User talk:Njd-de/Archive 3

Reverting to old version of Diet for a Small Planet wiki page?
Hello, You seemed to have reverted this book page to an older version just now. I am sorry if I didn't do something right when updating the Diet for a Small Planet Wikipedia page. But I actually work for the author, Frances Moore Lappe, and all the text was written by Frances and the images are hers with permission. How do fix anything I did wrong and then can I revert back to the updated version? I am so sorry if I messed up something. I was making a lot of edits today. First to change all the hyperlinks to citations and then to try to get the formatting of the images and subheading to align correctly. Please help, I really need to get this Wikipedia page updated for Frances, the author, because the 50th anniversary edition is being released on Sept. 21st.

Thank you, Heather Packard Managing Director at Small Planet Institute heather@smallplanet.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluewatergreenmountains (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for reaching out to me. I can understand you feel the need to get this article updated, however Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, and we are not in a particular rush here. Please have a look on your talk page where I left you a message regarding paid editing. After reading the WP:PAID-policy, and taking appropriate acitons, it will be best if you make edit-requests on the article talk page. You can do so by either using the -template, or simply use the edit request wizard. It makes it easier for everyone though if you split your edit requests into separate requests. Also they should adhere to our manual of style (e.g. the font shouldn't be large) and everything needs to be verifiable with reliable sources (preferentially sources not by the subject of the article). If you have any questions, then let me know. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply back
Hi Njd-de, I am not paid for anything. I am an honest contributor of Wikipedia contributing and improving Wikipedia data because there are many topics which has wrong information. Yes in last few days I was editing AGW Bharat because it is a new brand in India in media news organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiara Comms (talk • contribs) 07:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, ok understood. However, your edits would indicate otherwise. It appears you are only here to promote AGW Bharat, Naveen Prasad and Privesh Pandey. Please note that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, and in case you do have a conflict of interest (paid or not paid doesn't matter) you definitely need to disclose this. – NJD-DE (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * But Njd-de I don't know them then how can I promote them. I just say these data from LinkedIn & many other sources are doing good in the Journalism field. And I used to add because there are many articles on them. Then only I add them. I add only credible names links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiara Comms (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright . This is not how Wikipedia works though. Only those organizations or people who meet Wikipedia's standard of notability can have their own article, and only these should be included in such lists. Them appearing on LinkedIn is clearly not enough to establish notability. We need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. LinkedIn is not one of these. – NJD-DE (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Dead link on Krishna Bharat
Thanks Njd-de — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krantikari azad (talk • contribs) 11:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing the dead link and finding an archive link. You can have a look at my edit to see what I did in order to include the archive link in the reference. In case you have any questions, let me know. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it was a mistake
Dear Njd-de, Could you please reconsider the content you removed from Mr Bill Inmon's page? Actually I am Ranjeet Srivastava and I am the Co-Author of those books into that discussion. So request you to resume those changes. It is marked as some 'spam' update or so. Please note that it is not spam or so, it is a genuine news about Bill Inmon's upcoming books in print. Please help us resume that very important information. You also removed information about its 60 books publication. Please don't do that and mark it as a safe change. You can reach me anytime for any clarifications. Regards, Ranjeet Srivastava (user - Toranjeet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toranjeet (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, I suppose you weren't logged in when you made the edit. Anyways, I reverted the edit as a lot of external links were added that per the community guidelines are not supposed to be part of articles (e.g. links to LinkedIn accounts, Amazon,..). You appear to have a financial interest in your edits here, so please familiarize yourself with the policy WP:PAID and take the appropriate actions mentioned there. Also, editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing articles directly. Instead please requests edits on the article#s talk page using the template, or the edit request wizard. Thanks! – NJD-DE (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NJD-DE, thanks for being the middle man here. Toranjeet, we don't do announcements, unless they are so important that secondary sources report on them. The Inmon article suffers from a whole lot of promotionalism. A user named User:DanielkHartness added a whole bunch of Amazon links, and your addition is also not encyclopedic since it's unverified and, after all, we are an encyclopedia, not a site for resumes or announcements. Now, as a co-author you have a conflict of interest; please follow the guidelines in the template that I just put on your talk page. Thank you. Njd-de, thanks again. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing things up for everyone . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎DanielkHartness (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

reversal theory
I do not have a financial stake in reversal theory - there is no money to be made from my position. I am a university student who appreciates the theory. My most recent edits are because I attended the recent online conference. I am in no way violating wikipedia's policies by editing this page. 138.47.128.67 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)PsycMJ


