User talk:Bueller 007/Archive 3

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Thanks for creating Ted Slavin.

User:Rosguill while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed,Rosguill talk 18:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

A new COIN section involves you
Howdy hello! I have opened a new section at WP:COIN regarding an incident in which you may be interested. The thread is WP:COIN. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Great work
Very well done on the Ddbarnes15 issue. I'm very impressed by how quickly you dealt with it. If ever you stand for election, I shall definitely vote for you. Epa101 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, EPA. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Jay Gordon (physician)
I wanted to see which apologist for child killing would turn up and say that things were "unbalanced".

I ask you this, if he was promoting Man-Boy love would you cut him the same slack?

This crank is proscribing proven scientific facts in favor of dangerous delusional conspiratorial BS.

I have reverted your propaganda as it's quite clear you are more concerned about mitigating the danger and lies spread by the likes of Gordon.

To actually be balanced and fair there should be parity between all articles.

Using your logic, you'd probably start an article on Hitler by saying he was a vegetarian, environmental, former landscape artist, yes? Or former cleric Joseph Stalin etc.

You're attempts at propaganda don't fool me. 81.141.61.86 (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You sound like a true intellect. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Preregistrarion
You slapped merge tags but did not bother to create merge talk. You changed redirect target to the article that speaks nothing medical. Please proceed in more systematized way, so that things may be discussed before you star moving them around. Please explain your phrase "also the disambig is unnecessary" Where was this this disambig? If it was in Preregistration page, please restore the old version (if you are an admin). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Graeme Smith (radio presenter) table now collapsed
On Graeme Smith (radio presenter) I changed the table you marked for clean up to start collapsed. How does that look? RJFJR (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's definitely better than it was, but it stills seems totally unneeded and a number of the rows seem totally pointless. Why is there a need for rows where both the preceded by and succeeded by are NA? The table seems like the most obstructive way possible to present what is essentially someone's CV, which is not the point of Wikipedia. It seems like not a single one of the shows (not networks) on which he was a presenter is notable enough to have its own page, so IMO, that means he has never held a position notable enough that his preceder or successor needs to be mentioned. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME violations on Rodney Reed
Please stop adding content to Rodney Reed that accuses non-public figures of crimes when they have not been convicted. Those are serious violations of WP:BLPCRIME against multiple individuals. Please remove that content immediately and instead participate in the discussions at the article's talk page or the BLPN thread. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rodney Reed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bastrop High School ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rodney_Reed check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rodney_Reed?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Vicky Ward
Please don't add dates/years of birth to biographies without citing a WP:RS. Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Edits requiring confirmation
Hello ; please could explanations be given for these two edits: (both edits have been reverted in the mean-time): Appreciations in advance, —Sladen (talk) —Sladen (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Special:Diff/927461769 changing Tesla Cybertruck ("Cybrtrk") to "Cybrtrkk"—additional of a second "K"; despite available citations.
 * 2) Special:Diff/927463789 changing Pierre Teilhard de Chardin from citations from 2014→1995—date apparently given in the metadata, after following the provided citation link.


 * 1. Because it's clearly "stylized" to look like it has two K's:  That you have a trademark reference to CYBRTRK does not mean that that is how it is "stylized".  That is a different matter.
 * 2. Because the book was published in 1995 as even a rudimentary check would reveal. Darwin's Dangerous Idea
 * Bueller 007 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bueller 007 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for the speedy reply;
 * 1. In the image at ; there are the overlapping letter "U-C-K" (drawn with graffiti straight lines, a bit like "…TRV<K"). There is no "double-K".
 * 2. Are two different editions of the same book being cited? editon can be used to reflect this, along with an HTML comment noting the difference.
 * —Sladen (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please show me where it is "stylized" as CYBRTRK. Do you know what stylization means?  It means like the movie "Seven" being graphically represented with the number 7.    There is nowhere that CYBERTRUCK has been stylized as CYBRTRK.  It is clearly spelled as CYBERTRUCK and stylized to look like CYBRTRKK.
 * They are not two different editions. The book was published once in 1995.  Bueller 007 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 142.160.131.220 (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Rodney Reed. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Stop restoring comments by blocked open proxy accounts. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Please also note that following a user around to other pages is a form of harassment per WP:HOUNDING, such as you following me to Talk:Cenk_Uygur. Please stop this type of behavior towards me immediately. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Hello, Bueller 007. I do not have conflicts of interest with pages I've been editing, nor have graduated from any common school, worked with, or have business relations with anyone I've edited, and have not been paid in any way to edit any page. thank you. Sahiljain22 (talk)

