User talk:Serols/Archive 22

Revert on Sorbet
Hello,

I was in the middle of performing a WP:SPLIT on Sorbet to Sherbet (frozen dessert). I don't consider this a WP:BOLD edit. Consensus was reached in the talk page years ago that these should be split. Yes, there was a merge back in 2007, and since then, nearly a decade of comments left by both registered and unregistered users have followed expression confusion as to why Wikipedia does not have any sort of page on sherbet as a frozen dessert. I did not find any opposition on any of the pages related to the term "sherbet" to this. My understanding from the talk page is that the merge of Sherbet (US) to Sorbet has caused more confusion than clarity. I was left doubly confused after noticing Sherbet no longer mentions a frozen dessert after an edit by an anonymous user in May 2021.

If you would like to discuss this further, let's continue this discussion on Talk:Sorbet so information isn't lost.

CherryT~enwiki (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello CherryT~enwiki, please read the talk page, before you change something -> see here. --Serols (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Serols: I'd advise you also read the talk page before you change something, specifically the thread on "Sherbert (the unique US diary product) needs its own page" []. The decision you linked was made in 2007. And since then, there's been an entire discourse over a decade in favor of undoing that merge. I'll admit I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's policies, so if there is some process I'm missing for reversing that merge decision, please let me know. My understanding from reading this talk page is that the community thinks these two pages should be split. Am I missing something? CherryT~enwiki (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello CherryT~enwiki, the name Sorbet is used globally and please note also Article_titles. Regards --Serols (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Results
We can't spread misinformation - we do not yet have results in NYC races. Only partial results. --2603:7000:2143:8500:98A6:314:E179:7800 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello 2603:7000:2143:8500:98A6:314:E179:7800, see your talk page. Regards --Serols (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Woody Harrelson Dead?
My mom asked me to check online to see if Woody Harrelson was dead and it scared the hell out of me. Is he dead? I hope not. Sasa888 (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Sasa888, you log on to Wikipedia just to ask me that? Everything ok with you? --Serols (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Sabel Starr
You reverted an inappropriate IP edit concerning her non-notable sister Corel Shields. The IP went to the Help Desk to complain and mentioned that Intelius could confirm that Shields was born in 1955 not 1959. I would not use Intelius or other public records sources as a reference in a Wikipedia article but I think it is a useful tool for investigating BLP concerns. Intelius says that she is 65 years old which is consistent with the IP's claim and therefore she was probably not born in 1959 and was much older than the claimed age of 13 at the time of an alleged 1973 sexual encounter with Iggy Pop. There is obviously a big difference between a rock star having sex with a 13 year old as opposed to a 17 or 18 year old, and there are major BLP concerns since both are still alive. Accordingly, I have removed all mention of Corel Shields from her sister's biography. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Cullen328, thank you very much for your explanation. Wish you a nice day --Serols (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Sara Ramirez
So I updated the infobox image of Sara Ramirez because 1) having an outdated image of a person on their wikipage is annoying and 2) I know when I look back at photos of me from before my gender identity change I feel dysphoric and maybe that's not the case for Sara, we may never know, but I think the main photos on information pages should reflect their current appearance.

You reverted this change claiming it "did not appear constructive" but keeping images of people up to date is good practice and it seems to me like you only reverted this change due bigotry.

Maybe an updated image isn't as important as listing everything they've been in and new information about the person in question, but not changing it seems lazy at best and offensive at worst. Maybe not all images need to be updated if the person looks basically the same but when there's a huge difference in appearance due to age or gender etc it's important.

Sara Ramirez's page isn't the only one that needs to be updated. Elliot Page's Page is another and there's probably a lot more that I haven't seen. TransDragon (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello TransDragon, please note Article_titles. To change the picture is ok, but you also changed the spelling of the name. Regards --Serols (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Since I clearly don't know much about editing Wikipedia maybe you could change the image for me? The image I used is called MAD-ramirez-501i.jpg It's still in my uploads so I assume that means it's acceptable to use? I don't know. TransDragon (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello TransDragon, see here. Regards --Serols (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Mohammad ibn abd al wahab
Hey why did you change my edit Khan12888 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Khan12888, you know why. Please stop with vandalism, you risk your account. --Serols (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry bro i am experimenting and I am not vanadilizing, I am new and can you let me from where you are kind of you Khan12888 (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Khan12888, please stop it. --Serols (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I got it but you don't tell me from where you are are you muslim? Khan12888 (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Discussion is over. --Serols (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmm Khan12888 (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome template
Will you give me one of those welcome templates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBFEE (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello GBFEE, I sent you. Regards --Serols (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service‎
Thanks for the revert. I would appreciate you keeping an eye on the article for a while as (along with other UK fire and rescue articles) it tends to attract single-purpose COI and / or IP editors who seem hell-bent on filling it with unsourced trivia and original research. As someone who is passionate about removing OR from Wikipedia I defend articles, but I do obviously want to stay within the rules and not inadvertently trip 3RR. Hence the request for you to keep watch if you don't mind. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello 10mmsocket, I pay attention too. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Appreciated. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your attention to Talk:Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service and the recent article history would be welcomed. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

slow-motion edit war continues at Andrea Radrizzani
Hi, I see you were once involved in the article on Andrea Radrizzani, which was protected at some time (were you the protecting admin?). Its history is just a huge string of edits and reverts by a handful of IPs adding and removing a reference to U.S Salernitana. The current warring parties are [2001:b07:6461:5805:9daf:f435:c567:7828] and [82.49.175.253]. I wonder whether this page needs protection again? Elemimele (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Elemimele, I did not protect them, only reported them to protect them. I have reported an article again - see here. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Sorry to have made you extra work; I am still rather new and didn't think of putting the request at that page myself! Elemimele (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Elemimele, no problem, I was happy to do that. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Question
As to this -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Nations%20Office%20for%20Partnerships&diff=1032728206