 * Hi, I noticed you left the same message at User talk:PsycMJ, so I have replied there. – NJD-DE (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Data mining
Reply: Information icon Hello, I'm Njd-de. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Contributions added were all about scientific research that was very related to the contents of the article edited and they were both referenced and supported by published scientific articles. The contributions were neither promotional nor advertising. Scientific data mining and data mining process automation are major directions in the field and worth being added to the data mining page. In addition, the contribution added to CRISP-DM was also relevant, since the published process model is considered an extension and improvement to CRISP-DM. I am happy to revise my contributions if you have suggestions, but undo them all is not right. User:SingularityEye — Preceding unsigned comment added by SingularityEye (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello ! The additions were improperly referenced, and with only a primary source they appear promotional. Edits by subject matter experts are appreciated. However, if you do have a conflict of interest or have any kind of financial interest in adding these references you will need to declare that. – NJD-DE (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind response and kind consideration. First, I would like to confirm that I have no conflict of interest and that I have no financial interests of any kind. The only objective for the modification is referring to recent trends and research directions in the field of data mining namely "scientific data mining" and "data mining process automation" which is very relevant to the edited topics. However, while I appreciate any help in correcting the citation style and refencing, I would like to confirm that the main reference is formally published as a refereed journal article by the prestigious publisher IEEE, while the other is published as a supporting document to the main article by arXiv which is also used widely used by all researchers. Thank you again, and I am happy to answer any further questions in this regard. u|SingularityEye (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All the edits which I have are being reverted based on wrong accusations. Once by claiming that the modifications are motivated by financial interest and once by claiming that the cited reference is promotional. I would like to highlight the fact The cited reference is a refereed journal article that was published by IEEE as a pure reserach article without any financial or commercial interest. The published work was conducted as a research project that aimed to contribute data mining body of knowledge by improving and enhancing the data mining process in general and scientific data mining in particular. I am happy to discuss the matter with you in a pure scientific fashion, but I would like to kindly ask stopping reverting all the changes which I make to the article (SingularityEye (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC))
 * Hi, TooMuchSpam has left a good answer on your talk page on why this shouldn't be included in the article. The only thing I would like to add is that it seems you have a conflict of interest there, and would like to stree the point that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Fellows - admission of conflict of interest
Hi,

I’d like to acknowledge that I have a conflict of interest when it comes to Fellows. I’m his publicist. I have knowledge that his most recent book is going to get more media attention in the coming weeks and months.

With your permission, can I feed you articles and you put them on his page as you see fit?

Thanks and I apologize for not admitting this sooner. Makepeace222 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for reaching out to me. One important thing I wanna begin with is that WP is not a place for promotion, and even though articles cover a subject, the subject doesn't own the article. With that being said please familiarize yourself with the policy on paid editing. You can then make edit requests using the template on the article's talk page, or make use of the edit request wizard. Other editors (incl. me) will notice these requests and include these changes in an article if they are in line with the WP policies and guidelines (e.g. not promotional, sourced with reliable sources, relevant to the article ..).
 * One last question though: Is this your first/only account or have you been editing under a different username in the past? – NJD-DE (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have been using different usernames in the past. I was the first one to originate his page two years ago. I understand that it is not for promotion. I was not aware of the the paid editing. Again, I am sorry for delegitimizating Wikipedia with my actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makepeace222 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

udbhavsirvastav WP:PE can you help me edit my draft
hey so i am new to wikipedia and i am trying to create this article but having so much difficulties creating it because there is so less information available online so i was thinking it will be so much easier if there is someone like you to guide me can you help Udbhavsirvastav (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I can understand Wikipedia can be confusing in the first days. Your edits imply you are not entirely new to this though, and not entirely new to our policies. But anyway...
 * If you have specific questions regarding policies then I will be happy to direct you in the right direction. However, there is an important thing: The vast majority of us are here voluntarily and the only compensation we receive is the nice feeling of achievement, positive feedback from other users, and maybe a barnstar from time to time.
 * In comparison to that, you receive payments from a client for your contributions as you disclosed on your user page (and it was good to disclose that). But that also means if you need help writing the draft, then don't expect others to e.g. do the research for references. That is part of the job your client hired you for.. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

One more thing I must confess when it comes to editing Thomas Fellows' page
Hi,

I wanted to bring one other thing to your attention that I did wrong. All the edits I made were clearly sourced, although I admit, some were promotional. There was one edit, however, that was clearly misleading. That edit was the one about Tiger Woods. It is true that he is in Fellows’ book, and there was an article in the “Augusta Chronicle” stating this, but I went overboard in saying that the article claimed to have said that Woods has become a better person as a result of the suffering. The article never stated that.

Considering my client has benefited from Wikipedia in his own research in his own books, for me to to do something that egregious is the highest form of betrayal. I am truly sorry for my actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makepeace222 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, some of the edits in the article were promotional indeed, and in other instances sources were provided but not reliable enough/enough significant coverage to justify inclusion of the content. So regarding Tiger Woods: Are you referring to this edit here? Does it mean one of the previous accounts you used was Billywhite86?– NJD-DE (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this edit is actually factual and not misleading, but I think a few days later, or a few weeks later, I added that Woods had become a better person, which was not in the article. To answer your question, yes, Billywhite86 was me...

