User talk:Lopifalko

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Pls stop making changes. Thanks. Much appreciated.

@Twelthstepman: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery states "wikipuffery is the puffing of a subject or the addition of praise-filled adjectives and claims. They may be there to exaggerate the notability of the article subject to avoid deletion of the article. Examples include use of adjectives such as ... "award-winning"". I instead say to you, please do not add "an award winning..." to Mike Binder. Thank you. -Lopifalko (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am biju viswanath filmmaker My introduction has been edited I found your name as the one who recently edited I need your valuable guidance and help

For my career, it will be helpful if I my Wikipedia profile comes up as before I. E

"Bijuviswanath is an award winning international filmmaker"

Please help Thank you

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biju_Viswanath

Thank you Biju Viswanath

@Cinemaflorence: Hello Biju. I hear what you are saying, but Wikipedia is not here to support your career, it is independent of you, and intended as an objective record. Wikipedia:Wikipuffery states "wikipuffery is the puffing of a subject or the addition of praise-filled adjectives and claims. They may be there to exaggerate the notability of the article subject to avoid deletion of the article. Examples include use of adjectives such as ... "award-winning"". If awards are mentioned then the specific awards must be described. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only wonder why it's so important to you? Do you work for wikipedia? Do you make donations? What is it that you go around telling people what they can not do? You've done this to others. I get it. You think it's your right. I respect that. I've asked you nicely not to. You want to do it anyway. Do you have this much time on your hands?

Twelthstepman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twelthstepman (talk • contribs) 03:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lopifalko, can you take a look at your last edit? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: Hi. What do you mean for me to see? What are you asking exactly? -Lopifalko (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> in red in the middle of the text. Lotje (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: Thank you. I didn't see the warning in red as I looked at the diff and not the page. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lopifalko,

I'm reaching out to invite you to participate in a research session because you're an English Wikipedia editor who works with media files—either regularly or occasionally. If you (or any other media editors who see this!) are interested in participating in an anonymous interview—for which you will be compensated—please first fill out this short survey in which we ask you a few questions about working with media. At the end, we ask for an email address that we can use to contact you if you are selected for an interview. If selected, we will follow up with an email invitation to select a day/time to participate. As a thank you for your time and insights, we are able to offer interview participants a gift card in compensation for participation.

You can complete the survey on any internet-capable device, but in order to participate in the interview, you will need access to a computer and internet connection fast enough to support video calls.

Thank you!

(MRaish (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

This survey will be conducted via Google Forms, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information about privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement. Of course, please feel free to remove this message.

Hello, Lopifalko. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Garmin Fenix, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing this person’s page. I will ask the writer to cite the awards, of which there are several. Not “puffery”, but actually hard work and a little luck. Cheers. 2603:7000:8A00:3BA8:C97B:2603:29F6:C5A1 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "this person's page" it is Wikipedia's page. Our WP:PUFFERY guidance states that a subject should not be described as "award-winning". There are so many awards around, not all of them notable, so "award-winning" at best is meaningless, and worse can puff up a subject without any factual specifics to support it. Perhaps you're confusing my intention, assuming that by removing "award winning" I am saying that the subject did not receive any awards. What I mean by removing "award winning" is that the specific awards received by the subject should instead be described. However, the Peter Biegen article claimed "award winning" in the lead, and yet didn't describe any awards in the body of the article, and "award winning" didn't have any sources, so it is doubly appropriate to remove it as it is not supported in any way. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“This person’s page” was to say this person on Wikipedia. Moreover, for what reason are you removing so much of his credits? Are you familiar with the writer and his works? You are not representing Wikipedia. You have every right to follow it’s rules, but you appear to be making a special case against this screenwriter and playwright for reasons that escape me. I work for Peter Biegen. This is my job. Can you please stop editing his Wikipedia page? I am asking with respect, and have noted you��ve done this elsewhere.