Can you please explain the reason for your revert? --2603:7000:2143:8500:F97E:459A:7CB2:D95 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, why did you delete whole sections? --Serols (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. It has been uncited for a long time. Over half a decade. Tagged for over a year - as I very clearly stated in my edit summaries. There is no special protection from deletion an editor receives, by adding a whole section of uncited material - rather than just half a section. And tagged for that malady. Why do you restore uncited material without RS refs? Isn't there a rule against it?


 * Can you please explain the reason for your revert?2603:7000:2143:8500:F97E:459A:7CB2:D95 (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Why do you delete it without specifying the source. Please use the talk page beforehand. --Serols (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Specifying what source? What do you mean? 2603:7000:2143:8500:F97E:459A:7CB2:D95 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, a source that justifies the deletion, or use the talk page. --Serols (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no rule that talk page discussion is required first, especially for uncited for half a decade, tagged for a decade, material. I supplied three proper edit summaries - that is what is called for. Nothing more.

There is however a rule that applies directly to what you did, which is not OK. You are not supposed to re-add the uncited text once challenged and deleted, without you shouldering your burden of providing the supporting RS refs. I would refer you to wp:burden. Which states:


 * "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who ... restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution ... The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article... Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

That's the main issue, and quite clear. I might add - you used tools, which is really not cricket, in making this mistake. And further - you failed to provide (not that there was one, I guess) a legitimate edit summary for your edit. I would also note that I asked you a question twice above, and you only answered with questions - Can you please explain the reason, per wp rules, for your revert? 2603:7000:2143:8500:F97E:459A:7CB2:D95 (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, the sections that you have deleted are not wrong, it is just that no corresponding sources have been stored. The right way would have been to point this out on the talk page.
 * Example -> (see General Assembly resolution 60/1) - 1 and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 2. The sections were never questioned, only marked that the sources were missing. You are welcome to edit that accordingly and everything is ok. Is that cleared up? --Serols (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. You are wrong. I left a proper edit summary. Material was tagged. It was deleted properly - in addition to the tag, I question and delete the material. You restored it. Without sources. Clearly failing your obligation under wp:burden. I will therefore restore the deletion.2603:7000:2143:8500:F97E:459A:7CB2:D95 (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Mean as custard may have thoughts on this thread. 2603:7000:2143:8500:F97E:459A:7CB2:D95 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, that is so is not correct and falsified. Writing d per year old tags in the comment line is not an acceptable edit summary. The quality templates were set in order to motivate users to insert the missing sources and not to delete whole sections, this is destructive. I gave you two examples, which I then inserted in a section that you deleted. Maybe you will think about this in the future before you start deleting thousands of kb again. --Serols (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Sayaun Thunga Phulka
Not vandalism. See MOS:TITLE, MOS:FLAG, MOS:COLOR, WP:OVERLINK, MOS:PRONUNCIATION. 134.195.198.252 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, please note Article_titles and use sources, you risk to block. --Serols (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , it looks like this might be getting a bit heated. To avoid an edit war it might be a good idea to step back and discuss things on the relevant talk page or pages, and maybe get a WP:Third opinion if you can't agree. You might also be able to informally ask for help from editors experienced in the subject area, such as prior editors of the page or participants in relevant WikiProjects such as WP:WikiProject Nepal, WP:WikiProject Music, or WP:WikiProject Songs.
 * As a copyeditor I have a few thoughts related to the WP:Manual of Style:
 * I can attest that "Shreeman Gambhir" should be in double quotation marks rather than italics following MOS:TITLE for titles of songs, e.g. "The Star-Spangled Banner".
 * Nepal seems to commonly use DMY dates and had associations with the British Empire, so it's possible DMY dates would be better per MOS:DATETIES.
 * I unfortunately am not familiar with the other matters. I'm not really an expert on Wikipedia policies and guidelines either; I'm mostly just summarizing WP:Dispute Resolution. I hope you can settle it peacefully. – Anon423 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just realized you have a ton of experience. No insult was intended by linking Wikipedia basics for reference. Maybe it'll help the other editor. – Anon423 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I unfortunately am not familiar with the other matters. I'm not really an expert on Wikipedia policies and guidelines either; I'm mostly just summarizing WP:Dispute Resolution. I hope you can settle it peacefully. – Anon423 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just realized you have a ton of experience. No insult was intended by linking Wikipedia basics for reference. Maybe it'll help the other editor. – Anon423 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just realized you have a ton of experience. No insult was intended by linking Wikipedia basics for reference. Maybe it'll help the other editor. – Anon423 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Anon423, I don't know what you want from me. The article name is Sayaun Thunga Phulka and not Sayaũ Thuṅgā Phūlkā. Hence my reference to the Wikipedia rule -> Article_titles. Something else was not objectionable. Regards --Serols (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)