User talk:Felida97/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thanks for the help at the Clash Royale article!

Yes, I tried my best to edit it of course but I am not perfect and looking at your profile, you seem way more experienced than me. I also thank you for telling me in your edit description that my edits were mostly on spot. So I know for the future that I should maintain my editing style just like with the Clash Royale article. I wish you a very nice day!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigeshjen (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bigeshjen: Hi, thank you for your message and your contributions to Clash Royale. Keep editing and don't let small adjustments by others discourage you! But judging by your comment/edit summaries I don't see that being the case anyway as you seem to know how to take notes :) P.S. Remember to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh ok, I will sign it from now om! Bigeshjen (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC) BigEshjen Bigeshjen (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Important question

I looked at your edit summary of the Clash royale article and you stated a couple of wrong things that I did. But I never EVER changed that and I can swear that. I don't know if I just discovered a glitch or if this is a known one. Because why would I remove the Clan Wars 2 thing? That was good, and the Clan Wars 1 thing was in past but after one edit it went into present. I think that this glitch has to do with revision or something. That some sections were changed into 2017 or something. VERY weird glitch. And it all happened after one edit. So basically, my question is: Is this already know or not? All in all very scary. Bigeshjen (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC) Bigeshjen

@Bigeshjen: Hi, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I'm assuming it's the thing you were talking about in this edit summary as well? Anyway, something that can occasionally happen is that one edits an old revision (looks like this) without realising (happens when you view an old revision/version of a page and then click "edit" at the top). In that case you can see a note above the edit box that reads: "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you publish it, any changes made since then will be removed. You may wish to edit the current revision instead." Maybe that's what happened here: you were viewing an older revision and then started editing and thus undid the changes in between (I still make that mistake sometimes as well). If you're saying for example that you really didn't make the the 3-4 minor changes that I adjusted (like change the section headings for the different championships or removing the category), I think you maybe were accidentally editing this revision from 8 February 2022 for example (or an older one before that), because if you were editing that revision, you would have inadvertently removed for example the subheading changes from 25 March 2022 and the addition of the category from 8 April 2022 (as well as the part about "Clan War II" which was added on February 9, 2022. So, that's the only plausible explanation I can offer: not a "glitch", just an accident. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Changing short descriptions

When changing short descriptions on Wikipedia articles, please be sure to also change the short description on the corresponding Wikidata item to match. Thanks! – Xenophore; talk 18:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xenophore: Hi! While I agree that for some types of short descriptions (like the concert tours I've been going through lately) this synchronisation with Wikidata could make sense, your wording makes it sound like every (changed) short desc should be exported to wikidata (and that I should've done so in the past), which is not the case as far as I'm aware. "Wikipedia descriptions and Wikidata texts serve different purposes and are not required to be the same." However, I will take your message as a suggestion and will maybe use the "export" feature of the SDHelper a bit more often, though Wikidata is frankly not my area of activity and I'm not really interested in getting more involved there. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

CeCe Moore

Please carefully read the first sentence again, and make it better. 63.226.229.191 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, sorry, I only saw the positive modification of the beginning of the sentence and missed the error it left in the middle. Anyway, I fixed it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, though you could've also just fixed it. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

I saw you forgot to warn the IP user:2A02:AA7:4024:E88A:205D:E22:6F94:DBAC after you reverted their edit on Jim Brown, and I consider that trout worthy! {{User|wylie39}} {Talk}

@Wylie39: Didn't forget, I just tend to not warn editors if it's one-time issue/single problematic edit. But feel free to warn editors, if you think someone else forgot it. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Too kind

You were too kind here. I go straight to WP:AIV after just one edit like the ones they made. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Yeah, probably. I did consider it after the third edit, but feel like going straight to AIV after the first one would not have been right here either since I wouldn't consider the edits he made "egregious" (see top note at WP:AIV), just regular old vandalism ;) (but I may have the wrong impression here). I just noticed that AIV reports are often not acted upon because the user "was not sufficiently warned" or "has not edited since most recent warning" (or similar reasons). That's why I usually stick to those "vandalism after 4th warning" reports. But I'll admit that I forgot that in "egregious cases" one doesn't necessarily have to warn as much before reporting, so thanks for making me take a closer look at AIV report requirements again. Now I just have figure out at what point I consider vandalous behavior to be "egregious" ;) Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

