User talk:PohranicniStraze/Archive 2

World Financial Group
Hello,

I submitted a change to update the opening paragraph for World Financial Group. The source for the company being an MLM was a redirect to the New York Times Home page with no mention of World Financial Group.

Is it possible to know what was wrong so I can update that paragraph?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotjus (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure which source you are referring to; it appears to me that the MLM claim is sourced to an International Herald Tribune article, which makes the claim quite explicitly: "One thing about the unit, based in Duluth, Georgia, that sets it apart from traditional sales forces is structure. As a pyramidlike, multilevel sales organization, World Financial...". If you have a reliable source demonstrating that the claim was mistaken, or that it was true but no longer is true, then you should probably post it to the talk page (where the statement has been discussed previously) and try to find a consensus for rewording.


 * Also, I notice that your only edits to the project are related to World Financial Group. I am not saying you have a conflict of interest, but it does give the appearance that you may have some connection to the subject. If that is the case, then you may want to find a different area of the project on which to focus. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I must have looked at the source wrong. When I clicked on the link it went to NYT. I have made edits other pages like Georgia State when I see things that don't line up. I just couldn't remember my old un and pw from when I made the change to GSU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotjus (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking for help arbitrating a page you frequently edit
Heya. I'm taking this one step removed from the talk page of IGN because I know that it's super gross here to self edit and I'd rather not discuss this on the Talk page. That said, if that's where you guide me, that's where I'll go :)

I was the co-founder of IGN way back in 1996, along with Jonathan Simpson-Bint. For the last 15 years Jonathan has been the only person listed as founder and because of the rules against self-edits, I've left that sit. A few months ago someone added me as the co-founder (with source) and that was then reversed a few days ago as a "fake reference" by an anonymous user. I was fine not being listed in the article, but being removed bugs me for some reason. There are a dozen reputable sources on the web, including TechCrunch, Business Insider and AllThingsD, that reference me co-founding IGN. What's the best way to resolve this?

Thanks. Bpm140 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Cook Islands knights
I processed the speedy request since there were no objections, but apparently the Cook Island(s) categories were subject to a CfD discusion in May 2020, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_2, which went the other way. Fayenatic london, who (unlike me) was aware of the discussion, now added the category for reverse move.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just saw the note on the category talk page, thanks for letting me know! PohranicniStraze (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ymblanter. PohranicniStraze, you nominated only one category out of a hierarchy. It's usually worth looking around the parent categories and checking their page history or talk pages before making such nominations. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Project: Elementus Wiki
Hello. I would like to politely but firmly ask why you requested deletion of my wiki for G11, which I do not at all understand because I posted one link to my Wattpad page where the series is because I am the author. All I wanted to do is host a page of information for my community of fans. I am very new to Wiki, so if I am getting this wrong I apologize, but I spent several hours figuring out how to make it. TimmothyJimmothy (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello! The page in question had multiple issues. First, it was created in the wrong part of the project. The Wikipedia namespace (the pages that start with Wikipedia, for instance Talk page guidelines) is not the place to try and write an article. In this case, though, the subject didn't appear to meet our notability guidelines and would probably have been deleted under criteria WP:A7 even had it been created in article-space. Second, the page appeared to be promoting the subject in question, rather than being written from a neutral point of view. Finally, it appears that you, as the article creator, had a conflict of interest. It is very strongly discouraged that editors write about subjects with which they have a close connection; if the subject is notable, eventually there will be sufficient reliable source coverage that it will get an article. I understand what you were trying to do, but Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for non-encyclopedic material. If you need a copy of the material from the deleted page for your own records, you may be able to contact the admin who deleted the page to get a copy; I'm not an admin, so I can neither delete pages nor see material from pages that were deleted. I hope this is helpful, and best wishes in your endeavors! PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ledes
It is common for us not to overburden ledes with cites, where the information in the lede - properly, reflected in the text below - is clearly cited in the text below. --2603:7000:2143:8500:598F:3DC5:AF09:546F (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

