User talk:Perryprog/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Perryprog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi this is AssistantMaxwell! I tried to update Jessica Mitford's page with her biography, The Life and Times of Jessica Mitford, but the addition was removed because of the link to the author's page. Would the line of text about the biography be approved if it did not have the link, or if I used a link to the book itself? The Life and Times has invaluable insight into Mitford and her life. Here is the link I am considering:

https://lesliebrodyauthor.com/irrepressible/irrepressible-the-life-and-times-of-jessica-mitford-by-leslie-brody/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AssistantMaxwell (talk • contribs) 22:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi AssistantMaxwell; thanks for reaching out. I had reverted the edit principally because you added the link as what's called an "external link"—this is different from a reference, which seems to be what you wanted in this case. I only undid your edit on the "external link" portion alone, as having external links in the body of an article in that manner is generally not permitted—hopefully that helps clarify things. Please feel free to let me know if you have any more questions. Perryprog (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Perryprog! I work for LoopUp. There are some factual inaccuracies in the LoopUp wiki entry that we would like to address - specifically the description of the services that the organisation provides to customers which appears in the first paragraph of the entry.

We understand the issues with COI individuals changing wikipedia entries, but we're at a bit of a loss as to how else to ensure that the information is accurate. We have made these changes recently, but you appear to have reverted back to an earlier version of the entry which is no longer valid.

Your advice would be much appreciated!

RobJardine (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi RobJardine. First off, thanks for being up-front about your connection to LoopUp—that's greatly appreciated. This is a fairly trivial case, so I think the easiest thing to do would be to just follow the instructions in the Edit Request Wizard. That'll let you request changes to the article in a way that'll be reviewed by an independent editor before being implemented. If you have any other questions, please feel free to let me know. Perryprog (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I added a few references for the Awenasa album by the band, Offensive. I am a club owner and this band has performed at my club for many years. This is one of the best albums by any metal bands in my archive. Please consider publishing this page please. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.77.4 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that Theroadislong has already reviewed your last submission. I'd highly recommend referring to the decline reason that they gave—it's the gray box of text that begins with "This submission's references". In it, there are multiple links to documents that describe how to correct the current issues with the draft, which are primarily "sourcing" and "notability" based (those terms are explained by said links). Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions regarding those. Perryprog (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to add a reference of the article which explains the difference between CGPA & GPA, What was the reason you have deleted please explain so I will use that knowledge to rewrite the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewJee700 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

AndrewJee700 because the site itself looks incredibly fishy, as well as not at all appearing to be a reliable source. It's also not being used as a reference, so I'm treating it as if it were an external link, instead. (If that last sentence doesn't make sense to you, don't worry about it—it's not too important at the moment.) My general worry here is that you are adding it as a way to promote this site—is this at all accurate? Perryprog (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

If you took some time to read that article I don’t think you ever have to right that much and also has to explain me what happened or not you can check site credibility by knowing its spam rate if you wanna learn how to check that let me know i will teach you that…. AndrewJee700 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

AndrewJee700, I'm really not sure what you're saying. Would you mind stating if you do, or don't, have a connection with this website? Perryprog (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Finally thanks you have guessed it AndrewJee700 (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are you asking me to come here, it will never be read and replied to properly. Missbellanash (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

STOP 🛑 doing things to send notifications, just stop and stop now!!! Such an aggravation, have loaded dozens of pages and there is absolutely NOTHING there. Stop, this is abuse! Missbellanash (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on User talk:Jaouad888, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kent2121 (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Kent2121, for future reference, it's generally not worth it to request deletion of talk pages, especially when there were previous edits to them (as this one did—I was the one who created it). In this case, it would have been better to simply revert whatever the addition of promotional content was. Hopefully this helps! Perryprog (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to add factual details to the Task Force Pineapple page but I am confused about how to add news stories and tweets as citations. Meekwire (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Meekwire; thanks for reaching out. It definitely is a bit confusing, and I realize the message I left on your talk page wasn't directly helpful with regard to what you were trying to do, so I'm sorry about that. The easiest solution to this is probably just to use the "Cite" button that should be in the toolbar at the top of the editor, and paste in the twitter link there. It's worth noting, though, that Twitter is not generally considered a reliable source, as it doesn't have any sort of editorial oversight. Perryprog (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Yes, I was highlighting a sentence and trying to make it a hyperlink rather than a footnote. I got a bit confused reading the tutorial on adding footnote citations that link to news articles. Understand your point about Twitter citations. However, in this case, my Twitter account is verified, I'm a well known journalist, broke the story of the Pineapple Express for ABC News and was linking to a factual tweet about co-creating Task Force Pineapple with Scott Mann. I also read the COI section and believe my edits and adds were in line with correcting factual information about yourself. Meekwire (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Meekwire, ah, I see. Honestly, in that case I think your best choice would be to use the Edit Request Wizard, which is the recommended method of editing any articles you have a conflict of interest with—even though it's "technically" okay, it's generally just a lot easier this way, hopefully for everyone involved. The main downside is it can just take a bit more time before the edit is implemented. Perryprog (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Why I'm unable to upload an article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uday patel 007 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Uday patel 007, I rejected the draft because it was being repeatedly re-submitted without addressing the previous decline reasons, or, in fact, making any changes at all. If you do go and address the previous decline reasons and believe it's ready to be re-submitted, then you can do so by clicking the blue "Ask for advice" button on the draft's page. Perryprog (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Perryprog. Thank you for your advice - we're fairly inexperienced with Wikipedia - still learning the tools and the rules - so this was invaluable! I have requested the changes as you suggested, and made it clear that it's coming from a potential COI source. Hopefully we can now make those updates stick! Very best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobJardine (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