PASOK

I am unable to understand the reasons that you deleted my edit on PASOK . It seems that you have not yet read the greek version of the article on "Christos Tsoutsouvis" (https://el.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A7%CF%81%CE%AE%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82_%CE%A4%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%B2%CE%AE%CF%82). If you do so, you will realise that these facts are mentioned on the greek version of Wikipedia. In addition to that, the fact that Dimitris Koufontinas was a member of PASOK, is known to the domestic Intelligence Agency (E.Y.P) as well as a very large number of Police Officers, as Dimitris Koufontinas has confessed so. Please do not delete my editings again without a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex Talionis 1974 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lex Talionis 1974: I did not revert your edit without a reason as my edit summary says: you did "not provid[e] a reliable source" (which is true, you did not). You're right, I did not read the Greek-language article, but that also does not matter, if you want to add content to the English Wikipedia. I see you reverted my edit with the reason "All these facts are widely known in Grrece. Some of them are found on the greek version of Wikipedia." Note that "these facts are widely known" is not a valid justification, you need reliable sources to support such statements. If these facts are indeed reliably sourced on the Greek Wikipedia, please include those references when you add the content to the English Wikipedia. Otherwise, you will probably be reverted again, whether it is by me or somebody else. Also note that the Greek Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (see WP:CIRCULAR). Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Eamonn Melaugh

In the Page about Eamon Melaugh:

Eamonn Melaugh

the title of the page, and the page content, uses 'Eamonn'. However, he actually spells his name 'Eamon' (one 'n'). I tried to change this but it appears to have reverted to the previous version. His book is listed here:

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/melaugh/book.htm

Jimny04 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jimny04: Thank you for messaging me here (rather than reinstating your edit). You're correct in that I reverted your edit (based on the article's title, the fact that it was not recently changed, and your missing edit summary). You also seem to be correct about the spelling of his name (some of the sources cited in the article do use the spelling with two "n", but the majority does not), so I'm sorry for my rather quick revert. Please open a section regarding this on the article's talk page, so that more people can be aware of this issue. I will then comment there as well, and will likely open a discussion to move the page. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've opened a section about the change to the spelling of Eamon's forename. As I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles, I didn't realise I had to do an edit summary; I'm also not sure where I do this. Jimny04 (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jimny04: Sorry for taking so long, but I have replied on the talk page. Unfortunately, there are quite a few credible sources for both spellings and I can't objectively tell which is correct (see my reply for details/examples). Sorry... Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replied on the talk page as well. Jimny04 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Capitals (typeface): you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Wesoree (Talk) 17:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Wesoree (Talk) 17:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wesoree: I'm quite aware of them (and use warnings regularly), thank you, but I usually don't make use of them if it's only a one-time issue/single problematic edit. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Self-trout ok then Wesoree (Talk) 18:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I was just looking through my first edits, and came across a revert you made that I never even noticed. -- Cosmic (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Balaniti

Hey, you just removed my link on "Balanitis". Can you please add it again because this blog can help your user to explore more about specific symptoms or related https://yourdoctors.online/red-spots-on-penis/#3_Balanitis. You can review it by yourself. Waiting for your kind response 115.186.159.231 (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the link you added because Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion (see the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations). Especially blog posts are generally to be avoided (see WP:NOBLOGS). Also, on the off-chance that you're affiliated with that site: Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

So can i add reference please? 115.186.159.231 (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Can I also add a reference for this informational content https://yourdoctors.online/birth-control-pill-and-other-methods-of-contraception/ on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_contraceptive#External_links? These resources will be helpful for you as a reader. 115.186.159.231 (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This website/blog is not suitable as an external link or as a reference (see WP:NOBLOGS and WP:BLOGS), so no. You can read at WP:MEDRS what kind of sources are considered reliable for medicine-related articles. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Will add the reference

Thanks for the information will add the reference in some time Majiidhussainwani (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Majiidhussainwani: That's great! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Andong Soju

Andong Soju is one of the only 2 distillates considered "very fine" in South Korea. At your convenience, please check out the South Korean-US trade agreement specifically calling out Andong Soju and Gyeongju Beopju (https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Countries%20Regions/africa/agreements/pdfs/FTAs/South%20Korea%20FULL.pdf) because of their very fine classification and feel free to revert the edits. 204.212.175.30 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The linked trade agreement does not mention a "very fine classification" anywhere; in fact, the words "very fine" are not used at all in that document. The two mentioned products are simply described as "distinctive products of Korea". Turning that into "very fine" is adding your own interpretation which is why I reverted the edit. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Bracegirdle Incident

You have removed a paragraph I added under this saying I haven't given a reference.