Just so you know, I'm sending 60 books to the Texas media this week for them to review. I don't know how well-versed you are in book reviews, but the small rural papers, generally do not provide much negative feedback like the a paper such as the "New York Times" or "Washington Post." 90% of the books are going to small papers. So what may seem promotional in their reviews, is a product of them being a small rural paper in the South who appreciates the Christian message of the book. Although paradoxically, speaking of religion, in the epigraph of the book, which means the page before the start of the book where a quote or two is used, he has quotes from Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makepeace222 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, the practice of sending the book such a large number of small media outlets with no relation to Fellows explains some of the edits, including the phrase All three books have garnered local media attention but have failed to receive national press. Before placing an edit request in the future about adding such a phrase along with a bunch of references, you might be interested in WP:CITEKILL. Also, if a paper is just reprinting a press release then Wikipedia is not interested in including that review in an article. – NJD-DE (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Pir Jhando
I want to talk about Pir ehsanullah shah rashdi Pir of jhando Pirjhando (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, what do you like to discuss about Pir Jhando? – NJD-DE (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sir I published real information of my ancestral village Dargah sharif Pir Jhando why did you removed before? We have very sensitive matter we have to correct our information Pirjhando (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite simply as you replaced sourced content with what appears to be original research. Original research describes content for which no reliable source exists, and/or for which the only source is your own knowledge or stuff published by you. Please provide reliable sources in your edits, and refrain from adding honorifics. – NJD-DE (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok sir I'm gonna add some more sources but please first search that source om Google which I provide God bless you Pirjhando (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The Oncor correction
I corrected the Oncor information from Sempra link. Stating the San Diego, California is the headquarter for Oncor Eletric. Please look into the iink. Dallas doesn't the headquarters listed in Sempra link. We need Dallas not to be Oncor headquarter because a group suggest its the city to use.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:d40:4680:916:b6ff:31d1:881d (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for reaching out to me. I understand that Sempra Energy is based in Cali. According to the Oncor website, their HQ is still in Dallas though: "This Website is owned and operated by Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (“Oncor”) with offices at 1616 Woodall Rodgers Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75202". Do you have any reliable source that would indicate otherwise? Also, who is We, and who is this group which suggest its the city to use? – NJD-DE (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Children's health defense
"Misinformation" should be removed. The page itself is incredibly biased and slanted. The page is not neutral at all Wendigo10721 (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello . You may discuss the article on its talk page. However, Wikipedia only states what reliable sources say, and if they call it misinformation, then this is what we are going to include in the article. You can read more about that at WP:NPOV. – NJD-DE (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * One source citing the where the information came from, from a very "pro vaccine" institution does not make it so or the gold standard by any means. That is not transparent, neutral, or credible. Wendigo10721 (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, you can bring forward your points on the article's talk page, and then reach a consensus on changing the article. However please note that discrediting a source because you consider it to be a very "pro vaccine" institution won't be enough. – NJD-DE (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A few proposed changes to Thomas Fellows' article
Hello again, I did the edit request thing like you said....

Wanted to remove the promotional tag, add in that Fellows did grow up in Atlanta, and I have 3 reliable sources that state that Fellows currently resides in Houston. Here they are below.

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2277860554637/etcetera-the-art-of-embracing-suffering-is-focus-of-houston-author-s-latest-book

https://www.kcbd.com/2021/06/23/texas-author-discusses-mrs-duboses-last-wish-art-embracing-suffering/

https://www.crossroadstoday.com/author-embraces-suffering-in-his-new-book-inspired-by-how-to-kill-a-mockingbird/

FellowsPR82 (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello . I suppose you are referring to communication between one of your previous accounts and me, right? Per Wikipeda policy "sanctions apply to individual editors as people, not to accounts". This means that instead of creating new accounts, you will need to address the block of your original account. Otherwise your new accounts will most likely get blocked again and again.. – NJD-DE (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am not great with technology. Let me go back to my previous messages and see if I can do this. I might need to reach out to you for further assistance.

FellowsPR82 (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Changing Draft:Rozy B Negusei to Rozina Negusei
Hello Njd-de i would like to change the Name of My draft from Rozy B Negusei to Rozina Negusei this is because the Subject is widely and professionally know by the names Rozina Negusei and Rozy B Negusei is just an alias. I do not know how to move the page without leaving a redirection. Thank you very Much in advance. Hercot (Hercot ) 14:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolie_Stahl
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rdannin (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Rdannin, I appreciate you informing me about this. However, I can't seem to find a thread at the admins' incidents noticeboard that would involve me. Am I missing something ? – NJD-DE (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Dispute resolution
 * Njd-de - Given your reluctance to help I asked an admin to intervene.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justlettersandnumbers#How_to_resolve_a_frivolous_DPOV
 * Rdannin (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, reluctance to help ? We are all volunteers here, and again you don't own the article and get to decide what it looks like. Also please do not spread this discussion across various venues, when it's already taking place at an admin noticeboard: the BLP one.– NJD-DE (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Didn't want to make you think I was being dishonest about Fellows; I saw the failed verification
Hi, here is the article providing the documentation for this sentence: "It also gives tips for overcoming clinical depression which Fellows has struggled with since he graduated high school."

https://www.mdjonline.com/neighbor_newspapers/northside_sandy_springs/community/buckhead-resident-pens-book-on-the-golden-rule/article_7fd51664-c563-11e7-9d96-0356937cfec9.html

I didn't want you to think I was being dishonest. Thanks for all of your help.

Redblack215 (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

List of English words of Irish origin
Hi Njd-de, I am having sincere challenges FIXING this page. Someone did a nice job of attempting to describe the origin of words by taking the supposed origins from the Oxford English Dictionary - a text well-known to perpetuate institutional anti-Irish bigotry that habitually declares that words in MY NATIVE LANGUAGE are mere "slang" or of "unknown origin".