Eric Feigl-Ding
Hello. This is a message to let you know that you have made an edit summary that did not appear to be appropriate, civil or otherwise constructive, and it may have been removed. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.   B E C K Y S A Y L E S   09:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

On Hardin
I notice you've edited Garrett Hardin. I deleted a recent POV defamatory section there, but that was immediately reverted. So I'm attempting to get a consensus in Talk. Silence. I am hoping you might consider my arguments and comment or act there. Thanks for your consideration! 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:C0D1:5C88:8253:D748 (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Just Saying

advert tag for Western University of Health Sciences
I believe you tagged this article with an advert flag. I did a bunch of cleanup and removed the tag; I think it's much better now. I would encourage you to have a look and share your thoughts. Thanks! Rytyho usa (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"TOoS" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect TOoS. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Breonna Taylor
Thanks. I haven't finished going through your edits entirely, but the structure is much better. John2510 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Much appreciated. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiquette
I feel obliged to mention this is unacceptable. I suggest you avoid turning edit summaries into arguments in future. Deb (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Panjury - thanks
I noticed you removed the panjury.com "ref" from Freakonomics, which set me to wonder what that site is (was; it's dead now). It is (was) used as a reference (without the "score" part) on a handful of Wikipedia articles. Looking at the Wayback archive of those, it becomes clear that it was an unattributed mirror of Wikipedia (from about 2015), which then added some naff WP:USERGENERATED scoring guff. Even without the (really obvious) WP:CIRCULAR problem, I'm flummoxed as to why anyone thought to use a site that labelled itself "A Melting Pot of Subjectivity" as a reference was at all a wise idea. I think (hope) that I've excised all the remaining references. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Translation of Nishihara Kamezo
Hi! I saw your name on Translators_available. I was wondering if you were available to translate this page here from the japanese wikipedia onto the English one. I'm currently working on articles related to him and would greatly appreciate cleaning up that redlink. Warm regards A. C. Santacruz  ⁂  Talk  12:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Danchenko
I'm a bit uncertain about what you mean: "if you are going to include a quote from the document, this is a more accurate one. the document also says that the analyst didn't believe that he was completely fabricating events" Which document are those from? -- Valjean (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The document that is used to source the claim in question. The FBI interview summary. Bueller 007 (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are referring to the OIG report. That's what I thought, but I couldn't find those statements. Maybe I searched for the wrong words, or maybe my copy of the .pdf hasn't downloaded properly. What page(s) are they on? I found mine on or near this section: "Inconsistencies between Steele's Reporting and Information His Primary Sub-source Provided to the FBI." p. 241. -- Valjean (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm searching for these words: "did not know whether he could support a blanket statement that [Danchenko] had been entirely truthful".

Okay, I found it on p. 192. I can see that the .pdf file puts extra spaces in between words, making it difficult to find exact statements. Page searches don't always find them. Here is the whole paragraph, as downloaded. (I did fix the line breaks.) If you look at the raw text in edit mode, you'll see the spaces. The relevant quote is the last sentence:


 * "The Supervisory Intel Analyst told the OIG  that he  found  the Primary Sub-source's explanations about his/her contacts with this sub-source "peculiar" and that the Primary Sub-source could  have  been  minimizing  his/her relationship with the sub-source. The  Supervisory Intel Analyst agreed that press  reports discussing the sub-source's alleged  contacts with the Trump campaign  may have  motivated the Primary Sub-source to minimize the extent of his/her relationship with the sub-source. We  asked  the Supervisory Intel Analyst whether he  thought the Primary Sub-source had  been  truthful during his/her interview with the FBI. He  said  that he believed  that there were instances where the Primary Sub-source was "minimizing" certain  facts  but did  not believe that he/she was  "completely fabricating" events. The  Supervisory Intel Analyst stated that he  did  not know  whether he  could  support a "blanket statement" that the Primary Sub-source had  been  truthful."

Because you don't quote it exactly right, that made it difficult for me. The "blanket statement" part helped me find it. There is no "entirely" in the original.

I have dealt with this subject at Steele dossier. The FBI has always known about this problem. The IG found it difficult to discern the causes for the discrepancies between some allegations and explanations later provided to the FBI by the sources for those allegations. The IG attributed the discrepancies to three possible factors:
 * "These included miscommunications between Steele and the Primary Sub-source, exaggerations or misrepresentations by Steele about the information he obtained, or misrepresentations by the Primary Sub-source and/or sub-sources when questioned by the FBI about the information they conveyed to Steele or the Primary Sub-source."