Below is the reference and let tell me why you don't think this is an identical incident.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-blogger-who-covered-sri-28208738 Saman.mudan (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Saman.mudan: Firstly, just to be clear, I reverted your addition because you did not provide a reliable source (you did not include this reference in your edit), I made no statement regarding whether the two "incidents" are identical (and don't intend to do so now). However, I would question how relevant this addition about a non-notable blogger in 2022 is for this specific article about a 20th-century Marxist revolutionary or for the description of the specific situation from 1937. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

So are you saying that this blogger is non-notable because she is from 2022 and not a Marxist revolutionary? Saman.mudan (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Saman.mudan: No, I'm saying this blogger is not notable because she does not have a Wikipedia article (see WP:NBIO) and that I don't think this situation from 2022 is relevant to the Wikipedia article about a 20th-century Marxist revolutionary or relevant to the description of the situtation from 1937. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I do. I believe it's an exact repeat of the events in history and people should learn from it. So what do you suggest I should do? Because I believe if I add it again you will remove it? Saman.mudan (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Saman.mudan: I guess whether or not it is relevant is up for debate. What is not up for debate is that in the provided source (or any other source on the 2022 situation afaict) neither Bracegirdle nor the Bracegirdle incident is mentioned. Therefore, your comparison of the two situations, which is the whole basis of the addition, is original research on your part and as such should not be in a Wikipedia article (see WP:OR). So, I suggest you find a reliable source that makes this comparison. Once you have such a reference, you may add the sentence again (or preferably, first gain consensus on the article's talk page) and see whether other editors (not me) think it is relevant information for this biography. Otherwise, yeah, if you add your original research again to this article, I (or someone else) will remove it again. I hope that clears up any confusion. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

February songs

February songs

my daily stories

Thank you for fighting vandalism for the 300-years-old cantata! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you, that's very kind! I'm happy to have (though by chance) protected a great article. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! - Today: the regional festival - DYK of 13 years ago ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Kudos

Wanted to leave a note of thanks for your careful, knowledgeable work on the short descriptions issue. Appreciate your addressing that situation. It makes me notice how experienced you are—I hope you might think about RfA. In any case, thanks for all your work on the project! Innisfree987 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: That's very nice, thank you! I don't believe we have crossed paths before (I think I would remember your username since I'm, perhaps even a bit too much, into AB ;)), but I appreciate your message and you seem to be doing a lot great work on Wikipedia as well. Regarding an RfA: while I appreciate the sentiment, every time I read a new RfA I find new reasons why I wouldn't want to go through that process, why I wouldn't be a great fit or why I think my RfA wouldn't be successful (some related to my on-wiki activity, some related to personal stuff). But you're also the first person to even suggest it, so it's not like I have considered it that seriously... Anyway, thanks again for you message and keep up the good work :) Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This might help you

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material Thanks for your help. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Even better/easier, thanks for the hint (I usually don't edit this type of content and just didn't want to tell an IP user to find sources without adding sources myself)! Would you mind taking a look at my attempt to clean the section up? Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That's really good, the sources show the significance. I think a lot of editors think you just need sources for the fact, and we end up with a lot of trivia. I'm stripping my watch list to concentrate mainly on pseudoarcheology while I still have time (see my talk page). Doug Weller talk 13:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for taking a look! Yeah, I never liked those (almost entirely unsourced) lists of mere mentions in works, but I guess I never looked into it because it isn't really my editing area. I'm sorry to hear about your situation. Although we haven't interacted much, I think, I've obviously seen you around and greatly respect your contributions and commitment to Wikipedia, so thank you for all you've done (and continue to do, especially in your situation)! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s very kind of you. I admit to not paying attention to this myself, hopefully we both will in the future. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your hard work on Wikipedia, keep up the good work! 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Filmssssssssssss: Thank you, that's very kind! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The Boss (band)

