User talk:TSventon

https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/
 * WE-Framework
 * Commons:Commons:CropTool

Tomb of Aegisthus DYK
Thanks for the edit - was the ping simply meant to clue me in (as you were kindly fixing up something I'd missed?) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * UndercoverClassicist, yes, one of the numerous DYK rules (WP:DYKHOOK) says that the subject should be wikilinked and bolded, so I fixed the issue and pinged you to let you know. And then another editor fixed something else, which I had missed. TSventon (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see - thought that might be the thinking! Thanks. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Verge (royal court)
User:TSventon Since the source cited is not online, I can't read it. I would be very interested to know, if you can tell me, who exactly it was that tried and fined the King? Even today, the King cannot be tried in his own courts, so who had that power in 1290? Textorus (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Textorus, the source is online at Google books, but access may vary by country. I had to search for "edward i" in the book. The book has a couple of sentences on the incident and says "At the wedding festivities of his daughter Margaret to John of Brabant in July 1290, Edward I struck a squire called Jean de Blaundyn on the head with a rod" and that Edward fined himself. The article recently went through the Did You Know process so I expected it to be fully referenced. TSventon (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * TSventon, the source cited is now hyperlinked to the text, which I did not think it was the other day. I have now read the account that begins on page 25 and continues onto page 26, which, sadly, is not displayed.  But I have rewritten the offending sentence to conform to what is readable in the source.  I think you will surely agree that there is a great difference, in grammar and in law, between "the King was fined" and "the King fined himself."
 * BTW, I used to submit articles to the Do You Know process. It ensures only that one other person has glanced over the submitted article, but is by no means a quality control process - there is no fine-toothed comb applied to every jot and tittle of an article.  Textorus (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Textorus, I agree that your version is clearer. To explain my comment about DYK, the article was newly written by an editor I believe to be trustworthy and then submitted to DYK, so I expected it to be fully referenced when submitted. DYK reviewers may or may not apply a fine-toothed comb to the article. TSventon (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank You for Your help. J.D.K. (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Vermeer scholar
CaroleHenson, I had not got around to saying that I saw the article because I watch out for interesting DYK articles, including Dutch subjects. Thank you for your kind words and especially for doing a lot of extra work on the article in response to my comments. TSventon (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Following DYK articles sounds like a fun thing to do! Once I got out of my own way (sorry, I wasn't on my best behavior this week) I really enjoyed it. I like solving puzzles. I am so glad that it is more accurate now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

My digression now removed. TSventon (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Double D'oh
Thanks for the revert and links! I saw the red link, saw that I had "Minnesota" in the sources, and assumed the red link must have been wrong. Not my finest hour.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jerome Frank Disciple, thank you for your patience in working towards NPOV in the article. I watchlisted it when it appeared on ANI, but am steering clear of the controversy. TSventon (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Further help with translation questions?
Hi there @TSventon,

My section on the Help Desk was archived so I figured I would ask here. I'm not sure if you can help me with this, but does starting/publishing a translation of an already existing Wikipedia page create a duplicate one if there's already an existing article? For example, the article Egor Kreed exists here, but there's a lot more content over on the Russian Wikipedia. I was planning to work on it with the Content Translation tool, but did not do anything because I feared it would make a duplicate and it would get deleted. Do you know, by any chance, a workaround to this other than having separate browser tabs open side by side? Or could the Content Translation tool help me with this? I read the Translation page you posted in response to my question, but now I'm kinda stuck.

If not you, do you know of another user that can provide better guidance? I was going to post another question on the Help Desk but I figured to reach out to you first with this. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Losipov (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Losipov, I am not an expert on the tool, but looking at Wikipedia talk:Content translation tool, Xaosflux seems to be helpful and knowledgable. TSventon (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Losipov my best suggestion in such a case is to change the title of the page you are translating to a sandbox, for example User:Losipov/Egor Kreed; then go about your translation. Once you are done you can request to move the page over the existing article, completing replacing it.  This may be contentious on a page like that (8 years old, 270 revisions). Another option is to do that, but only incorporate some of the translated information, merging it in.  At that point, you would copy/paste in the sections, and note in your edit summary and on the article talk page that it contains some translations from (link to original source article on other project). —  xaosflux  Talk 01:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux I have additional questions about translation so I'll ask them on specifically on your talkpage. For now, thanks to you and @TSventon for your help, for what it's worth. Losipov (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Notre Dame College of Education (Glasgow) has been accepted
 Notre Dame College of Education (Glasgow), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Notre_Dame_College_of_Education_(Glasgow) help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Metcalf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newcastle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Lindholm
Should we try to get her to GA? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Berit Lindholm
The article Berit Lindholm you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Berit Lindholm for comments about the article, and Talk:Berit Lindholm/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. --MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipienßt no. 2873 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda Arendt, as your examples show I stick fairly closely to topics that interest me. By the way, does the precious page need to be split, it seems not to show the last few names. TSventon (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The last month is on top, - is that what you mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I wasn't looking at the top. TSventon (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can just click on your number, or search for a name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda Arendt, I have today achieved the status of Passiver Sichter. Thank you for your help in reviewing pending changes for me previously. TSventon (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Berit Lindholm
Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thank you. TSventon (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Your value system is good, sir
Good, I say! (Thank you.) jengod (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