The simple fact is that the three best and most frequently used Irish-English and English-Irish dictionaries used for more than the last half century provide the correct information - and I hope that makes sense to you.

That said, those three dictionaries, written in Ireland, have been digitized for a searchable resource hosted by Foras na Gaeilge, which happens to be the official body advising public and private enterprises in Ireland regarding the use of Irish (Gaeilge), including those works presented by the Irish government.

This is NOT advertising - this is using the most respected resource on the world wide web available, and it's use becomes amplified for the Wiki user because it also has a grammar reference AND an audio guide for pronouncing the Irish words in all three remaining dialects.

PLEASE - my entries should not be flagged. They should be respected as I am not only using the only resources truly acceptable for the language, but I am doing so in a way that ensures that anyone seeking to understand the work may find additional information with a single click.

I am, however, challenged by people who are NOT native speakers attempting to rely on English definitions for the Irish terms. I don't know what to do, but it seems they are intent on doing anything feasible to disrupt good honest work by someone who is not only a native speaker, but actually teaches formally.

Sincerely, J. Pádraig Malone JPatrickMalone (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi JPatrickMalone, to be honest I can't say much about the content of the article. What made me edit the article was that it didn't conform with Wikipedia's external link guideline. External links should be placed in a separate section, or used as references but not inline (for more details see WP:EL). Your edits appeared promotional to me as the majority of them added such links. If that was not your intention, I am sorry for the harsh welcome. – NJD-DE (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Baby hatch
Please can you assist by updating some information regarding South Africa on the Baby Hatch page as we are struggling to do soBaby Saver (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for reaching out to me. It appears you are representing organization that is involved in informing about baby hatches in ZA. As such you may have a conflict of interest. I will leave some helpful notes about this on your talk page. Generally speaking you are advised to not edit the article Baby hatch directly but instead propose edits on the article talk page. Of course these must be referenced by reliable sources, e.g. statistical numbers can't just be changed without having a reference for them.– NJD-DE (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Njd-de, thank you. I have requested edits on the page and given the website addresses to confirm the stats to be edited 197.90.89.104 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Reg: Copyright Claim
Actually the content I am trying to post is in panimalar.ac.in website. The copyright claim that your are raising is not valid as the content url=careers360.com/colleges/panimalar-engineering-college-chennai/facilities itself is copied from our college website. 1. https://www.panimalar.ac.in/green-campus.php 2. https://www.panimalar.ac.in/internet.php 3.https://www.panimalar.ac.in/hostel.php

So I kindly request you to remove the copyright claim and allow me to post the content. As I am being the social presence coordinator of panimalar engineering college, I have the authorization to copy content from our college website as The content itself was posted by me in the website. So please remove the copyright claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqlmy321 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Sqlmy321, this content will still not be included in the article. Even when it's from the university there are copyright issues (Copyright © 2021 Panimalar Engineering College. All Rights Reserved.). Also Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. As an editor with a conflict of interest you are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. You may propose changes to the article on the talk page instead. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Njd-de, I think that you misunderstood, I am not trying to promote or I am not being paid for doing these changes. I was told by my students that the colleges details are not updated in Wikipedia, so many students are finding it difficult to find details about the college. So, I made the edits. Then you raised a copyright claim. so i was trying to explain you that the content available in url=careers360.com/colleges/panimalar-engineering-college-chennai/facilities is itself copied from the college website (panimalar.ac.in). So, It will not be an valid copyright claim so, I was trying to tell you that the author of the content in the college website from which url=careers360.com/colleges/panimalar-engineering-college-chennai/facilities copied the content is me and I absolutely not being paid even a penny for this charity work I am solely doing this as contribution so that some people could get benefit from it. and I am also no longer part of the organization but i am an mentor to the web design team. My edit was not based on monetary benefits. So, i kindly request you to please remove the copyright and accept the changes and also not to ban me. I am also new to Wikipedia so i hope that you will help me. Thanking you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqlmy321 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that careers360.com has been copying from the uni website. This doesn't change the fact though that copying the material from the uni website to Wikipedia is also a copyright violation. Even if the college would release the content under a free license it would still not be included as it's promotional. Please read again the policies to understand what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not. Good start would be WP:NOTPROMO. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining Now i understand it. Can i make changes now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqlmy321 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as you are not copying texts that are protected by copyright, and as long as your non-promotional edits come with reliable references you are fine to do so.– NJD-DE (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to add photo, but being rejected because another file with similar name had been deleted.
Dear Njd-de:

The photo is not copyrighted. I don't know how to get out of this loop. Is this an appropriate issue for you to address? I appreciate any guidance you can give me.