Hello. I replied to your message on my talk page, but wasn't sure how this normally works so have added here as well. The link I added to The Boss (band) for the group members' YouTube account, which is a live one (which you can confirm if you check the content - both that it is created by them and currently updated regularly). Arguably this is more relevant now than the other two links that still show on the Wikipedia page - the Japanese one seems to be broken, and the Open World one doesn't have any recent content - so can you please restore the link. 195.213.161.26 (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me about your message on your talk page, I have replied there. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC) PS: If you include @[[User:Felida97|Felida97]] somewhere in your replies on your talk page (for example at the very beginning of your reply), I'll get a notification and you won't have to notify me like here.

Yokohama High School

The original name for Nile C. Kinnick High School was Yokohama American High School. The "America" was gradually dropped, but remained the official name. Also There were two location in Yokohama where the school operated from. The first was on the Bluff area of Yokohama overlooking the city. In 1952 the school moved to the Nasugbu Beach building which was formerly an elementary school. It shared half the building with the elementary school. Jr. High buildings were added to the rear of the main building. Science classrooms and labs, plus home an Ec0nomics classroom were held in a new building in front of the main building. The name Nile C. Kinnick was first used in 1960; that was the year when the Army tuned the school over to the Navy. Col.R.C.B. (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Col.R.C.B.: Hi! As has been said in edit summaries and explained on your talk page, your edits were reverted because you did not provide a reliable source for your claims. Not only that, but your changes were/are contrary to what the existing, reliable references say. None of the cited sources mention the name "Yokohama American High School" and the year of the name change is sourced to be 1990 in two of the sources (both of which look very reliable). So, if you want to re-add the content (or the additional stuff you wrote here), you have to find and include reliable sources for it. Otherwise, your edits will always be reverted again and you risk getting blocked for disruptive editing. If you're unable to find reliable sources for your changes, you can also explain the issue on the article's talk page and see if someone else might find a source. I hope this cleared things up. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You're doing a fantastic job in counter-vandalism... Keep it going!! Volten001 ☎ 18:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Volten001: That's very nice, thank you! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed... You're most welcome Volten001 ^☎ 18:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit image on Roger Dean entry

Hi Felida, I'm completely new to this, so if i made a mistake I'm sorry about that. The image that I have inseted in the bio section replaced one that was dated 2008 with one that I took this year. Axialarticus (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Axialarticus: Hi! Thank you for reaching out, sorry about the late reply and no worries about your edit. I have replied to the message you left me on your talk page. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace

Please don't revert it again. See the discussion page. If you have more recent research to cite that demonstrate Swade et al. to be wrong, then please cite that. Otherwise, please don't revert it. IndyCar1020 (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@IndyCar1020: Looks like I won't have to since two other editors already reverted your changes after me... I saw the discussion on talk and there is not exactly consensus for removing the existing sentence/references entirely. For example, the reliably sourced fact that "she is often regarded as the first computer programmer" is still true with the most recent research. If you want to include the recent doubts, I would suggest leaving this specific sentence (and existing references) largely as is and discuss an extension of this sentence where it's indicated that those claims have been challenged. Or you can add the recent research to the existing section "Controversy over contribution" (afaict, it's not included there) and once it's there, we can still discuss whether this is something that needs to be mentioned in the first sentences of the lead. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a consensus if there is new peer reviewed research that has been standing for years without being refuted by peers in the field.

If this isn't enough to change a page on Wikipedia, then what is? How many peer reviewed articles do you need that states the previously held opinion is no longer accurate, before the Wikipedia page can be updated?