Another factor was attempts by sources to distance themselves from the content attributed to them: "FBI documents reflect that another of Steele's sub-sources who reviewed the election reporting told the FBI in August 2017 that whatever information in the Steele reports that was attributable to him/her had been "exaggerated" and that he/she did not recognize anything as originating specifically from him/her. 347 The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she believed this sub-source was "one of the key sources for the 'Trump dossier'" and the source for allegations concerning Michael Cohen and events in Prague contained in Reports 135, 136, and 166, as well as Report 94's allegations concerning the alleged meeting between Carter Page and Igor Divyekin."

The Supervisory Intel Analyst believed this key sub-source "may have been attempting to minimize his/her role in the [dossier's] election reporting following its release to the public".

The FBI found that Igor Danchenko, the Primary sub-source, was "truthful and cooperative", but the Supervisory Intel Analyst said that "it was his impression that the Primary Sub-source may not have been 'completely truthful' and may have been minimizing certain aspects of what he/she told Steele".

Steele, in his latest ABC interview, mentioned this problem of the discrepancy. Because of uncertainties about coverage of the story by other RS, and the newness of the interview, it isn't mentioned in the Steele dossier article yet, but I think it might be possible to add a mention. It's mentioned in this thread on the talk page: Talk:Steele dossier. Here's Steele's explanation of the discrepancy, which echoes the FBI Supervisory Intel Analyst. Regarding one of his major sources for the pee tape allegation (there were others):
 * "Steele, in response, told Stephanopoulos that his collector may have "taken fright" at having his cover blown and tried to "downplay and underestimate" his own reporting when he spoke to the FBI."

This view is also mirrored by the FBI in the Inspector General's report: "The Supervisory Intel Analyst believed this key sub-source "may have been attempting to minimize his/her role in the [dossier's] election reporting following its release to the public" and "it was his impression that the Primary Sub-source may not have been 'completely truthful' and may have been minimizing certain aspects of what he/she told Steele".

So, from my OR interpretation, Danchenko originally reported to Steele what he had heard on his Moscow trip, which might have been told him as fact, even if it was rumors and dirty jokes about Trump and some hookers in the hotel. That does not make them untrue. Hookers in Moscow and Saint Petersberg were passing around stories of the alleged event and it became common knowledge in some circles. Danchenko might also have exaggerated. Then, in the process, Steele might have misunderstood the provenance of that info, and the FBI gave three possible explanations for discrepancies (mentioned above). Then, when interviewed after Danchenko had been outed/unmasked, the Supervisory Intel Analyst thought Danchenko was "minimizing", IOW was lying to the FBI, but he was never charged until now, but possibly for other lies. Was he lying to Steele?

Steele also had other sources unrelated to Danchenko for the hotel incident, and multiple intelligence agencies have reported that this was not the only compromising tape of Trump and sexual activities in Russia, so it can well be true. Cohen and Rtskhiladze believed there might be tapes out there and treated it as a real possibility. The Mueller Report, published on April 18, 2019, contains a footnote that suggests that Trump may have heard that Russia had incriminating tapes of his behavior. On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen had received a text from Giorgi Rtskhiladze reporting that he had successfully stopped the "flow of tapes from Russia". Rtskhiladze told investigators that these were compromising tapes of Trump, and Cohen told investigators he had spoken to Trump about the issue. Rtskhiladze later told investigators "he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen".

The fact that Trump, totally out of the blue and unprompted, lied multiple times to Comey about the alleged incident, was enough to turn Comey from a skeptic to a "maybe" peeliever, and Comey is an expert at understanding when and why someone is lying, yet here Trump was blatantly telling easily disprovable lies. That's part of FBI training. Why would Trump lie about the story if he was innocent? Add to that the fact that such a deed would be entirely in character for him. No one who knows him would be surprised if it were true. We may never find out what really happened, but the existing video that's out there does fit the dossier's description exactly and does not fit the media's sensationalized retellings. It might be fake, but it's a good one.

That was a tangent, so back to the original situation. I think we should include both the original version plus your quote. We lose important information by deleting the original. -- Valjean (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Danchenko at Brookings Institution
As you have contributed material on Danchenko's indictment, you may find these discussions of interest:

1) Talk:Brookings Institution

2) Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard Deicas (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Eric Feigl-Ding
Hi there - I notice you have been making some edits to Eric Feigl-Ding, attempting to remove promotional material and include more critical information. I really appreciate these efforts as they are in line with things I have wanted to do in the article as well. Wanted to flag for you that there has been a long-running dispute over the inclusion of this criticism, which has previously led to multiple edit wars - it might be valuable to initiate discussion on Talk:Eric Feigl-Ding to see if we can prevent one from happening this time. GlobeGores (talk page | user page)

