User talk:Bojo1498/Archives/2023/October

BRDM-2 changes
I've responded to your question explaining why it's the more appropriate word to use. Can you please revert the undo?

If you're going to undo peoples' work it would be good to resolve things quickly once people respond to you. It's only fair. 104.246.192.33 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed your first message. Looking at your explanation I feel like an argument could be made for either term to be correct, but I don't think it is worthy of a debate since the terms are pretty similar. Feel free to make the changes again, and I won't revert them. (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  16:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sultan Bahu
You made a mistake about Abdul Rehman dehlavi Yasirsultani86 (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you elaborate? You removed content without explanation and added a field that isn't a valid field in that infobox. Additionally, you added unsourced information. (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  17:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am one of the followers of Sultan Bahu. He wrote 140 books. I studied more than 40 of 100 available. He never claimed Abdul Rehman as his preccessor. Even I never saw this name in his books. You learned it from "Manaqab e Sultani" book. Sultan Bahu mentioned Abdul Qadir Jilani and Hazrat Muhammad peace be upon him in his books wrote in Persian and Punjabi
 * So I request you to correct it Yasirsultani86 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable with a citation to a reliable source. If you can provide a reliable source that supports the change you want to make, please add it. Also it is worth noting that Wikipedia prohibits original research so you can not add your own "analysis or synthesis of published material". If you have any questions on what is considered a reliable source, I encourage you to ask at the Teahouse or you can reply to me here. (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  17:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am understanding. I am not trying to impose my opinion. In fact I studied Sultan Bahu's books He himself mentioned his preccessor or what you say I am not professional in English
 * I can provide Wikipedia his own books written by his self Yasirsultani86 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Gearheads.
I was not the programmer, Ephraim cohen was. The citation is the manual in the box, which I can not find. I was credited as technical director. I guess no one cares. -daniel reznick 2605:59C8:205E:4000:394E:E12D:144D:9DF0 (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Obviously we want everything on Wikipedia to be accurate, which is why we have a policy that everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. This can be assured by requiring that all additions have a citation to a reliable source. While I understand that you have a personal connection to the article, I hope you can understand why these policies exist. With that all being said, in line with the verifiability policy you may remove any information that does not currently have a reliable source supporting it, though please make sure you explain the reason for your removal in your edit summary. If you have any questions, I encourage you to ask at the Teahouse or you can reply to me here! (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  23:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Dunstan High School Edit
Yo hi bojo, you recenetly did an edit to the dunstan high school page removed finn butcher, we have suffiecent proof he went ot the school and competed at the level he competed at, he is most certainly a notable student. Could you tell us what we can do to keep it up there or like not be removed isntantly, got a source for all the proof. 122.56.74.169 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, all additions require a citation to a reliable source. You can find the Referencing for beginners guide here to help you get started! If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse or reply to me here! (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this reply bojo, we have since edited the article, and added a somewhat reliable source (the schools official website) we believe that that is sufficient enough proof that he attended this school, if there needs to be citations to the fact that he got silver there is another article we can add onto probably his profile.
 * thanks - zac 122.56.74.169 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Steve Tappin edit
Hello!

I note that you have reverted my updated content on Steve Tappin.

Could you please explain how my proposed edit doesn't fit? Yes, I know Steve, however I'm sure if you read the content, it is entirely factual and verifiable.

If this is the case that I am not allowed to edit based on my knowledge of Steve, then could you please explain how Steve can have his page edited?

Thanks in advance. Fuzzsoth (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey there. I'll try to give you a breakdown of the issues that I saw with your edits:
 * Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, all additions require citations to reliable sources. This is especially true on articles which are biographies of living persons.
 * External links should not be used in the body of an article, instead if relevant, they should be added to the external links section of the article.
 * All additions to Wikipedia must be neutral. Sentences like "Tappin is also an expert on China and a trusted Confidant..." need reliable, secondary sources to support them which it looks like you may have, but even still it should probably be phrased more like "Tappin is regarded as an expert on Chinese business management and has been referred to as a confidant by...". I'd also try to get more than one source for a claim like that if you can.
 * Phrases like "Tappin’s highest calling has always been centered around helping CEOs and leaders of the world’s leading companies transform themselves and their companies." read very much like promotional materials and would definitely need to be re-written to be more neutral, as well as needing a citation.
 * As outlined above, things like the names of his parents would require a citation, that info doesn't appear to be in the current citation.
 * You shouldn't remove maintenance templates (the box at the top that says "This article has multiple issues...") unless you have fixed the issues. You may fix the citation issue so it may be appropriate to remove that one, but given that you have an admitted conflict of interest, you should not remove that maintenance template.
 * If you haven't already, I'd strongly suggest you review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy and I strongly suggest that you properly disclose your COI. Generally with a COI it is best to propose changes on the article's talk page for other editors to approve and implement, but given that this obviously isn't a highly trafficked article there's a decent chance that those proposals would never be seen, so I think it would be reasonable to make your changes directly, provided you follow all of the policies outlined above.
 * I hope all of that makes sense. If you have any additional questions, I'd encourage you to ask at the teahouse, the help desk, or you can reply to me here! Happy editing! (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  12:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you bojo, that's really clear. Really appreciate your time and explanation. Fuzzsoth (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome, glad I could help! (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  01:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mark 84 bomb, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Iran Press is not a reliable source, and the material you inserted is highly controversial. Please self-revert. Jeppiz (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This does not imply you did anything wrong, except perhaps being a bit too fast. Please be careful, sometimes IPs can be right and registered users wrong. Keep up the good work! Jeppiz (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