RobJardine, of course! Thank you for being understanding of the extra rules surrounding this area. I know it can be quite tedious on your end, but I promise it makes the work on our end significantly easier. One thing that is worth noting is, that since it does sound like you are employed by LoopUp, you will need to make a paid-contribution disclosure. While I recommend reading through that entire page, it may be helpful to also read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide § Disclosure for a simplified explanation on how to disclose that you're being paid to edit. Perryprog (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I just made some significant changes to User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. Since you have the tool active, I am informing you of this since it may affect you. To open the tool you will now have to click the "respond" button. The tool will load a similar interface as before. There is now a live preview of the response. These changes might have introduced some bugs so if you have any concerns / suggestions or run into problems please leave a note at User talk:Terasail/Edit Request Tool Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 15:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Perryprog,

I am writing to discuss your recent removal of the external links I added to the Wikipedia page about the Stradella bass system. As you may know, according to the External Links page, acceptable external links include those that contain accurate and on-topic further research, information that couldn't be included in the article due to copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that isn't suitable for inclusion in the article.

I want to emphasize that the links I added fulfill all these criteria. They provide accurate and on-topic information about the Stradella bass system, which couldn't be included in the article due to the amount of detail and the nature of the information. As an expert in this field, I believe that these links are essential for anyone who wants to learn more about the topic.

If you have a different opinion on this matter, I would be happy to have a conversation with you and learn more about your expertise in this field that led you to conclude that the links are not appropriate or of high quality.

I believe that by restoring the links, we can provide valuable information to the readers and uphold the principles of Wikipedia, which encourage the dissemination of accurate and relevant information.

Therefore, I kindly request that you reconsider your decision and restore the links to the Wikipedia page.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Giovanni Lucifero GioLuc76 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi GioLuc76—thanks for going to talk with me instead of just adding back in the links. That's super appreciated. I will note though that this isn't any "decision" in a formal sense; I'm just as much an editor as you are.

Regarding the links: Wikipedia has a pretty stringent policy when it comes to references, and an even stricter one when it comes to external links. While I do appreciate that you certainly have plenty of expertise in this area, you do appear to have a conflict of interest with AccordionChords.com, and it appears to be a financial conflict of interest as well, on account of the site having ads. This has some additional, in some cases legal, implications that I'd recommend reading up on (fully!) at WP:PAID.

Besides the financial conflict of interest policies that you need to abide by when editing about that thing you have a conflict of interest with (here this is really just that website, not accordions in general, generally speaking), there's also extra policy considerations besides the normal external link and reference policies that we have. This generally amounts to "don't", though there are some niche exceptions where it's not expressly not allowed. Here's the relevant documentation:

• Paid editing policy stuff (main thing here that you I would really recommend reading): Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing
• General guidelines on what external links to avoid: Wikipedia:External links § Links normally to be avoided
• Policy details on what "external link spam" means, as well as "citation spam": Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming
• Conflict of interest guideline on citing yourself: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Citing yourself

I appreciate that this is a massive dump of links and each one of those has even more pages of links on thinks relevant, but really the only thing you absolutely read is the first one. I included the rest since you might be curious about the nitty-gritty bits, and it can be tough to dig through the pages of policy we have to find the relevant bits. Finally, to bring this around to the actual problem at hand: considering the conflict of interest at play here, as well as the fact that it's really only been this site that you've been adding references or links to, makes me feel like this is more on the intent-to-promote side of things, so I don't feel comfortable adding back the links. If you want, you can make an edit request. The easiest way to do this is just through the Edit Request Wizard, and then an impartial editor will eventually be able to review the additions and go from there.

Hopefully this helps—this answer quickly became a lot longer than I expected (doesn't help that it's fairly late for me), but hopefully it isn't too overwhelming. I can try to summarize it a bit if it is. Perryprog (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Perryprog,

I initially thought that my contribution to the Wikipedia page was helpful, but I understand your concerns about conflicts of interest. While it may appear to be a conflict of interest on paper, I truly have no intention of promoting my links on the Stradella bass system page for any personal gain (especially because there's no gain). My only intention is to provide a valuable resource for users who are seeking information that cannot be found anywhere else.

If you search for accordion charts on Google, you'll see that my charts are unique and have no competition. I created these charts to provide a valuable resource to accordion players who are looking for information on each size of accordion. I initially added my website to the Wikipedia page as a gift to users who were looking for more information on the Stradella system but I don't want to have any problem for something I made in good faith.

I also understand that you are simply following the rules to ensure the quality of the content on Wikipedia. While it is disheartening, I accept it and will focus on my own business.

I will no longer contribute to any Wikipedia page.

Please remove the image I've added here: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Accordion/Reading_Accordion_Music

Thank you for your time. GioLuc76 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi GioLuc76,

I'm sorry that you no longer wish to contribute to Wikipedia. I hope you do in the future. I do really appreciate what you're trying to do, and I do think you have good intent—it's just sometimes policy can get in the way of good intent due to weird circumstances, like this. Regarding charts, that's actually something you can definitely contribute to Wikimedia Commons in a way that (I think) is way less frustrating policy-wise, as you have already!

Regarding your request about the image—you'll have to go and make a deletion request on Wikimedia Commons for the image to be removed, as it's been uploaded longer than a week ago. You can see instructions on how to do so on Commons:Deletion requests. If you want, I can make it on your behalf, but I can't make any guarantee on its success or failure. Perryprog (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Perryprog. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-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:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must 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! asilvering (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)