National Trust pilot 2
Hello! Thanks for your with the National Trust 2022 pilot. Based on that work, the National Trust is supporting a second pilot, and some information is here WP:GLAM/National Trust. All the best Lajmmoore (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:WIR
I keep mistyping your username. I just came to let you know that I replied to your comment at the talk page for WP:WIR. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Scorpions1325, I recommend copying and pasting usernames, if your device can do that. My username was inspired by Ture Sventon. TSventon (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
 ~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

'' Hello TSventon: Enjoy the  holiday season &#32;and  winter solstice  if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC) ''

CfD nomination at
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at  on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkl talk  17:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Peter Schreiner
Sorry, I haven't spent much time on WP lately, but I will have a look. ShockedSkater (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ShockedSkater, good luck. Note to self Help desk/Archives/2024 January 11. TSventon (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

WIR technical assistance
Hi there, TSventon. As you have been pretty active trying to help us along on WIR talk, I thought you might like to take a look at our Technical support page and see if there's anything important that should be included. I am thinking of providing a link to it in our next invitation. If you are tied up with other things, no worries.--Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ipigott, I have had a look at my scripts and several of mine are DYK related, so I have asked at WP:DYK whether they have a list, which WIR could then link to. It is probably worth asking on the talk page as hopefully some other WIR page watchers are more technically aware than I am. TSventon (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Although I have received credit for 325 DYK pages,, virtually all of them have been nominated by other contributors. I look carefully at the new nominations in connection with women every day and first make sure the articles have been correctly assessed. If there are significant problems with the hooks, I try to assist (sometimes just editing grammatical errors) but like several other WIR contributors I find the nomination process complex and time consuming. It's a pity it's not more straightforward for new participants as it can serve as a major incentive for them to continue editing. Some contributors, like you, seem to be able to cope better than others. Maybe on the technical assistance page we should include a list of contributors willing to help with DYK nominations.--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ipigott, I get the impression that you are not overly keen on bureaucracy and DYK is fairly bureaucratic. There are tools that make it easier to submit a DYK nomination and I am hoping that it will be possible to make them easier for new editors to find. TSventon (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Helpful tools for nomination are to be welcomed. But for me it's not so much the nomination but the discussions which follow, sometimes with multiple suggestions for hooks running to pages and pages of comments. These can, for example, concern controversy between those who want to go for a really startling or even sexy hook which they think will attract more views and those who are keen to highlight an outstanding achievement in a specific field of interest, In some cases, the nominator is so upset that the DYK is simply withdrawn. Some regular participants are able to cope with this kind of thing to some extent but less experienced contributors can be really upset and ask for assistance. That said, I am always happy to be included in DYKs in connection with articles I have created or improved.--Ipigott (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I try to steer clear of multipage discussions on whether a hook is interesting. They are the kind of thing I meant by bureaucracy and only happen for a minority of nominations. For me the benefits of taking part in DYK outweigh the costs, but I can understand when other editors think differently. Hopefully new WIR editors know where to ask for help. Abigail Larson has just been nominated with my encouragement, so it will be interesting to see how it does. TSventon (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at  on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi TSventon :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Categories
Hi, you appear to be very knowledgeable about categories. Earlier you had a discussion with (then removed by TBAHP). I came across TBAHP blanking two categories, and, coupled with a history of problems, I indeffed them for disruptive editing. Now I'm wondering if I was hasty. I believe what they've done is to create new categories and then blank the existing categories, essentially merging a bunch of articles from one or two older cats to one new one. I would've thought something like this needs to be discussed first. I also don't think they should have removed the discussion you were having. However, I'm not sure enough of my ground and wondered if you could give me your input. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, I can summarise what they did with Category:Combined authorities as
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Combined_authorities&diff=prev&oldid=1212560129 change article link -OK
