them by posting a message on the article's talk page; the same is not needed, however, for user talk pages, article talk pages, or general noticeboards like the Teahouse, except under certain specific conditions.

One last thing, if someone leaves you a message on your user talk page, you can reply there; just add your post right below theirs. It's even probably better if you do just that so as to keep everything relevant to the discussion in one place. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry and thank you and I didn't see it was made 12 years ago oops Lonewolf2019 ( talk) 02:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Mistakes are OK to make. You can always remove the post if you want since nobody has responded to it yet per WP:REDACT. If you do, you can leave an edit summary simply stating you made a mistake. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Lubbad85 ( ☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Lubbad85 ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly,

In February, a new user added seven images of various manuscripts to the article Omar Khayyam. I believe this is excessive and there is no contextual reason to justify including them. These are images or screenshots from various online sources. In some cases, I could not find any copyright information on the source website. For one of them, I could not even access the website itself.

Nearly all articles on scholars have no more than one picture of a manuscript (usually chef d'œuvre of the scholar). I believe there have to be good reasons to justify the use of so many images (especially if they are non-free). The added images do not improve the reader's understanding of the article. In fact, they often hardly relate to the article. For instance, some of the manuscripts whose images were added are not the same manuscript that is discussed in the cited material. For instance, Dirk Jan Struik refers to a Leiden manuscript, whereas the uploaded image is supposedly from the British Library. In any case, the article is about the ideas in the treatise. It is not a stand-alone article about any given physical manuscript of the treatise.

It would be good to hear what you think about this. It would also be good if you could check the copyright status of those images. Thanks a lot. Telementor (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Telementor: There are quite a lot of files used in that article so it's kinda hard to know exactly which ones your actually referring to for sure. All of the files used in that article have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which means that it would probably be better to ask about their copyright status at c:COM:VPC than anywhere here on Wikipedia. There are generally two copyrights to consider with photos like these: (1) the copyright of the thing being photographed and (2) the copyright of the photo itself.

Most of the manuscripts appear to be quite old published works which means the original publication itself is probably too old for even its written text or any drawings/illustrations contained therein to be considered still under copyright protection per c:COM:HIRTLE. So, it seems unlikely that taking a photo of these manuscripts would be considered a copyright violation.

The question then is whether the actual photos themselves might be considered to be protected by copyright, and that is something which depends upon who actually took the photo and when it was taken. Generally, taking a photograph of something which is not considered to be protected by copyright (like the sunrise) or no longer protected by copyright (such as a really old painting) is only considered eligible for its own copyright when it's a deemed to be creative enough to be considered a derivative work (see also c:COM:DW); a simple reproduction, however, (like a photocopy or scan) generally is not deemed to require any creativity to produce or at least not enough to establish a new copyright as explained in c:Commons:2D copying; so, the photo itself is not protected by copyright. Techinically, files of this type shouldn't really be licensed using a Creative Commons license because that license really is only intended to apply to copyrighted content not things inelgible for copyright protection, and assumes that the creator of the original work, the photographer and the uploader are in most cases the same person if the file is being claimed as "own work". So, if the manuscripts and photos were actually created/taken by someone other than the uploader, then it would be wrong for the uploader to claim them as "own work". The original work or photo might still be ineligible for copyright protection, but the file's description and license should be changed to reflect that they are not the uploader's "own work".

As for whether the photos should be used in the article (regardless of their copyright status), that might be something worth discussing at Talk:Omar Khayyam per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles and WP:NOTGALLERY. Images can be used to enhance the experience of the reader, but their respective encyclopedic value to the article as a whole also needs to be considered much in the same way text content needs to be considered per WP:UNDUE. Too many images added to an article may overshadow the text and give the article more of a photo album than an encyclopedic article. In addition, low quality images which are hard to read or otherwise distorted might have very little encyclopedic value to the reader. For example, I cannot read anything in File:رسالة فی البراهین علی مسائل الجبر و المقابله - عمر ابن ابراهیم الخیامی.png and the only time the Risāla fī al-barāhīn ʿalā masāʾil al-jabr wa-al muqābala is mentioned anywhere in the article is in the image's caption; so, take the image out of the article and there's no real loss of encyclopedic information. That, however, is my opinion and someone else may feel differently which is why you can either (1) be WP:BOLD and remove any image use you feel is excessive or (2) be WP:CAUTIOUS and propose their removal on the article's talk page to see what others think. If you do (1), make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why you've removed the images and even possibly a article talk page post further explaining why so that the removal is not mistaken as WP:VANDAL. Just add something like "See article talk page for more details" to your edit sum. FWIW, the person who originally added the files would actually be considered the BOLD, and you're removing of them would be considered the REVERT in the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; so, it would be really up to anyone wanting to re-add the files to try and establish a consensus to do so on the article's talk page. This kind of thing, however, can quickly lead to edit warring if you're not careful, so you going to the talk page first might help avoid that.