Warm regards, Henry Abraham MD (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Henry Abraham MD


 * Hello Henry Abraham MD, I haven't come across that particular issue so far to be honest. Do you have the name of the file that has been deleted? Maybe I see something that might help. Otherwise you could ask at the Commons helpdesk. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear NJD-DE: So refreshing to connect with a human being! I am a 79 y.o. newbie to editing Wiki, so I appreciate your offer to help. I must admit there are a maze of instructions to follow, but there's hope. I did further research on the rejection of my photo from the Wiki page Henry David Abraham. The photo was originally taken by my wife for the jacket of one of my books in 2004. The published book ("What's A Parent to Do?", New Horizon Press, NJ, 2004), and so the photo, was copyrighted by me. My personal file name for it was "HDA headshot.jpg". I'm sure the photo was also on my website at the time, DrAbraham.com, deleted several years ago. I can't say if it was on a Wiki page under my name, but I used it twice before. Is that the problem? Uploading the photo of myself a third time, to Wiki, was a test to see if I was learning the edit process correctly. I believe the deleted file that Wiki flagged was "henry_david_abraham.jpg", but I will have to go back to the error message to be sure. If it's something else, I'll let you know.

A larger matter is that until now I never had anything to do with the page, and don't recall checking it for accuracy. When I did a few days ago, I found it had sins of omission and commission, jumbling the description of my career, and ignoring the awards I received over the years, including the fact that I'm a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize of 1985. I have adequate documentation for them, including one photo of my American team and me holding the Prize itself. I imagine this is a common problem for living persons to seek better accuracy of the information provided. I realize I can't make substantial changes myself. How best to proceed? May I ask someone like a journalist to edit the page instead? Any additional advice you can provide would be great. I will also see what the Commons helpdesk says. Many thanks,Henry Abraham MD (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Henry Abraham MD

Peter Spirer's Page
Hello, I am reaching out because of your comment and disabling of Peter Spirers updated page. I'm confused with some of the claims you made in the article. If you could please g into more detail and help me to correct the matter it would be greatly appreciated. Cjack427 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Cjack427


 * Hello Cjack427, thanks for reaching out to me. I reverted to an earlier version of the article, as you removed content and added new content without providing references using reliable sources. IMDb, other Wikipedia articles, and links to homepages of websites (e.g. www.oscars.org) aren't reliable sources.
 * Just wanna let you know, in case you have a connection to the article's subject you may have a conflict of interest. You'd need to disclose that, and are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly in that case. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey NJD-DE, Thank you for clearing these issues with me. Is there any way I can re-edit the most updated version or do I have to start from scratch again? This is my first time updating a page like this so any advice would be helpful!Cjack427 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Cjack427


 * You can go back in the history of the article and find the version you created: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Spirer&oldid=1049613960. Please do not save that as the current version though without making the changes by adding proper references first. Thanks. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Potential sock
You seem to have a good idea of what behavior indicates a Philippinesfan sock, does LoveonToppo raise any alarms? Notfrompedro (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Notfrompedro, I noticed Popinoy in my watchlist when you posted the message here :D It looks very much like them. There's a Popinoy article on simplewiki created by one of their socks, and that one is remarkably similar: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=POPinoy&oldid=7623381. – NJD-DE (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I submitted a sock report using your evidence of a duplicate article. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Notfrompedro! – NJD-DE (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Biased deletion
For some odd reason a user named Bbb23 has decided to delete all my recent contributions (including a full page which I had carefully created with media sources and unbiased content). Whenever I tried to talk to him my comments were instantly deleted. Judging by what's written on the said page, this is not the first time this user has caused problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterflySuplex (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello ButterflySuplex! Bbb23 is a highly-respected administrator. I have not seen them causing problems in the past, and certainly they aren't causing any in this case.
 * Please do not restore comments on talk pages when the talk page owner has given clear instructions not to do so. Also if a fellow user objects an edit, then per WP:BRD it's up to you to discuss this and gain consensus for your edits. Not doing so and just making the same edits again and again is considered disruptive. – NJD-DE (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