This person is not associated with you and has earned his credits and awards. Be kind and use your editing skills elsewhere. Many thanks! 2603:7000:8A00:3BA8:C97B:2603:29F6:C5A1 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed I have done this elsewhere. There were 1700 pages in the English Wikipedia that used "is an award-winning" and I have so far removed 1000 of those cases recently. I am systematically going through them all. This article came up again in my search results because you had re-added "award winning". It is laughable that you suggest I have picked on this article in particular. Given you brought it back to my attention by commenting here, I have gone and examined the article, and made further well justified alterations, all of which were described in their edit summaries. I do the same for any article brought to my attention, there is nothing about it that is making a special case of this one. That's what people like me do here. I had never heard of Peter Biegen until this conversation. The article is very lacking. It is no-one's "job" to alter Biegen's article, least of all yours if you have a conflict of interest. The article makes various claims that are unsupported by sources, and what sources there are are not enough to meet WP:GNG or MOS:BIO (as has been pointed out at the top of the article since 2010), which all biographies require. Given it is so lacking in supporting evidence, I don't see how you can stand up for it. I could have been any editor that happened along and scrutinised it. Your time would be better spent finding independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject and adding them to the talk page, so that other editors could add them to the article. You say he has earned his awards and so I should not remove mention of him winning any, but neither you nor the article describes what awards they are. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see Mike Binder has been through this with you, as well. So, rather than go round and round as you defend your fantasy editing job, may I ask a favor? Please remove the Peter Biegen Wikipedia page entirely. I am certain that an over simplified version of his life and achievements is less desirable than no page at all.

Thanking you in advance. 2603:7000:8A00:3BA8:C97B:2603:29F6:C5A1 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Margaret Moulton, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Lopifalko (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally dozens of photographers that created the genre that did not create it as candid only. You arrogant troll. I named two. But I'm sure if I named ten you still wouldn't admit your are wrong because you think you get to define this. You want to put something in a bo with rigid sides. You don't have a clue what art is. Theshowmecanuck (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theshowmecanuck: In reference to you calling me an "arrogant troll", please be civil. Neither do you "get to define what street photography is". If there are dozens of examples, then you need to cite independent reliable sources that support that. For example journalists writing about the claim you have made, rather than synthesising it yourself from sources. Please read the links I gave in my edit summary over at Street photography: "WP:SYNTHESIS / WP:ORIGINAL." You wrote "Some people make the mistake that street photography must be candid in nature, but in fact this has never been the case. Many of the originators of street photography, including those like William Klein actively involved their subjects." "Some people make the mistake that..." reads like personal opinion; and you sourced all of your writing to https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/265062, which states: "For this photograph, Klein asked two boys on Upper Broadway to pose." This is but one photograph, by a photographer who has been known to make street photography but also other kinds of photography, making a photograph in which the subjects pose. You cannot use one example to extrapolate so broadly. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lopifalko:, where are your reliable sources saying they must be candid shots? I posted EXAMPLES WHICH SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. There is no synthesis, only actual examples by some of the greatest street photographers. Only the weakest of thinking won't recognize examples of work as documentation. You want something to be 'so' even after being SHOWN. Just too weak. I'm tired of Wikipedia editors like you forcing their ideals on a subject like this. Here are some links (but I don't think 100 examples or references would be enough for you):

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5dc1a54a56b2bb00086a5211/master/w_2348,h_1500,c_limit/gilden10.jpg http://www.vivianmaier.com/gallery/street-2/#slide-6 https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/henri-cartier-bresson/ https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/259994 https://streetphotographymagazine.com/article/finding-inspiration-in-diane-arbus-life/ Theshowmecanuck (talk)

@Theshowmecanuck: I suggest you take it to Talk:Street photography for discussion with more than just myself. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lopifalko, I've been trying to improve the Mary Morrissy page and adding cites. What further work needs to be done to remove the REFIMP banner on Mary Morrissy page? I'd be interested in your opinion. Best, Mick gold (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mick gold: Hi. Nothing more. Everything appears to be sourced. It has 3 indepoendent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject (The Independent, The New York Times and The Guardian) which satisfies the basic requirement. Everything else apart from one list in a newspaper appears to be primary sources, which isn't ideal, but still you can remove the "BLP sources" warning. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Mick gold (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lopifalko. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Street style photography".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you removed a number of edits I made related to artists represented by the Eric Firestone Gallery due to violation of copyright rules. We do not intend to self-promote, only to include valuable information for those interested in the works of these artist. If the only rule I am breaking is the external links to our site, please let me know and I will remove them.