Anyway, sorry for the long answer. I hope I didn't make things more confusing for you. If you try any of the above and find yourself unable to resolve things through article talk page discussion, you can always start a discussion about the files' use at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Marchjuly: Thank you so much for your explanation and insight. I will leave a clear summary of all these points in the article's talk page. It would be good for future reference to avoid having so many pictures without encyclopedic context or a clear copyright status. Telementor (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that copyright is much of an issue, at least one which cannot be resolved by tweaking the licensing of some of the files. The encyclopedic value (or lack thereof) of some of the files, however, might be more of an issue but it's also probably where you're going to find the most disagreement among different editors. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 11:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I apologize for my absence; I just saw the messages you sent me a few days ago. The man behind Credo House Ministries recently, and for reasons unrelated to my previous message on Teahouse, decided not to pay me for writing about the ministry. So, conflict of interest wouldn't be an issue. Can I still write on it though? Also, I don't really understand how my first edited article would potentially pose a conflict of interest; all I did was some lite proofreading. Can you help me understand what I did wrong there?

Thanks.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanwhittler19 ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dylanwhittler19. Your question at the Teahouse stated I have been commissed by C. Michael Patton to write a page on Wikipedia about his ministry, Credo House. which is why 331dot, who is a Wikipedia administrator, advised you about conflict-of-interest editing and paid contributions (among some other things) in their response. I simply added the conflict-of-interest template to your user talk page for reference, not because of your prior edits or because you did anything wrong as I further explained in the post I left underneath the template. If you're not getting paid (or otherwise compensated) to create an article about the ministry, then you most like wouldn't be considered to have a financial conflict of interest; at the same time, people who aren't getting "paid" to edit can still have a conflict of interest that's not financial, but whether that applies to you is kind of for you to self assess.

Wikipedia doesn't expressly forbid people with a conflict of interest from editing; it even doesn't expressly forbid people who get "paid" for editing. Such things are, however, highly discourage and even viewed quite suspiciously by a big part of the Wikipedia community which is why there are policies and guidelines in place that COI or paid editors are expected to follow. If you can edit Wikipedia in good-faith and comply with all relevant policies and guidelines when doing so, then you should have very little problems with others. If you start to stray off this path and move in a direction where others start having concerns that you might be connected to ministry, then you might find things a bit bumpy. My suggestion to you is that if you want to create an article about the ministry, be as transparent as possible about any connection you may have, work on a draft for an article, and then submit it to WP:AFC for review when you think the draft is ready for article status. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Marchjuly: Understandable. Thank you for explaining things. I will take careful care not to break the rules/guidelines of Wikipedia. Dylanwhittler19 00:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop including Emilio Ramon P. Ejercito, III in the NU page. His page does not even lists NU as his Alma Mater. Bullpups1988 ( talk) 01:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Bullpups1988: This post is probably better off made at Talk:National University (Philippines), but I didn't add him in the first place; that information was added by IP 49.144.114.244 here. If he doesn't belong there, then remove him. You should start leaving edit summaries to explain your edits; otherwise, nobody is going to know why the edit was made. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. My user name Gsiedel is not an impersonation. Please let me know if you need any additional information. George _____ George J. Siedel Williamson Family Professor of Business Administration and Thurnau Professor of Business Law (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsiedel ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Gsiedel: A couple of things.

1. It's generally not a good idea to post personal contact information on Wikipedia because (a) nobody can really be sure that you are who you claim you are and (b) most Wikipedians aren't going to contact you off-Wikipedia regarding anything having to do with Wikipedia. In many cases, the contact information you provide can be found by simply googling "you", which means this is not going to be sufficient to verify your identity. If you'd like to have your identity formally verified to make it clear (or at least as clear as is possible) for Wikipedia purposes that you are George Siedel, then please follow WP:DECLARECOI and then send an email to Wikimedia OTRS from your official email address stating such. An OTRS volunteer will review the email and add Template:Verified account to your userpage if everything is in order. For reference, I only added information about WP:REALNAME to your user talk page just to make you aware of the matter, not because I don't believe you're not who you're claiming to be.
2. It's OK for you to reply to posts left by others on your user talk page in the same discussion thread. In fact, this is often preferred because it helps keep everything in one place and makes it much easier for others to follow.