More bramhin in Rajasthan
I request you to please add jangid bramhin in this list.In India 60% of them are living in Rajasthan. An9ja0 (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Pls block my ip address
Pls block my ip address 112.215.175.7 (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Just stop. You've already harassed 4 users. - Cosmic (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Wepwawetemsaf
FYI: wp:EWN Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I see there was a little outbreak of sockpuppetry on that article, since taken care of. What an unlikely article for an edit war! PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You missed all the excitement. I wonder why all of that over a hunk of limestone, other than it's the only contemporary artifact of Wepwawetemsaf, it would have been ground up for cement production. Adakiko (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hello PohranicniStraze. You can apply for pending changes reviewer rights if you'd like to directly review pending changes yourself. Best regards. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Please stop
I do not believe you are interpreting WP:HON correctly. The guidance there applies to the lead of individual biographical articles. (I remember the controversy many years ago that led to the writing of this guideline: some editors particularly objected to styles like "The Most Noble" leading off the biographies of peers of varying character.) Using "Hon." in lists of the children of peers is normal and widespread practice and I would appreciate it if you would discuss this further before continuing to remove it from such lists. Choess (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello! I (clearly) disagree but am happy to discuss. To me the guideline seems quite clear - "honorific prefixes...in Wikipedia's voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article." My interpretation is that the honorific heading over the name in the infobox is fine (that's what it's there for), and a set of honorifics in a section detailing an individual's styles over the course of their life is clearly fine, as mentioned in the policy. Likewise, some individuals have a blurb in the lead along the line of "Lord Blow, styled until 2020 as The Honourable Joseph Blow", and I have not removed that because it is simply documenting something, not in the voice of WP. But to bluntly place an honorific in front of someone's name in other circumstances is speaking in Wikipedia's voice, and is not appropriate. Calling someone "The Honourable Joe Blow" in a list (that is in the voice of WP) is not NPOV and is no more appropriate than referring (in WP voice) to "His Holiness Pope Francis", "Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him", or "The Honorable Donald Trump/Joe Biden." I see there are several exceptions to WP:HON, but none of them seem to apply in the articles referred to, and "The Honourable" and its variants are specifically called out as not being appropriate. Anyway, have a great day - I am currently sitting in an airport waiting for a flight, but will check back later in the day. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey! Hope your flight went well. I found the discussion I recollected that wrote this part of the policy. After re-reading it, I feel reasonably confident that this was intended only to deal with the opening line of articles setting out the person's name. It's rather loosely drafted (there wasn't as much policy lawyering in 2006!) and that does create some ambiguity in reading it today, but I don't think it was originally intended to be pushed to cover how to write about person B in an article about person A.
 * I would disagree that saying "The Hon. Joe Blow" is, inescapably, a statement in Wikipedia's voice about Blow's character. Like the use of "the Honourable Member" in the House of Commons, the honorific has become separated from the common meaning of its words by semantic drift. If it were, inescapably, a statement about character, then there would be no rationale for letting it occur anywhere in the article. I do agree with the policy that we should not open an article subject's name with an honorific, not because it represents an inappropriate statement in such a voice, but because the average reader will *misinterpret* the honorific as a statement of character. This sounds like a pettifogging scholastic distinction, but I think it's important for broader reasons. After 15 years of observing AfDs on the subject, there are some editors out there who are, for ideological reasons, furious that the monarchy, peerage, honors system etc. exist and will use that sort of overly literal reasoning to try to remove as much information about them from the encyclopedia as possible. In my opinion "we can't call him The Honourable because that's a judgement on his character" is isomorphic to "We can't call him a knight because knights ride horses and fight in battles and he doesn't do that". Or to put it another way, it's not a contradiction for a reliable source to say "The Honourable Joe Blow was a scoundrel of the first water", and we shouldn't take a position that insists that is a contradiction.
 * My general rule has been to use these honorifics in infoboxes and/or sections on the person's titles, and in the body of an article only where it's of genealogical relevance. e.g., when listing a peer's children in the peer's article, I might include "Hon. Sebastian", but in discussing his personal relationship with his father, I would simply refer to him as "Sebastian"; the honorific would be needlessly formal in that context. I think the naive reader might misinterpret an article starting with "The Honourable" but anyone who can parse "Hon. Sebastian" in a list knows that is says nothing about his character.