@Lukefirestone: Hi. I mentioned nothing about copyright, I linked to WP:PROMO due to your edits being promotional, and WP:EL because of the inline external link. MOS:LEAD is there only to summarise the most important aspects of the subject and must only include what is described in the body. Your statement was added to the lead and nowhere else. WP:EL says not to include inline external WP:PROMO links. All statements must be sourced, in most cases to independent reliable sources, especially so for biographies of living people. My understanding / belief is that adding mention of artist representation to articles is promotional, unless supported by independent reliable sources. Similarly, I see that another editor yesterday has again removed your additions, where it would appear someone else from your gallery has reverted my edits. On the other hand, I know other editors who believe that mentioning artist representation is OK. However, all of the above policies still apply. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, just wanted to clarify something. If I include artist representation in the body and remove the link, would this still violate policies of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaefg (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukefirestone: Not that I'm aware of when added with a neutral tone, though it flies close to the wind of WP:PROMO. You'll need to cite a source, preferably an independent reliable source (at the very least, put your link between ref tags). Others may be more aware than I of policy it violates, or object based on you appearing to be a single-purpose account, adding content to suit yourself rather than for the benefit of Wikipedia. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lopifalko! Good day, I have found out that you're the one who made an action to ASA Philippines Foundation on March 6, 2020.Then, after carefully analyze and further study the article is also can be added to Wikipedia as an Article consediring the notability and reliability of this company. Hope you'll notice this one. Thank you. Filipinotayo^talk 01:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Filipinotayo: I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you saying that I tagged the article as not notable, but that you believe it is notable? If so, then you should write a draft article that demonstrates notability, and submit it for review. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lopifalko. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lesia Maruschak, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am quite new to Wikipedia (only about 12 edits) and I wrote my first article today. Would you mind reviewing it? It is called Draft:Anne Lequy. I'd be really pleased. Also, the article is quite short and I included many citations (some of them are in german but this should be okay). I really took a lot of time to make this draft, so it turned out quite good (I think). I would love to hear your suggestions for improvement. Lmqay (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the article! I really appreciate your changes, it is amazing that you took time to improve it Lmqay (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmqay: Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What other steps do I have to take until the article is ready to be released into the main space? Can I do anything else? Lmqay (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmqay: The article should describe why the subject is notable. WP:NACADEMIC requires "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon" or that "the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor [or rector] in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university". However, Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied Sciences does not appear to satisfy this as there is no Wikipedia article on it. Failing the above, I would want to see independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject so as to satisfy WP:GNG. Being as the sources aren't in English, I haven't the patience to go through them I'm afraid. Are you able to identify the few best sources which satisfy this requirement please? -Lopifalko (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks Lmqay (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lopifalko. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anna Ray-Jones, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lopifalko:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1100 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

Hi Pete. Big thanks for setting up a Wiki page for dreamthinkspeak! We were looking into doing this, so it was great to see you take an interest in our work. We’d like to make a couple of changes and add some text and/or references, but aren’t experienced with the editing process. We were planning to reach out to our community, but we’re new to Wiki etiquette and wondered if you would be available to assist us with this?

We look forward to hearing you!