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Combined_authorities&diff=next&oldid=1212560129 start full category discussion per WP:CFD -OK
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Combined_authorities&diff=next&oldid=1212561821 start full category discussion -wrong as full discussion started
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Combined_authorities_and_combined_county_authorities&oldid=1212797959 create replacement category -wrong as CFD process should be followed
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Combined_authorities&diff=next&oldid=1212757367 blank page -wrong as CFD process should be followed
 * removing the discussion they were having with me was also wrong
 * I agree that what they did was somewhat disruptive, I would ask an admin active in categories such as Fayenatic whether they think it was disruptive enough to block them. I notice they were previously blocked on 3 March 2024. TSventon (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for taking the time to explain and for pinging Fayenatic. What about what we're left with? From what I can see, the user has achieved their objective, despite the block, by recategorizing many articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, Fayenatic I have hopefully reversed all the out of process recategorisations, now the full discussion can take its course. TSventon (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I consider this disruptive, although the editor may have thought they were being helpful by doing the work. Copy-and-paste moves are discouraged because they (i) leave the edit history at the old category page to be deleted, removing attribution of the original category creation and subsequent maintenance, which will be preserved if we move the page instead; (ii) fail to update Wikidata, in this case https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8391422 ; (iii) leave behind the old category talk page; (iv) probably overlook other necessary housekeeping such as checking other pages that link to the old page; (v) when moving the member pages, fail to link to the consensus decision for changing the category. Using CFD may be confusing at first, and takes a week if the Speedy criteria do not apply, but for the first time in years there is hardly any backlog at the moment, so IMHO it's pretty efficient! Also, CFD allows for multiple editors to review the proposal, and they quite often come up with a better idea than the first idea. And a bot will do the heavy lifting to implement the move.
 * In this case it was disruptive to open a full discussion Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_8 and then pre-empt the outcome. That is going to confuse and annoy other participants.
 * also created the new Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities only with explanatory text, lacking any parent categories. So they clearly do not know what they are doing.
 * Whether sanctions are called for depends whether the editor, after being given an explanation of what they did wrong, pays attention to requests to follow CFD process in future.
 * In this case I note that the editor had previously been warned about edit-warring and then blocked for personal attacks. With such a messy track record, if the editor sincerely wishes to remain part of the community, they ought to be showing more willingness to listen and learn. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fayenatic should the new Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities be deleted now or wait until it has been empty for 7 days.
 * Bbb23 would it help to explain to TheBishopAndHolyPrince what they did wrong, as explained by Fayenatic? TSventon (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The user is aware of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be deleted later, when the CFD is implemented – for the moment it stands as evidence for TheBishopAndHolyPrince to see what they did wrong. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Arch Street Theatre
source for "The Arch Street Theatre in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was during the 19th century one of the three main Philadelphia theaters for plays; the other two were the Walnut Street Theater and the Chestnut Street Theatre":

Arthur Hornblow Jr. has a Wikipedia page — but Arthur Hornblow Sr. does not. Suslindisambiguator (talk)

Issue with moving "Fishing in Turkey" to "Fishing industry in Turkey"
Hello, you were the one discussing this topic of moving pages at the help desk, so I'm coming to you for some help. I'm having trouble moving in particular the Fishing in Turkey article to Fishing industry in Turkey due to some disputes with other editors. They believe that it should stay as-is, even after I gave viable and practical evidence as to why it should be moved. I didn't necessarily consider what I would do if someone disputed, so what do you think I should do?

They already looked for a third opinion, who is siding with them, stating that fishing industry in Turkey would confuse readers, in terms of recreational fishing, despite that not making sense since you can always make "fishing in Turkey" a redirect, as well as the fact that wikipedia's search function allows you to find the closest topic to what you search, meaning that there shouldn't be much trouble looking for such a topic. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * SonOfYoutubers, I am neutral on this. Are you familiar with e the criteria for article titles, WP:CRITERIA? Arguably "fishing industry" is more WP:PRECISE and "fishing" is more WP:CONCISE. In either case the other title could be a redirect.