inappropriate date citation
Hi Njd-de, you deleted a piece I added, where I inadvertently put the incorrect date citation. Before I could fix it, the entire edit was deleted. Did you have an issue with the incorrect date, or the entire post? If the former, I'm happy to fix it; if the latter, it would be good to know how you felt the information was not useful. I am new at Wikepedia editing so appreciate your perspectives on this. Cascadia98 (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Cascadia98, the majority of your edits appear to be adding links to viristar.com, or referencing a book with URL to that site. Spamming of references is a form of promotion, and against guidelines/policies. Therefore, I reverted this edit. Please do not attempt at using Wikipedia for promotion. Also in case you have any form of conflict of interest with your edits you will need to disclose that. Thanks. – NJD-DE (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi NJD-DE, I understand your concern. I appreciate your work to educate editors new to Wikipedia, such as me. I will keep your comments in mind. Cascadia98 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks S0091, and thanks for not letting them escape our questions. Let's see if they understood, and will accept their block. I am afraid sooner or later one of their articles will show up in my watchlist again though. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's hope not but if they do, you have left a good trail. Unfortunately too much of our time as volunteers is taken up with such non-sense but I do not see that changing.  Honstely, I see it getting worse.  However, generally we do a good job dealing with it.  S0091 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah you are right! Me too, I feel like this issue is growing. But maybe it's just my perception due shift of focus here over time.
 * Funny thing is that I can't remember ever having interacted with you here up until now, and then right now I noticed your name also in the history of a draft you declined. I strongly believe I know the creator already.. – NJD-DE (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to ping you. Urrgh. Guess it's time to shut my brain off for a while, and watch some Netflix. – NJD-DE (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph edits
Thanks for the welcome to the Wikipedia community, NJD-DE. I am sorry, but I am new at this. No I have not received money for my edits to the Daily Telegraph page and nor do I expect to be paid for it. I used to work for the Daily Telegraph, but was made redundant in August 2021, and I was preparing material for job interviews when I came across the Telegraph page. I noticed that about 90 per cent of it was about what the newspaper has done wrong, in terms of breaches of ethics, so I was trying to add some balance to the article as suggested by the box above the article. I started by adding some of the history of the paper, which was based on research I had done while I was at the paper. I think, perhaps, I went a bit too far making it sound like the Telegraph has done lots of great things, but I later added some extra bits to pull that back. Everything up to the section on the Digital Era is pretty even-handed, but some of the things under the heading "Campaigns" might read like an advertisement for the Telegraph. That was not my intention. Like I said, I no longer work for the Telegraph, but having worked there I know that, as a journalist, I was able to write plenty of things in favour of issues such as doing something about climate change and also plenty of articles about LGBTQI people that were objective (or even positive). Objectivity is what I strive for, or at least presenting two sides to an issue. Would it be possible to reinstate most of the early history and I will work on a more balanced look at the things the Telegraph has done (right and wrong) in more recent times? Yours Troyantonius. 21 October 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyantonius (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Troyantonius, thanks for reaching out to me, and apologies for the late reply. I now even noticed you had already posted a message for me on your talkpage. I am currently following way too many pages, and missed your message. Sorry for that. Small tip for you for the future: you can make people aware of messages by pinging them. Just mention their username by writing and sign the edit using four tildes (~).
 * OK so about the The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)-article: Thanks for your honesty regarding your former employment there, and I am sorry to hear you were made redundant. I am not sure actually how the community sees conflict of interest in case of former employment. In any case it's good that you are trying to get other editors involved by posting on the article talk page, and I think it's also fine if you edit the article. There are some things to bear in mind though that might make it bit more complicate: Generally Wikipedia is a collection of publicly available information. This means when writing here you should have some reliable sources in front of you, and purely focus on what they write about the article subject. I am sure you have an extended knowledge on the Telegraph, but we can really only include things here that are referenced. And preferably referenced to independent, reliable sources to avoid sounding promotional.
 * One really important thing is mentioned in one of WP's core policy, the one on verifiability: Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
 * Let me know if you have any questions, or you can also ask other experienced editors at the teahouse. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone seems to be intent on undoing everything that I have written about the history of the Telegraph. The person keeps saying it is irrelevant and a "bloat". Can whoever it is be banned from undoing my edits until they at least discuss them? Troyantonius (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on Tree Fu Tom
I added warnings to these two users because there doing vandalism. 185.69.144.207 (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for keeping the Wiki tidy and clean by reverting vandalism.
 * You can treat 2001:818:E69D:EA00:B5B0:2BDB:6975:861E and 001:818:E69D:EA00:DD74:BC9F:F8F8:D979 ‎as the same user. Their full IP is different but it's the same /64-range. In case you see them or others continuing with that nonsense, you could ask for protection of that page or if it's always the same user report them for vandalism. Let me know if you have any questions, or need help in dealing with vandalism on that article. – NJD-DE (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I told the other user to stop stealing episode episode titles from Thomas and Friends and others. 185.69.144.202 (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have warned another IP now. Thanks for pointing out where they have these titles from. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's another user that is adding season six where the show ended in 2016, It doesn't make any sense and the user is still stealing episode titles from other shows so could you add a warning? 85.255.234.207 (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I think it's been enough warnings now, and reported them at AIV. – NJD-DE (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That IP-range has been blocked, and the article protected for 4 months. Unfortunately this affects you as well, so in case you want to change something you can propose it on the article talk page using the -template or let me know here.  – NJD-DE (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Design By Contract
Recently you removed an additional reference on the Design by contract page with the claim that it was inappropriate. Specifically a reference to the Decorator Contracts library. This is a mistake and should be restored. The library referenced is of equal to greater value than the other references in that list. The library dbc-code-contracts which was already there was not removed. What makes the existing ones relevant and appropriate but my addition not? With at least a dozen other external references to appropriate libraries in the list, why single this one out for removal? Either allow my addition or remove the others for consistency. -TNO- (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 31 October 2021‎
 * Hello, I don't have an opinion on which library is less and which one is more relevant. The only reason I reverted your edit is because you added an unnecessary external link and nothing indicates notability. Also we should generally only include items in lists if we have already have an article on them or we have a reference to a reliable source.
 * It may very well be that the list already is in an unacceptable form with non-notable list entries and external links. That is not a reason to add even more of them to it though. – NJD-DE (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