@DTS-UK: Hi, and thanks. I've been to a few of your productions and loved them. Consider what I've done so far to merely be the briefest of introductions, as I do plan to expand it. The recommended approach that you should take is to make suggestions on the article's talk page, then I or others can enact them if they're in keeping with Wikipedia policy, and sources exist that are independent of the subject, and considered reliable. The way Wikipedia works is that the subject themselves shouldn't create or edit an article on themselves as their conflict of interest tends to prevent them from taking a neutral point of view. Usually it's best to wait for independent editors to write the article. In theory, when a subject becomes notable enough then someone will hopefully be motivated to write an article. I was surprised to find an article didn't exist on Dreamthinkspeak already, as there were plenty of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company. If your suggestions are compliant then I'd be happy to make additions that are objective, neutral and in an encyclopaedic tone. Another thing, please read Wikipedia:Username policy with regard to the name chosen for your username.

-Lopifalko (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to hear that you have enjoyed our productions! Many thanks for your advice, we will follow that up.

Hi Pete, thanks for your edits on the Nick Hayes and Guy Shrubsole articles. Unfortunately, I don't agree with your use of WP:UNDUE. As you have left it, is not clear what the failings of the CROW Act are so the sentence isn't clear. Would you please be able to phrase in way that you see fit the fact that Shrubsole's research has found that in England people only have access to 8% of the land and 3% of the rivers, and that from their point of view this is a large short falling on what the campaigners for the 2000 CROW act aimed to achieve, and this is why they organised the mass trespass? Many thanks Paolo.oprandi (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I should have written WP:TOOMUCH, as I misleadingly cherry picked WP:UNDUE's "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text". It was a lot of text given the shortness of the articles and that the only source it had was a local newspaper. I have restored a portion.

Please can you be mindful not to add inline external links into the body of articles, thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paolo.oprandi (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lopifalko,

I am new to Wikipedia editing. You edited the Draft:DietPi article and removed the release history table.

Is there a reason that these tables should not be in an overview of a software? I generated the article in reference to Alpine Linux where also such a table is present. In comparison within the DietPi article this table is much longer than the Alpine Linux table, so the DietPi table may be a bit overwhelmed.

Thanks for your other editorial changes.

@StephanStS: Hi. I described what I'd done in my edit summary using the link "WP:NOTCHANGELOG" so that you could follow that for an explanation. Thanks for pointing out that Alpine Linux has the same issue, I've now done the same there. If you've any more questions about how things work around here then please don't hesitate to ask. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lopifalko: Thanks for the clearification. This issue should be closed for us.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dear Tommy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Tommy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lopifalko. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Düsseldorf School of Photography or Becher school, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your contribution Fatima.Innovative (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lopifalko,

We have read the comments on why you have redone our changes to the Hypersonix Launch Systems page.

I have changed my account name accordingly.

We have edited as there was 3 very false statements/comments.

We are in the process of getting a new Wikipedia page drafted as we speak (8 weeks away).

Can you please undo your edits for now?

Thank you

@Nina at HypersonixLaunchSystems: You shouldn't be writing an article about your own company, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. What are the "3 very false statements/comments"? I will not undo my edits as I believe they are justified. My first edits that you undid were to remove an excessive number of wikilinks (as per MOS:REPEATLINK), which seems an odd change for you to want to revert. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Wikipedia policies on "Neutral point of view", "writing with a formal tone" and "not a soapbox or means of promotion", consider this which you added to the article recently: "Michael is the foremost authority on scramjet engines and a world leader in hypersonic technology. ... His driving passion is designing and building re-usable engines ... He is well known for his genius and smart ideas". -Lopifalko (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of updating the Mike Rosen page to make it more accurate and relevant. I noticed that you reverted my most recent edits. I was going to start adding citations and am working with Mike himself. Is it possible to restore my version and if you see issues with what I am doing you can communicate with me? I understand the intention is to have wikipedia pages not be promotions or advertisements, but the person who is the subject of the page certainly should be able to have some input into the content vs. some 3rd party individual who knows very little about the subject. if you want to email me you can - bieb0311@gmail.com. Prw101XYZ (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prw101XYZ: Hi. I will not restore your version, because I did have issues with so much it. You removed lots of well sourced content and replaced it with unsourced info (taking the references down from 26 to 1, an Amazon promotional source), and added inline external links. It doesn't need someone who knows the subject to be able to see that this first and foremost goes against the purpose of Wikipedia, of having all information in biographies of living people be reliably sourced. Please read WP:COIEDIT and the "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide" to understand why the situation you describe is unacceptable; the person who is the subject of the page certainly should _not_ be able to have some input into the content, unless it is utterly wrong or impinges their privacy in an undue manner. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with citations, but citations in and of themselves do not result in an accurate or appropriate article. I can put 100 citations in an article and it can still be off-base, misleading, or paint the wrong picture. How is the article worded? What points or elements does it focus on? Is it balanced? These are the important factors. Not just citations. This paragraph on the Mike Rosen page is a good example:

Rosen wrote a May 31, 2012 column for The Denver Post, under the headline "Mike Coffman was right about Obama in the first place," strongly agreeing with a speech given by Mike Coffman. In that speech, Coffman questioned the birth certificate of President Barack Obama and asserted that Obama was not loyal to the United States.[21] Rosen dismissed Coffman's later apology[22] as a "pragmatic" election-year maneuver.[23]

Rosen wrote hundreds of articles - why is this one being mentioned? Could it be the author wants to paint Rosen as an extremist? A birther? The paragraph is inaccurate considering the way it is worded.

1) "Stronly agreeing" is a subjective statement. Mike agrees with some portions of the Coffman speech and disagrees with others. I think it's more accurate to say his column ANALYZED Coffman's speech. Or you could even say "agreed." "Strongly agreed" smacks of bias. 2) Coffman never challenged the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship. A reader would most likely come to the conclusion he had after reading this paragraph. 3) This statement - Rosen dismissed Coffman's later apology[22] as a "pragmatic" election-year maneuver.[23] - is highly biased. The word "maneuver" in this context has negative connotations. Mike did not use the word "maneuver" in his column. A more accurate way of stating this would be "Rosen characterized Coffman's apology as pragmatic."

I thought accuracy was important to Wikipedia? I've shown you three inaccuracies in a single paragraph in the Mike Rosen article. In addition to this, I looked at the citations and many of them go to dead links or links that exist behind paywalls.

I'm going to continue making smaller, more focused edits to Mike's page and am looking forward to your reviews of them. Some things I think can and should be added, such as Mike's signature statement "party trumps person." Anyone wanting to learn about Mike should know this. I will include citations wherever possible. I understand that wikipedia articles should not be advertisements or promotions. I don't disagree with that fundamentally. I would appreciate it if you would work with me on this rather than acting as a gatekeeper. Prw101XYZ (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Could you tend to the proposed changes listed on the Sildenafil talk page, some proposals are more than a year old and nobody seems to be remedying them

Cheers Corona1112 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lopifalko: ! Why you decline as I already review the draft?Fade258 (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: Which article are you referring to? -Lopifalko (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lopifalko This drafted article Draft:Evert González.Fade258 (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: What do you mean "I already review the draft"? This is the English Wikipedia and the article is not in English. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: Edit conflict, we were both working on it at the same time, you can see the timestamps in the log. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lopifalko Thank you . I am also exactly saying about.Fade258 (talk)€

Sir you decline this page and after seeing google i saw that there are more things to add in citiations so please review this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:B._K._Sharma and if the problem is not fixed so can you search his name and add it please or add template need more citiations please sir I will give you a barnstar if you research about this person and add citiation for this wikipedia page Mr. Asian (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• [[User:User:Lopifalko|User:Lopifalko]] ([[User talk:User:Lopifalko|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/User:Lopifalko|contribs]])
  • Draft:B. K. Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please review it I fix have fix all problems if the problems are stay on that page so please can you research about that person and add more citiations please or add template need more citiations please sir and I think he is notable because see the refrences see his name in many big news companies please if there is more problem please you fix it

