This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Source provided
Good afternoon @Belbury, just to let you know, I found a source that states about shawarma generally being Middle Eastern and not just an Arabic dish. As I found one source, please don't report me for edit warring. Thank you. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury But I found a source that supports the statement that Shawarma is associated with the whole Middle Eastern cuisine, not Arab. Hopefully you won't mind adding it on that article. Plus, I asked for a discussion on the talk page for you guys to explain why it should just be called an "Arab" cuisine, but there had been no response for several days. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did write a note on Talk:Principal Component Analysis justifying my referencing our (6 co-authors) review of Principal Component Analysis published in 2022 by Nature Reviews. Can the reference now be reinstated? Michael.greenacre (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael.greenacre: Thanks. Whether it gets added is up to the editors who read that talk page. If you add the {{edit coi}} template and write a specific edit request (eg. saying exactly where in the article you want the link added), the request will be put in a queue that other editors will check in on. Belbury (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit of Golden hour (photography)
I don't think a period directly after an image tag is necessary or intentional, as it leaves a blank line right after a section heading. --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 16:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a starter editor. I understand what a reliable source is but the game I write on my article does not have an official website. The only way I can get references is through user generated content like a fandom wiki article. How can I get a reliable source without an official website. Nanb500001 (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hi there! In this case it means that a number of edits have matched those made in the past by a blocked user, giving the appearance that that user is trying to evade their block. Belbury (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we need the idiom cite? The source said it, so I do not think it's necessary. Also, please read sources carefully before you assume that the information is, well, 'non-existent' and reverting. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ShawarmaFan07: See MOS:IDIOM, Wikipedia does not use idioms like someone having "one foot" in a place. Non-fluent readers won't know what it means, and I'm not completely sure myself what the sentence is trying to say. I'm not restoring the template because the information is "non-existent", I'm restoring it because the sentence uses an idiom when it shouldn't.
It supposed mean that Al-Maleki was squeezed between Western, American culture and culture from rural Middle East. In fact I originally said "clashed", but for some reason you deleted that, and when I reverted it back, I had to include this idiom because you will (as usual) nag at me for "not exactly matching the words with source". ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ShawarmaFan07: Saying that a person was "squeezed" or "clashed" between two cultures still isn't very clear, and risks implying that there was unwanted social pressure from her American friends, which doesn't sound like it was necessarily the case. I've rewritten it to be closer to the specifics given in the sources, that she had assimilated into American culture, but considered herself Muslim and was fluent in Arabic. Belbury (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I am sorry!
I hope I have communicated through my contributions at this point that when I say that "I am sorry", I really mean that it won't happen again. I am beyond thankful for your advice and guidance! Luke Elaine Burke (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Below are some of the references cited and of course, undone. Could you help me understand how these linked references do not exist or presumably qualify as independent third-party secondary sources.
Can you help me relook into the deletion? I have edited based on facts, and all editions were duly referenced:
The glassware is a new / different shape and form.
Language used is neutral and non-promotional. No laudatory term was used. I was extremely cautious about this.
Sources / references cited are third-party, credible and independent - It has received third-party acknowledgement by iF award and Tableware award for its different bowl and mouth sizes, and usage, and covered by reputable publications.
@Eseahfs: Hi. The List of glassware article is a list of classic examples of like wine glass and tankard, I don't see that it needs a particular subdesign of whisky glass that someone started selling last month. There are hundreds of such products. Discuss it on the article talk page if you like. Belbury (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion on Content Moderation
Hi @Belbury, I saw that you reverted my addition of information about differing opinions on the page for content moderation (Content moderation). I didn't find any reasoning behind the reversion, although I understand the topic is somewhat controversial. That page has very little information about content moderation itself, since the page about content moderators was merged into it.
WP:WEASEL "it is suggested that..." isn't a useful way to frame a definition, and from the sources you cited the content didn't seem immediately salvageable ("third year law student blogger Ben Horton suggests that..."). That was all. Belbury (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade: Hi, I took it as being trivial to confirm that press sources consider "robotics companies" to be a general grouping of companies, without it needing footnotes to show that this phrase has been used. If that's a misread, please do revert me. Belbury (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, this is one of the key differences between the uses of categories and lists. Categories are used to show similar groupings, some of which are notable for their grouping and some that are not. For standalone lists, the grouping itself must be notable. That is, independent, reliable sources should discuss the specific grouping (though this doesn't mean sources need to discuss every item on the list). However, I do realize that lists are a more contentious article type. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia. You did so! Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Dolan
Hi Belbury,
The quote I added to Mark Dolan’s page was from Dolan’s own verified Twitter account, and that quote is being reported on GB News and the Twitter accounts of many of Dolan’s colleagues.
So yes I’m afraid you have made a mistake as I directly quoted Dolan’s own published statement - I didn’t quote a third party making a claim on Social Media.
GB News is actually displaying his tweet as they report it, as they are also aware it’s Dolan’s account.
WP:TWEET is that you can't use someone's tweet as a source for a claim they're making about a third party, that's all, and it's what you were doing in this edit. I'm not taking any view on whether something is true, just how Wikipedia provides sources for it. Belbury (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
