Hi - as stated on your talk page, any information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable from another source. I'm sure the statements you added are true, but if they aren't listed in a reputable online source or published material we can reference, then they can't remain on Wikipedia. Happy to help if you have any more questions. Epsilon.Protatalk22:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! The reliable sources are videos on YouTube of the Indiana Christmas parade. You can also find many sources on other sites about the Christmas parade. I do only have a small source of the Indiana junior high schools spirt band playing a bit before the parade and this is, there are a few newspaper pages and when I was younger I played in that band! I have lived in Indiana for a long time so I wouldn't lie about the parade. Its an amazing sight to see MillieMcGhen (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but as most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, they can't be used as a reference. If you can find online copies of the newspaper pages or reputable sites including the information, then you can read more about how to cite them here. Epsilon.Protatalk22:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+rollback
Hi Epsilon.Prota,
After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.
To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!
Hello! I noticed your signature, the "Talk" text seems to have an incorrect link, as it doesn't lead to your talk page. Just a heads-up in case it's a mistake. - Arcrev1 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It said the population was 22,000 . What? Ethnologue gives 33,000 speakers (1980), Andrews (1989) gives 45,000 speakers, Feuerstein (1983) 250,000 speakers, Holisky (1991) estimates it between 50,000 and 500,000. I changed it to 45,000 to 500,000, since that's what's more credible, plus it's sourced. So why did you change ? IT IS MORE CREDIBLE 82.16.126.180 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Georg Ludwig Ulex, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 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.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Hello, Epsilon.Prota. Per your request, your account has been grantedtemporary account IP viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! * Pppery *it has begun...01:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate? Where
You stated that you have removed a duplicate sentence. I disagree, there is no other place in the opening paragraph which states this. Please undo your revert.123.103.210.114 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@123.103.210.114 →Pageantry - Barber was additionally the first member of the military to win the Miss USA title and declared her intentions to promote veterans issues during her reign.
Apologies if my edit summary was a little vague - I didn't mean solely in the lead, but that the fact she is the first member of the military to win is already in the article. I don't think the point is really significant enough to bear reiteration. If you'd like to continue this discussion, let's move to the associated talk page. Epsilon.Protatalk12:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney Evening Herald publication is untrue and is not sourced itself.
Good afternoon, the article which is being referenced is based on a fabrication. There is no means of disproving the allegations which were made but they are also not substantiated in any way in the article. The inclusion of this information factually incorrect and the publication have been contacted to correct their allegation. LeslieArchives (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LeslieArchives - re Sir John Leslie, 4th Baronet - Thank you for letting me know, but until the SMH issues a retraction or you can supply an opposing source for your claim, then the SMH reference will be taken as reliable. If you find any other references supporting your position, please add them to the article or hightlight them on its talk page. Epsilon.Protatalk14:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epsilon.Prota, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
i see that you have been removingmy links about Finham's languages and history. In Finham we truly do have our own language but many think we are just joking but it is true! Can you please advise us on a way to add that on wikipedia 2A02:C7C:C44C:1600:E0CC:EE93:886C:F846 (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure how to cite a source, but the previous cited source proves that the result listed for the 2024 Senate race is wrong. Was 51-47 Hovde but listed as 51-47 Baldwin. Please fix for me if you can, thanks. 75.6.209.128 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then my apologies - please change the article! I reverted your original edit because you hadn't provided an edit summary to explain what had happened, but thanks for letting me know. Epsilon.Protatalk09:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. I understand my recent edits to the Tokina page were reverted over concerns about LLM-based sources. The content I added came from verifiable sources that I included and was not generated by an LLM. For example, the product and lens names I added can be independently confirmed on Tokina’s official website. 05:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Epsilon.Prota The sources were only cross-checked using GPT, once found independently, to ensure they met Wikipedia’s neutrality standards. At the time, I wasn’t aware that clicking links inside GPT could insert tags into the citation URL — which I did not notice. While that was a mistake, the actual content added to the article was written independently, not generated by GPT.This applied only to a few early sources added as a newcomer, and I’ve since corrected the issue.11:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ethanmurphy95 thanks for clarifying! As long as you've independently verified the sources the LLM may generate then they're suitable for inclusion. If this is a regular part of your editing workflow, I'd suggest reading the guidance on LLM usage and disclosure to make sure everything's ship-shape. Happy editing! Epsilon.Protatalk11:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epsilon.Prota Thanks for the clarification! Is it possible to roll back the changes, as I’m not sure how to do that myself? I also noticed that another editor had already removed the tag from one of the links I added and re-posted it — ideally that should remain in place if the rollback is applied; otherwise, I’m happy to fix it again manually.Ethanmurphy95 (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you removed my edit on Jillian Segal profile. The section I edited stated without any citation that Segal is known for her role in business communities and government. Segal is far more widely known for her controversies over her role in the NAB scandal, and more recently her role in pushing for legislative changes to censor criticism of Israel.
It is relevant because you're clearly not an authority on the topic and you're trying to censor a less positive view of Segal than the already existing, unsourced assertion of her.
Why is the assertion that Segal is known for her contributions to business, etc., allowed without citation? Known to whom?
Again, if you were Australian, you would know that Segal is known to the vast majority of Australians for her role in the NAB scandal, and now more recently for her role in censoring criticism of Zionism.
@2405:6E00:22D:7255:2CF5:85E9:71CC:DE26 I'm not trying to "censor" anything here - Wikipedia is not a publisher of your original thoughts. If a reliable source has published similar claims to those you added to Jillian Segal, then you may by all means add it, so long as you reference where it was said. My credentials are irrelevant, as are yours - Wikipedia is simply a collection of externally published sources. If you'd like assistance in properly referencing any claims you'd like to add, I'm more than happy to help. Epsilon.Protatalk13:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's past midnight and I'm on my phone, but I will get those citations and I don't think I need the hell of a chronically online moderator.
@2405:6E00:22D:7255:2CF5:85E9:71CC:DE26 I'll ask you to remain civil while we're discussing this. I assume you're referring to the statement "She is known for her contributions on the boards of government, commercial and non-profit organisations.". You're right, this wasn't referenced in the text, and in its current state should be removed. However, sources like these: [3],[4], [5] support her positions as commisioner of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, a member of the board of Sydney Opera House, and the chairman of the General Sir John Monash Foundation. We can use these references to support such a claim, so if you check the article now, you'll see I've re-added the statement you removed, now with the supporting references. If you can find references that similarly support your earlier statement that she is more widely known for her role in the NAB scandal, and more recently for her controversial plan to censor criticism of Israel, then it can similarly be included. Epsilon.Protatalk14:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for message. I deleted the text by mistake, but I thought I had checked and nothing was missing. Thank you for saving this. I am open to any advice, and I'm keen to learn. For instance, is this the correct place to message you? Darrin Baines (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is very helpful. Basically, I want to transfer the contents from this series onto wikipedia because most of the infprmation is missing because it is pre-internet: History of Medicine » Dr Baines. I am not doing this for self promotion, and would like advice on how to make this work. I am happy to take guidance. I'm really interested in sharing knowledge. Darrin Baines (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Darrin Baines - apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Wikipedia really values expert contributors like yourself, so thank you for volunteering! There's a lot of good advice for new expert editors at Wikipedia: Expert editors, and you can read about how to properly cite sources using the Wikimedia markup here. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Epsilon.Protatalk08:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming expiry of your patroller right
Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion.Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New page reviewer granted
Hi Epsilon.Prota, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