 * You could try a Requested move discussion to get wider input, possibly including any other outstanding articles. If you do that, I would warn the other involved editors. Wikipedia operates by consensus, so sometimes you have to accept that other editors disagree with your arguments. TSventon (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for the help. Honestly, I think I might just focus on other articles and just let this one be, but I can use this information in the future. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The Helping Hand Barnstar

 * CeeGee, thank you, it is an interesting article. TSventon (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chestnut Street Opera House
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting article and collaboration! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Gerda Arendt thank you, it was quite educational as I don't know much about American theatre. I hope you were not too disappointed by the small amount of actual opera that was performed. TSventon (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I like many forms of theatre ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for the link. I also enjoyed St. Trinitatis, Wolfenbüttel. By the way, I wasn't sure of the translation here and I couldn't see what the source was. TSventon (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks, 3k+ views on the article, and you are the one to notice that I failed to see that the ref was by Wagner in Online Merker but a different url/date/content. Fixed. If you find a better translation, feel free, same for the church and actually everywhere! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was curious about "culture of beathing" as a translation of Atemkultur, at the moment I don't have any better ideas, but other people can now check the correct reference more easily. I presume it is similar to Körperkultur, which isn't easy to translate either. I am not trying to criticise your English, which is a lot better than my German, but to incrementally improve articles where I can. TSventon (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * no, just a typo, "breathing" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * looks like this time it was your typo ;) - what would you say about a singer's way to have cultivated a way to breathe with control - you name it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On reflection, probably "breath control". Searching for "his breath control" or "her breath control" finds multiple articles about singers. TSventon (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Erik Sparre
Hi, I noticed you undid my revision on Erik Sparre. The thing is, for me the page currently looks as follows:



Is this not so for everyone? Does the page look normal to you? Curious to understand what is going on. In any case the link in the Infobox was malformatted I think. --Paul Hege (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you undid the other revision too, now it looks normal again for me too. Cheers, Paul Hege (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Paul Hege, sorry for reverting your edit, it was the easiest way to revert the previous edit with an explanation of why it was not an improvement. TSventon (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 👍 Paul Hege (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Peale's Philadelphia Museum
Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

State-recognized tribes
Hi, TSventon. Thank you for your interest in accurate information about state-recognized tribes. I'm busy in real life right and the subject as been a headache for years. The truth is state-recognized tribes are incredibly ill-defined. The National Conference of State Legislators were one of the few national entities to maintain a researched list of state-recognized tribes, but a Wikipedia editor convinced them to delete that list (although it can still be found in archives): discussion Talk:State-recognized_tribes_in_the_United_States.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration from Native Americans writes, "State recognized tribes are Indian tribes and heritage groups that are recognized by individual states for their various internal state government purposes." However, one federal law grants the rights for members of certain state-recognized tribes, the American Indian Arts and Crafts Act which allows "2) Any Indian group that has been formally recognized as an Indian tribe by a State legislature or by a State commission or similar organization legislatively vested with State tribal recognition authority" (Source). That leaves out those groups appointed by executive order by a governor or groups informally designated by state American Indian affairs commissions who weren't vest in the authority to recognize tribes. The State of Texas had a commission for Indian affairs from 1965 until it dissolved the commission in 1989, leaving groups in limbo. State legislators have introduced bills at various time to formally state-recognized groups in Texas, such as the 2022 TX SB231 to state-recognize the Lipan Apache and TX SB1479 and TX HB2005 to state-recognize the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation; these all have died in committee. (These are distinct from the non-legally binding congratulatory resolutions that the state regularly passes, which various organizations have said equates with state-recognition.

In the past, I've tried to deal with the various WP:SPA accounts engaged here entirely to promote claims made by the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas (while several accounts also tried to "delegitimize" the Lipan Apache Band of Texas from which the LATT broke away). WP:COI warnings have no effect. Several accounts were blocked in this Sockpuppet investigations/TelGonzie/Archive, but meatpuppets (and possibly several more socks) continue.

Wikipedia isn't the place to legitimize or delegitimize an organization. As a tertiary source, it should just reflect what's been published by secondary sources. The LATT actually have been in the news for their work preserving a historic cemetery, which would be completely appropriate to add to the LATT, but instead recent additions have include Facebook posts and their own website. Again since I have a ton of real-world work this week, I'm not interested in engaging with that minefield article right now, but outside perspectives are always welcome! Yuchitown (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yuchitown, thank you, I have read a few of the references and it is an interesting subject area.


 * I can understand that you have limited time to deal with this because content disputes are time sinks regardless of who is right. I don't want to get too involved either. Wikipedia should "just reflect what's been published", but obviously editors will all have their own biases, even when they don't have COIs. TSventon (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We need administrators versed in Native American issues who care. Yuchitown (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)