School of Rock TV series and Lip Sync Battle Shorties
Hello Amaury is still reverting two edits that I made, I added the missing production companies but he's still doing so can you add warnings to him? I'll let you have a deal. 217.137.43.113 (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Just be specific
Instead of removing my link and referring me to the links guidelines, can you be more specific about why you removed my link? Sir Sydney (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Sir Sydney, it appears you are mainly here to spam links to a website affiliated with you, something that is called refspamming on Wikipedia. You are welcome to make meaningful contributions using reliable sources. However if you continue spamming links/references to that website, I am afraid you may get yourself blocked. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You asked for a specific point of the guideline I sent you: WP:EL is one of them. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You said I am here to spam links to a website affiliated with me. That wiki article I edited was shallow in terms of defining a private company limited by shares so I added a proper definition. That is why I added that citation to the source which you say is spam and not meaningful contribution from a reliable source. Did you remove the link because the source is affiliated to me or because the source is not reliable or because the contribution is not meaningful? Get straight to the point. That is the clarification I need. Sir Sydney (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If for whatever reason you removed my content and citation, then half the citations in the Wikipedia articles shouldn't exist. I could show you real examples of refspamming that you are letting slide through whilst targeting the ones that you simply don't like. A lot of citations are even deadlinks pointing to 404 pages and websites that don't even exist and yet you have an issue with a working link just because you feel that I am affiliated to the source. Shame on you. Wikipedia will always be crap because of people like you. For all I care, you can ban me. I can't conform to a guideline that is too vague to be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Sydney (talk • contribs) 12:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * After all the contributions I made, you accuse me of link spamming? Maybe you should give us the sources you want us to use. When I contributed to articles about Zimbabwe, nobody had an issue with my sources being reliable. Now I contribute to an article about business and suddenly you have an issue with my sources not being reliable. This kind of discrimination is appalling. Just because the source is a Zimbabwean website then it automatically becomes an unreliable business article. Sir Sydney (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I m done here. Be a good lad and show me how to deactivate my Wikipedia account. Sir Sydney (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sir Sydney, there's no need to personally attack me.
 * I couldn't care less where the website is located. It's not the location that makes it unreliable, but the fact that its self-published w/o any editorial oversight. Also I have removed the edits as your edits were only made in order to add references to that site (aside from the handful edits where you added a short description). Would've even done the same if CNN or BBC would spam links to their site.
 * Also, other stuff will always exist and Wikipedia won't ever be perfect. It's a community project that'll always be a work in progress. That's why bad content or even spam can go unnoticed for some time. If you do have cases where a reference has been added for spamming, then remove it or let me know. Dead links in references aren't great but they aren't entirely useless. Often times they have been archived. So instead of removing them, one should check a webarchive and update the references.
 * You can't delete your account, however you can just stop using it. In some cases there is also the option of courtesy vanishing.
 * If you do decide to stay here, once again please keep in mind to not personally attack people. – NJD-DE (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One important thing to note that I forgot earlier. I am of course not the ultimate instance to decide whether a source can be considered reliable or not. The community is that instance. So you if you feel like I was wrong in my judgment, you can ask the community. Specifically at venues like the article talk page or the reliable sources noticeboard. – NJD-DE (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No, you know nothing about that website. Whether its reliable or unreliable. If you had gone to business school you would have understood what was written there. You just assumed that its unreliable, based on its location or whatever assumption you used. So don't lecture me about personal attacks. You removed my edits on edits on baseless arguments. Thats a personal attack. If you check right now, most of the sources you call reliable are pointing to outdated information. You are playing prefect on something you know nothing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Sydney (talk • contribs) 19:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You just targeted my source because its a .co.zw domain. I see a lot of .co.uk links actually spamming but are allowed to stay. Because of their location they are assumed to be reliable. That is the reason why it will forever be a work in progress because it has people like you who are enemies of progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Sydney (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