If you have any further questions about any of the above or about Wikipedia in general, feel free to ask for help at the Wikipedia Teahouse. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments in your last message. I just posted this message and wonder if you can provide advice on how I should proceed. I am especially concerned about the deletion of my earlier awards. Thank you again. George

Some time ago, someone created a Wikipedia page about me. Two days ago I attempted to update the page:

1. A simple change: Deletion of "In 1974" at the beginning of Career and correction of grammar right after this deletion.

2. The addition of a new honor: Distinguished Career Faculty Award, Academy of Legal Studies in Business, 2018

I included references to an ALSB publication announcing the award (on page 3). Here are a link: http://alsb.roundtablelive.org/resources/Documents/FALL%202018%20ALSB%20NEWSLETTER.pdf

3. The revision of another honor: Consortium of Universities for International Studies, Professor of the year, 2014 and 2918 The earlier version only listed the 2014 award; I was notified last year that I won the 2018 award and can provide a copy of an email from this consortium.

These changes were not made and someone deleted all but two of my earlier awards.

Please restore the earlier awards and let me know what is necessary to make the above three changes.

Thank you. Gsiedel ( talk) 12:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) Gsiedel, let me explain something to you that you appear to not be grasping. The article on Wikipedia about you is not FOR YOU. What you want in the article is not in any way a factor in deciding what will be on the page. Several years ago, the Wikipedia community decided our coverage of academics was lacking due to the fact that college professors were not written about very much (our threshold for inclusion on articles is based on how much has been written about a subject). In response, a specific notability guideline for professors, WP:NPROF, was created. Now college professors can have on article based on other factors. You qualify because you occupy a named chair. If your article had to stand on its own merits, it would be deleted. As you have undoubtedly noticed, myself and another editor have been paring down your article to stuff that is adequately verified. Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary. Anything you want added will need a reliable secondary source. If you want to request an edit, be brief. Example: Please replace x with y, with a properly formatted reference for y. No one here gets paid, this is an entirely volunteer project. It's probably also fair to say no-one is here to promote you. (With the possible exception of the person who created your article originally. Did you pay him or her?) It is on you to learn how Wikipedia works. If you do not care to take the time to do so, please just leave this alone. Outside of the person who originally created the article about you, no one here appears to have much interest in working on the article about you. So, you are taking people who volunteer their time for a noble project away from what they came here to work on every time you post something. The article here on you is not yours. Please stop wasting people's time. John from Idegon ( talk) 15:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, John, and for your volunteer efforts for Wikipedia. No, I did not pay the person who created the article.

Under Career, line 1, please replace: “In 1974 Siedel joined the faculty of”with “Siedel is on the faculty at”

Please delete the section on “Awards and honors.”

Gsiedel ( talk) 22:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Gsiedel: The best place for you to request changes to George Siedel is at Talk:George Siedel. Please follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Edit requests and use the Template:Request edit. Posting your requests on the article's talk page will make it easier for John and others to assess the request and determine whether it's something which should be done. As John pointed out above, all editors are volunteers; so, it might take a bit of time for someone to respond to your request. Just be patient and someone should eventually get to it. There are various editors who prefer to move from article to article trying help improve Wikipedia by answering edit requests. A properly formatted edit request using "Template:Request edit" will be added to Category:Requested edits, where editors helping with requests go to find unanswered ones. Some of these editors might be trying to answer as many as they can while they're online; so, they may skip over long and complicated requests and prefer to leave them to another editor who might have more time to take a closer look.

So, simple and clearly worded requests are much easier to deal with than long walls of text where it's not clear exactly what's being requested. Simple corrections such as spelling errors, etc. are most likely OK to be made by yourself as explained in WP:COIADVICE; just make sure to leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why. If, by chance, a simple change you make is reverted by another editor, then don't take it personally and try to make the same change again; instead, post a request that it be made on the article's talk page. More complicated changes like the addition or removal of content, on the other hand, should be proposed first and you should try to explain why the change is needed per relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you want to add content, then also provide a link to some reliable source which verifies what you're trying to add/claim. Providing a properly formatted citation will make things easier, especially if the source isn't available online, will make things easier, but adding a link to the source (for online sources) should suffice for verification purposes on the article's talk page. Similarly, if you want to remove content, then you're going to have explain why in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Basically, whatever changes you feel should be made to the article have a better chance of being accepted if you can show that they are needed per some policy or guideline; wanting something changed for personal or some other non-Wikipedia related reason (unless it's an obvious editorial correction like a typo) is probably going to be declined. Moreover, any request which is too vague or otherwise too hard to understand is also likely to be declined. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)