This is a gross scientific misattribution, and it needs to be corrected. It is a great injustice that it has been like this for so long. IndyCar1020 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Hi Felida97, you are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) § Reaching a consensus on the "Accuracy" section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I've sent the same customized message to all recent editors of the article; this is an addition of own words in response to your editnotice. ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: (Although the edit notice is mostly intended against warning templates) that's very considerate, thank you :) I'll see what I can contribute regarding the issue and will participate in an RfC if one is started as you suggested. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Someone has to start it though, perhaps you, anyone. I don't know what question is actually the main one under dispute. Whether to mention Caviezel's beliefs at all? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

restore previus changes

hello, we need to update the information on the british school of milan page because it is no longer relevant. I want to understand why the wrong information keeps getting restored when we already posted the correct one Nyssa Bernal (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nyssa Bernal: Hi (sorry for the rather late reply)! First of all, thank you for reaching out rather than making the same changes again. Regarding your question: I have stated what the various issues with your edits are (why I reverted your edits) on your talk page and in my edit summaries, but I understand that you might not have seen those, so I'm gonna write them here again:

1. The first two big issues are that you keep removing sourced content and sources while adding large amounts of unsourced content. Content on Wikipedia needs to be reliably sourced and verifiable for other editors (so, you saying that the added information is correct is not a valid reason on its own to include the content, even if it's true, because no one else can verify it).
2. Secondly, your additions include a number of non-neutral statements or statements indicating original research (e.g., "The BSM is a not-for-profit school which provides world-class education", "The school ... offers a rich international experience", "Academic results are outstanding") that could also be viewed as promotional. Maintaining neutrality and a neutral point of view is one of the core policies on Wikipedia and non-negotiable (see WP:NPOV). Furthermore, original research and using Wikipedia for promotional purposes is also not permitted (see WP:NOR and WP:PROMO).
3. The third issue is the formatting and style of your additions. There is a Manual of Style on Wikipedia that should be followed in order to ensure a consistent style and your additions went against this MoS (for example, by including a lot of external links inside the article body and by using a non-standard content structure). If you compared the version you created to other Wikipedia articles (for example, other articles on schools), you could see that Wikipedia articles have a lead and rarely start with a sentence like "The mission of The British School of Milan is to inspire learning within a caring, creative, and international community, to pursue excellence, and to enable students to fulfil their ambitions.". External links are also to be confined to the external links section and are generally not allowed inside the article body (see WP:EL).
4. Lastly, I want to make you again aware of two additional guidelines: the one on edit warring and the one on handling conflicts of interest (since I get the feeling that you and other editors of the article might have on). I have left messages regarding the first one on your talk page already and am going to add one regarding the second one in a minute.

I hope this reply cleared up why your "updates" keep getting reverted. If you update the article using neutral language, in an objective and unbiased style, with reliable sources for the added content, without removing existing sourced content and following the Manual of Style, your revisions will likely not be reverted. However, if you do have a conflict of interest, you should avoid editing the article altogether (see message on you talk page). Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Felida97!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 10:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Dustan Mohr issue

heres a source I don't do wiki edits just have a distaste for a certain type https://www.wane.com/top-stories/former-mlb-outfielder-northrop-coach-dustan-mohr-arrested-for-child-sex-crimes/ 50.225.231.66 (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! I've replied to your message about this on your talk page as well but it seems another editor added it (with a source) just a few minutes after my revert of your edit, so the issue should be resolved. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverted information about Seventh Fort

I added a new section that the Seventh Fort cannot be visited, it is closed for tourists. I think this is an important information, because many people are curious about it. And you withdraw my edit with the comment: Wikipedia is not a tourist website. This was an undemocratic decision, in my opinion I added a useful information which can be used by many people. The source is an email received directly from the authorities, how should I link that on the page? I see that certain users have right to revert edits, but it shouldn't be a decision taken alone, I invested time to ask Seventh Fort's office, write the email, edit the page and this is what I get back, my edit is removed. Elod1234 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There are many other examples!!!

Tai O#Tourism Elod1234 (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Elod1234: Hi and thank you for your message! Sorry for the rather late reply but I see that you also messaged Peaceray about this who already left a response on your talk page that basically says what I would've answered here as well (and even going beyond by suggesting Wikivoyage, which seems to me like the more appropriate place for this information): 1. I was indeed referring to the policy that Wikipedia is not a travel guide and the information you added could at least be argued to fall under that (which is why I would say that my decision was not "undemocratic" but based on site-wide consensus/policies). 2. Perhaps more importantly, the first part of my edit summary said "unsourced" (which you conveniently left out). Your personal correspondence with someone does not comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy and, thus, the addition, even if the nature of the information is appropriate for Wikipedia, would have been reverted as unsourced information and a link to the email or something would not change that.