, thanks ! (bojo) (they/them)  (talk)  16:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done a lot of bigger mistakes than that myself :-) This was a very innocent one. All the best! Jeppiz (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained revisions to verified and finalized results of basketball games
You deleted my edits and said it wasn’t verified, which is false on every level. I’m confused as to what wasn’t verified? I put that the Las Vegas Aces were 2 time champions, and it was reverted back to 1 which is not true. I put that that they beat the Liberty in the Finals, which is true. I said Mark Davis also won in 2023 as the Aces owner, which is also true. People have since added what I put to the exact wording and it has stayed up. I’m just confused as to what the reasoning is, because everything I put is actually verified. I also asked for help linking a year, 2023 for example. This is not an insult to you, I’m just genuinely confused as to why it was erased for no reason. Hippo1764 (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, all additions require citations to reliable sources. From what I can see, none of the edits of yours that I reverted had any citations at all. Just because something is "true" (which your additions do seem to be) doesn't mean that it doesn't require a citation; the point of the verifiability policy is that a future reader should be able to find where each piece of information in an article came from. Hope that makes sense, if you have any further questions I encourage you to ask at the Teahouse or reply to me here! (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  12:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Woking Borough Council changes
The reason I removed the reference to https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/25/ministers-step-in-at-woking-council-as-debts-forecast-2bn was that it's highly subjective and doesn't actually back up the statement it makes.

The article from the Guardian says (which was copy-pasted into Wikipedia, so therefore it's contestable whether this is in the spirit of Wikipedia):

"Woking is the latest in a series of local authorities brought down by risky property deals over the past half decade, alongside Thurrock, Croydon, and Slough, each of which attempted to offset the impact of government funding cuts by using cheap Treasury loans to try to create alternative income schemes."

However, the rest of the article counters that statement by explaining how Woking got into immense debt through a spectacular array of failures, including how the CEO was able to spend up to £3m without oversight and the council didn't actually know what they were doing when they were purchasing property, along with failures such as lack of commercial research and lack of risk management - all nothing to do with central government policy.

Therefore, I think the statement is invalid and should be removed, as the sourced material doesn't justify the comment. 217.168.250.144 (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you for a couple of reasons:
 * I don't think it is highly subjective, it seems like a pretty fact-based statement, at least based on the source provided.
 * The content was not copy-pasted into Wikipedia, the sentences are kind of similar sure, but there are only so may different ways to write the same sentence.
 * I don't see how the other issues make this one inaccurate. Maybe the section needs to be expanded to include those things, but this sentence is still true.
 * The source provided said it is related to government funding, if you can provide another (reliable) source that shows otherwise, then you might have a case for removal, though I'd probably suggest trying to include both viewpoints if there are in fact opposing ones.
 * Hope that makes sense. Happy to discuss further, though it would probably good to continue the discussion on the article's talk page rather than my own so other interested editors could weigh in. (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  23:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

San Salvador History Proof
Arriving on 12 October 1492 It is widely believed that San Salvador Island is where Christopher Columbus first stepped ashore in the “New World” on his first expedition in 1492. There have been scientific studies using computer simulations of wind and water currents as well as scrutiny of the log’s copy and its measurements that lead to Samana Cay and Plana Cays, but without concrete evidence or actually being there when it happened, San Salvador remains the popular choice. Proof https://southernboating.com/destinations/bahamas/san-salvador-island/ SanSalvadorGuide (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yet again, please read the policy on reliable sources. A boating news website is not a good source for the history of an island. Additionally, you need to add citations using your source when you add text to the article, per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  01:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.infoplease.com/history/us/just-where-was-columbus SanSalvadorGuide (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)