 * Anyway, all this is obiter dicta. I'm more concerned about the philosophical point about NPOV than whether "Hon." stays or goes in lists of peers' children. I think it might be a good idea for us to seek out some other active editors in the area and see what their opinion is or how they interpret WP:HON, maybe clarify it, but if you feel really invested in stripping out the honorifics, I don't feel strongly enough about it to raise an enormous row. I don't do as much historical biography as I used to, but I appreciate the work you've been doing and would be happy to collaborate on an article sometime if you're interested. Choess (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again, the flight went well, thank you. Looking back through the archives I see I was involved in a similar discussion back in 2019, but it escalated quickly and wandered off into tangents, generating more heat than light and ending without a clear consensus. Do you think it would be worth opening a formal RfC to get clarification? I actually just had a couple of the edits reverted, with no comment or policy justification, and although I did not reinstate the edits I will confess to being a bit annoyed at it when (to my mind) the black-letter policy is on my side as it stands.
 * Regarding honorifics in general, I am an equal-opportunity remover and happily clear out both secular and religious ones, including from my own religion. I'm not picking on the British aristocracy in particular, I just have been working on getting a lot of those pages into subcats and working on the MOS-compliance as I go. That being said, it does seem like, for whatever reason (probably editor demographics), the British aristocracy articles are the worst offenders on WP:HON. If we are going to have more carveouts to the policy, then they should be written into the policy guidelines. It does seem a bit unfair to say "no honorifics, unless your dad was a British peer", but if that is going to be the de-facto policy it should say so.
 * On a related note, while I have someone with the same interests handy, I would like some feedback on something. As I mentioned, I have been trying to get the various peer articles into subcats so that, for instance, the Barons Aberconway are together in one category rather than all being under the broader "Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" category. If there are at least two people who held the title, I just create the subcat and move them there. But there are a lot of "hereditary" peerages that went extinct after the first holder because there was no one to inherit them. I don't particularly want to create a bunch of subcats with only one person and no possibility of any more going forward. I think having a category to group all of these folks (like Richard Airey, 1st Baron Airey and Beauchamp Seymour, 1st Baron Alcester, among many others) together would be useful, but haven't been able to figure out a name that isn't excessively long. "Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom who were the only holders of that barony" seems a bit verbose. Is there a technical term that might work? Or would it be best to just leave these folks in the larger container category? PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe start with a note on the policy talk page and ping in, say, Mackensen (because he made the policy changes) and some of the other active editors on the topic? Happy to notify other people/groups to ensure neutrality, right now I'd just like to get a read on whether other people have been reading the policy in a narrow or expansive way. It could well be that I've been the outlier! I just reacted strongly at first because I know I've left a *lot* of pages to be corrected if we do take your reading. Depending on what opinion gets expressed there, we might try for a formal RfC. I want to keep this at a low emotional temperature (and I greatly appreciate you being calm and ready to discuss). What other honorifics were you removing that don't belong to the British honors system? I feel like my general intuition is that having honorifics and titles "looks" more appropriate in lists and tables, and overly formal in running text, but that's mostly a matter of taste. "Rev." and relatives occurred to me too, but that's largely British as well.
 * I think I would probably leave those people in the larger container category. BrownHairedGirl would be a really good person to ask, though; she has extensive experience editing these kind of historical figures and is also very familiar with our practice on categories and category diffusion like you've been doing. I would trust her. Choess (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a discussion is warranted to see the current state of consensus. Regarding other honorifics, I've found that the various Islamic honorifics (s.a.w., r.a., a.s., p.b.u.h., hazrat, etc.) tend to accumulate if not regularly removed. Periodically I will sweep through for other religious honorifics (His Holiness, His Excellency, etc.), and look for MOS:SAINTS violations. I will cut out Reverend and its variants if I see them, but to be honest I haven't gone hunting for those - I am sure they are so common that it is a daunting task to even consider. On the secular side, there are of course the non-Western monarchies (I have edited quite a bit in the SE Asian area), and the countries that like to use "His Excellency" or other such terms for their government ministers. I'm taking a short break from the categorization, but I will definitely reach out to BrownHairedGirl and get her opinion on the issue. It seems like it could be useful to have a category for "First and Only Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" or whatever, but on the other hand if all the rest get categorized out of the main container category eventually I suppose it will be a moot point. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

help/guide
hi PS I found you one of article I wrote on wikipedia Vinai Kumar Lt Governor Delhi's edit history.

recently I submit article on wikipedia "Gabbar Sangrur". every fact is truth and fine. he is a big name of punjabi film industry. I don't know someone nominated the article for deletion. please help/guide me. how can I continue that article. thanks

regards vikash VikasKinha (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)