I can understand that you're frustrated given your effort to obtain the information and your good intentions but verifiability is one of Wikipedia's non-negotiable core policies. (I sure you can understand why that is, as, for example, me adding to the page that I wrote Seventh Fort's office and that they responded that the site is open for tourists would be equally verifiable for you/others. That is not to say that I don't believe you that you wrote them or that the added information is correct; in fact, I do but that doesn't really matter overall.) I hope this (and Peaceray's message) cleared everything up and was at least somewhat helpful. If you're still interested in contributing to Wikipedia, the links in the welcome message on your talk page are a good place to start! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Great work. --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@--WikiUser1234945--: Thank you very much (sorry for the delayed response)! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep Holding On

I have the link now! Rodrick the1st (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Gjonaj

The village name does come from the name Gjon and the suffix -aj is usally added in Albanian names which is used in surnames such as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjonaj . And first name here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjon So I definitely think it is a mistake even if there is no source. Some things are very obvious. TheCreatorOne (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheCreatorOne: Hi, thank you for your message! That's interesting but without a source what you're describing is, at best, original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia (also see WP:V for the other core policy relevant in this case). Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 Editing CBT

sorry for the misunderstanding, my friend took my phone and decided to screw the page up. Thebootyholetickler (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:BROTHER. You hold accountability for any actions done on your account, regardless of who did it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 19:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

John L. Lewis edit

Hey sorry I'm just on mobile and my edit just didn't really work right. I wasn't testing anything I'm just kind of dumb my bad. I was trying to connect the two parts of that Woodie Guthry song not whatever it is that did happen. Anyway I figured it out just gotta do source instead of visual, thanks for telling me about that sandbox thing its real helpful.

Toast Mcgoast (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Ethiopian Greeks

The page is full of errors. No Areas of Ethiopia or Eritrea were annexed by the Greeks no evidence of such other than a relationship of trade and neither are the axumite sites a reflection of Hellenic Egypt 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:3541:34:3283:3E31 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Question about edit revert

Hi, you reverted an edit of mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Happy_Wheels&diff=next&oldid=1184158979) because it's "not a reliable source". The page I linked in the edit is an official announcement by the game creator. Notice how the previous citation links to the same website, just to a different announcement by that same person. I'm confused as to how it is an unreliable source; when the same site/announcement system was linked to previously. Kwwwwwl (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kwwwwwl: Hi, sorry for the terribly late reply and you're right, it's the same source (I think I might have missed at the time that the URL/linked announcement changed because only the last two characters of the URL changed, but that's not meant as an excuse). I do want to point out that you replaced the previously stated year and left the edit summary "corrected false info that the sequel has been in development since 2019; it was actually first announced to be in development in 2012". Given that both are announcements by the game creator, how would you be able to say which one is the correct one? Also, after looking at it more closely, I'm not sure that the linked 2012 announcement actually qualifies as an announcement for a sequel since the information is kind of vague that it doesn't sound like the creator knew what it was going to be at the time (therefore, it's not clear whether he was developing a sequel to Happy Wheels, merely a new version or a different unrelated new game; "I've been spending my own time creating a new version of Happy Wheels from scratch. At least, I assume it will be Happy Wheels. I'm learning c++ and opengl. It is fun to have something new and challenging, so I'm pumped to have something showable soon. I promise it will be awesome (if you liked Happy Wheels and my judgement hasn't expired)."). However, I have found some posts from 2013 where they explicitly claim to be working on a sequel (e.g., [1], [2]), so that's probably what they meant in the 2012 post as well, and the current wording of the sentence in the article ("sequel has been announced to be in development since 2019") is indeed incorrect. So, I've adjusted the sentence to reflect the much earlier development start (I chose the safe wording "since at least 2013") as well as the primary nature of the source. Sorry again for the late reply and happy future editing. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for reverting the Grinch fan at gift wrapping before I could! Happy holidays! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Schrödinger's jellyfish: Thank you very much and happy holidays! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Felida97!

Happy New Year!

Felida97,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Abishe: Thank you, happy New Year to you as well! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)