"Mass formation" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mass formation and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 18:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Toronto Sun, you may be blocked from editing. Funny how you think a direct quotation of "Canada's most accomplished practitioner of tabloid journalism" is editorializing when you're the one who is changing sourced content because it disagrees with your opinions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Toronto Sun. Stop blanking sourced content.... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice threat. "Disruptive editing" ban over a *disagreement* because I reverted your reversion.  *Once.*  I guess that's easier than acknowledging that you were wrong, that my last edit summary was 100% correct, and that you had to change the article to reflect the fact that you were wrong.  P.S., I didn't "blank sourced content"... I changed the target of a link. To the correct target. Aren't administrators supposed to be held to some kind of honesty standard? Bueller 007 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

please do not go low with me
thanks soibangla (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

1rr
In case you're unaware based on the giant red notice at the top of the page when you edit it this article is under a 1rr restriction and about half a dozen other sanctions. So consider that before editing it again. CUPIDICAE💕 23:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears that your last notice was over a year ago, so... – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm posting another topic area alert below. I'm relatively sure that this is the topic area Muboshgu intended in his first notice just above. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"what is inaccurate?"
is not the right question soibangla (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * then don't revert anything. "lede bloat" is irrelevant.  The lede I wrote is perfectly within the guidelines at MOS:LEAD. In fact, it follows those guidelines BETTER because the lede is supposed to summarize the contents of the article.  The contents of the article include what the NY Post was claiming and where they say the laptop came from.  Bueller 007 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Hunter Biden laptop controversy
Hi Bueller 007. A few of your recent edits been reverts to restore disupted content. Per WP:ONUS, you should be building consensus for new, disputed material instead. At the time of your reverts, there was no such consensus. I prefer not to template the regulars, so please consider this something equivalent to Template:Uw-ew. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at Hunter Biden laptop controversy
Your recent editing history at Hunter Biden laptop controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Go to WP:RS/N and get the policy changed before trying this again. It's getting disruptive when you keep restoring it when there is obvious disagreement about it. This is still a BRD situation. Your BOLD edit was REVERTED, so you should stick to DISCUSSION and not restore your bold edit, which is obviously controversial because using it in the article, even as an External link, violates policies. Violating BRD is edit warring. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Important notice
Renat 05:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Help
Please, can you help me to create these pages from Japanese: Ise Yoshimori, Kataoka Tsuneharu, Kamei Shigekiyo, Suruga Jirō, Washio Yoshihisa, Bizen Heishirō, Karasumaru family. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.35.64.177 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I decided to support you at NeuroQuantology
Please check this information:

The October 2022 issue of NeuroQuantology has 523 articles, including dozens of articles on how to follow Islam:


 * The jurisprudential choices of the scholar Ibn al-Aqbal al-Hanafi, may God have mercy on him (T: 774 AH) in cutting the road from writingCare in abstracting issues of guidance (a comparative study).
 * What was mentioned on three aspects according to the Shafi’is from the book Al-Bayan Al-Omrani (T.: 558 AH) regarding the structure of ablution, ablution and tayammum of the apostate and its impact on contemporary fatwas. A comparative study.
 * The impact of the Prophet's hadith in grammatical studies
 * The requirement of justice for those who take over the judiciary (From the choices of Imam Ibn Al-Aqrab Al-Hanafi in his book Al-Care in the Abstract Issues of Guidance/Chapter of Judgment)
 * Jurisprudential choices of the scholar Ibn-AlAqrab God rest his soul (D: 774 A.H) about the waiting period in his book Care in abstracting Divine guidance issues (comparative study).
 * The jurisprudential choices of the scholar Ibn al-Aqbal al-Hanafi, may God have mercy on him (T: 774 AH) in cutting the road from writingCare in abstracting issues of guidance (a comparative study)
 * The jurisprudential choices of the scholar Ibn Al-Aqrab Al-Hanafi - may God have mercy on him - (T.: 774 AH) In reconciliation from his book Care in the Abstraction of Guidance Issues - A Comparative Study-
 * The provisions of the pitfall in Islamic jurisprudence, the chapter on worship

The journal also publishes articles that are completely unrelated to neurology or quantum mechanics, for example:


 * Effect of COVID 19 on Menstrual Cycle

If you nominate the article for deletion, I will support it. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate
Yes, I've combined three citations via unbulleted list citebundle to avoid WP:CITEKILL. Don't exactly know how this "fucks up" reference numbers or what your issue was there. Also, non-English sources are perfectly usable; foreign language in and of itself does not make a source somehow less reliable. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 16:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)