Removing shows on List of Sony Pictures Television programs
Hello a user is removing shows of List of Sony Pictures Television programs on purpose but I reverted it so can you add warnings to that user? 217.137.43.113 (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Jonas Tomalty
Hello. I am a fan of Jonas Tomalty and I am wondering why his page has been flagged. I have read and researched everything on the page and it is completely honest snd accurate. Please explain why you have done this. 2605:8D80:521:CC53:20F9:E904:559C:D108 (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence
Hamis Kiggundu and related articles seem to be total self aggrandisement. That the man paid Ugandan journalists (cited in the article!) is significant in the history of this article and its sock farm Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 22:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * In the past I never really bothered to actually read the article on Kiggundu. Today I did, and I was so surprised to find that phrase about him paying journalists in this article. But yeah it fits to what see here.
 * Thank you btw for nominating all their images for deletion. I was just checking the result of this, and while doing so noticed that this morning an IP recreated an article about Rozina Negusei on simplewiki. I don't entirely get how she's connected to Kiggundu, but these socks seem to care about her. Also, I always found it odd that these socks would create an article on Haruna Sentongo. Didn't make sense to me that billionaire A would want billionaire B to shine on Wikipedia as well. Thanks to a reference in the Kiggundu article it seems like Sentongo and Kiggundu are brothers though.
 * I think for tonight I will give up trying to understand this. Anyways, thanks again for your eyes on this sockfarm !! – NJD-DE (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As a generalisation, becoming wealthy in developing nations requires legitimately earned commissions to be paid in order to become notable. I rather pity the sock farm because they are failing. I am not sure failure is tolerated well. I am not sure that I care much!
 * The IP might be legit: https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=41.210.145.202. Or might not. These could be 'legitimising edits'. We need to look and see if they feature in SPI archives, but I'm about to sign off for the night Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 23:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP is part of range 41.210.128.0/18. On that range we also have 41.210.155.1 who edited Draft:Ham Palm Villas and Diamond Trust Bank (Uganda). And there's a bunch of other IPs of that sockfarm in that range as well, including the one you recently reported at the SPI: 41.210.141.13, 41.210.143.47, 41.210.143.71, 41.210.143.131, 41.210.145.10, 41.210.145.202, 41.210.146.136, 41.210.147.109, 41.210.147.121, 41.210.147.161, 41.210.154.238, 41.210.155.1, 41.210.155.52, 41.210.159.210, 41.210.159.249. – NJD-DE (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I expect you have started an SPI for it? Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 19:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Quelle surprise! They re-uploaded images of Kiggundu: File:Mr.Hamis Kiggundu.jpg and File:Hamis Kiggundu cropped.jpg. This time they aren't claiming it to be their own work. Instead they claim it would be the work of a newssite called Uganda Times. After some WHOIS-digging it appears that this might actually be a newssite run by Ham Enterprises. Both hamenterprises.co.ug and ugandatimes.ug are hosted on Boston servers (192.185.98.250, 192.185.98.253). Ham Enterprises lists a UK office at "375 Moston Lane, Manchester, M40 9NB, England" and Uganda Times Facebook page lists "Moston Lane, MB40 Manchester, UK" as their office.. – NJD-DE (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have started Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton for this one. Feel free to add the IP.  I've also nominated this ordure on Commons for speedy deletion as re-created material. I'll let the admin there who deleted the prior files know as well  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 19:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't knew until today that Commons had a place for SPI as well, but successfully created on at C:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Izaaqnewton that lead to their Commons block. Good to also list them here on enwiki though for a historical reference, and as we still need the global locks.
 * I didn't file a SPI for the IP as this farm hops IPs too often, and I believe admins will consider the range far too large to block it. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Message regarding edits on Musical notation
Hello, What is your name? You wrote on my page saying you deleted a link i tried to make, but not other links that are equivalent. Why are other links ok but not mine? John Keller (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I removed one of the links you added. I didn't pay a closer look at the rest of the article and might have missed removing other links that shouldn't be there. MrOllie did notice them, and removed them accordingly however. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Notice i am learning the syntax by copying.
 * But what is this wikipedia code language called?
 * So MrOllie removed all the links for the website which contains all the information about all the Alternative Chromatic staff notations. This is most unhelpful, Don't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Keller (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's called Wikitext. You can read more about that at Help:Wikitext.
 * Information about these notations with these links shouldn't have been added in the first place. Removing them was correct. They should only be added again if reliable sources reporting on them exist. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise on TIME page
Hi Njd-de,

Thanks for your message regarding the modification that I've tried to made on TIME page. I've cited a reliable reference. I hope it will works.

Best, Benjamin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiben38 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Njd-de
Hello! Thanks for the note. I appreciate you reaching out, I hadn't seen a reason for every single one of my edits being removed, so I am happy to see that someone reached out! I share the same perspective as you regarding neutral writing, hence the reason I softened the rather opinionated, unattributed, strong language labeling someone a conspiracy theorist without citing articles or research. The rather opinionated text that found its way into an encyclopedic text should not lead with labeling someone a QANON supporter, without some attribution. The previous text, in my view, was rather problematic, as it was labeling someone a whole slew of things, rather than objectively/neutrally sharing information and allowing the reader to click on links and do further research. You'll note I did not say she was not a conspiracy theorist, as I don't think anyone is qualified to do, but rather say she has been labeled/critiqued/called a particular thing, and leave it to the reader to decide. In my view, and I'm a longtime Wikipedia lover, Wikipedia is not designed to share its opinion about any one or thing, it is meant to share attributable information, and allow the reader to do her/his/its own further research and reach its own conclusion. It is not neutral to say someone is a former doctor, conspiracy theorist, Qanon supporter and looney and expect the reader to objectively reach their own conclusion. Hence the reason I softened the language and took out the more extreme text to allow the reader to reach their own conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lknlp (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

WarnerMedia Direct and Warner Horizon shows
Hello a user named Imtiaz.kazi3 is adding Hacks, Pretty Little Liars, Pretty Dirty Secrets and Generation onto the Warner Bros. Television Studios section on List of WarnerMedia television programs article so can you add warning to the user please and removed the four shows out of the Warner Bros. Television Studios section on List of WarnerMedia television programs? 85.255.233.205 (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi *.205, I am not entirely sure what the scope of List of WarnerMedia television programs is, and what the exact issue is. Even the Pretty Little Liars article says that WBTV is the distributor. Maybe I am missing something here.
 * In any case, if you have the impression that someone is vandalizing an article, then go ahead and revert the edit. You can find the warning templates at Template index/User talk namespace. – NJD-DE (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I know but Hacks, Blade Runner: Black Lotus and Generation are not produced by Warner Bros. Television. That's why is unsourced so can you remove them on List of WarnerMedia television programs? 85.255.233.205 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It's an article in which of the programs is owned by WarnerMedia or not. 85.255.233.205 (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)