Mr. Asian (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Asian: I'm not going to fix your article for you, you need to fix it and then resubmit it for review. If sources are available then you should add them to the article. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• AldonsoP (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Luzia Simons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lopifalko, Thank you for your reviews. I am new to this. I am not suitable to edit Draft: Luzia Simons because of conflict of interests. I am not being paid for it, but I am doing this for her as a curator and personal friend. Nevertheless I really believe she has a relevant enough career to have a Wiki-entry. So I guess I have to queue it at AfC... I am not sure how to proceed, can you help me? --AldonsoP (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lopifalko I believe I fixed all the issues that were brought by you and dear colleague @Possibly. I thank you both for your help! Specially because getting initiated in the wikiworld, can be quite overwhealming. Lokking forward for the next review. --AldonsoP (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AldonsoP (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lopifalko,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I saw Khadija Saye's exhibition at the weekend, extremely powerful. Gorgeous images of feminine strength and Gambian identities. What a genius we lost. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine: Yes it's so regrettable, as are all the lives lost there. I wasn't aware of this exhibition until seeing your photo, and will try to visit it. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed the exhibition. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lopifalko. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Margaret Moulton, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving articles to draft space because you think articles are not meeting notability guideliness, like you for instance did with Mayo Hagino. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsOlympic: Hi. Do you mean "articles" in general, or do you just mean your specific article Mayo Hagino? I did not review it based on what I "think", but by following the "flowchart detailing a step by step process of fully reviewing a new article" at Wikipedia:New pages patrol and by carefully comparing the article against WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:NBASKETBALL. I admit I assessed it too soon as I was confused by the time difference and I apologise for that. I was patrolling new articles that appeared in the New Page Patrol queue and I draftified it based on Wikipedia:New pages patrol, based on the fact it did not satisfy WP:NOLYMPICS or WP:NBASKETBALL. Re-reading WP:NPPDRAFT, I see that I was correct to draftify on points 1 ("the topic has some potential merit, and") and point 2 ("the article does not meet the required standard,"), but not on point 3 ("and there is no evidence of active improvement."). I apologise that I did not take point 3 into consideration, that I jumped the gun. The article as it now stands still does not appear to me to satisfy WP:NOLYMPICS or WP:NBASKETBALL. The article describes Hagino's inclusion in a "World Championships", but does not wikilink to an article on that subject, so I presume one does not exist, but I could be wrong. Is this "World Championships" included in WP:SPORTBASIC's "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)"?. I am presuming not. I don't believe this "World Championships" is the FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup (a competition that is not included in WP:NBASKETBALL). Am I wrong? I have been unable to judge whether or not the article satisfies WP:GNG as its sources are not in English (though none of the publishers have Wikipedia articles). -Lopifalko (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now worries, thanks for your explanation. The articles meets GNG as she has coverage in multiple secondary sources. One of the sources has a Wiki page: Mainichi Shimbun. With the world championships I mean the Wheelchair Basketball World Championship. The article can easily be expanded with the Japanese sources I provided or with the page in Japanese. Regards, SportsOlympic (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsOlympic: Thanks for filling me in. I missed the presence of Mainichi Shimbun (plus your link is to mainichi.jp where as Mainichi Shimbun uses www.mainichi.co.jp). I wonder why WP:NBASKETBALL doesn't mention Wheelchair Basketball World Championship, and whether it should. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Yes, thanks! I don’t know all Paralympic wheelchair basketball players are notable. I now created all the female players at the 2020 Paralympics; but of the early Paralympics I don’t thinks there is enough coverage. And thinks that is the same for the World Championships. But NBASKETBALL is leaning towards club level players; because the able-bodied FIBA Basketball World Cup is also not in the guideline. SportsOlympic (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am still getting to grips with the way wikipedia operates BTS, so hopefully this comes through as some kind of message. I'm following up on sharing my work for the Documentary Photography page, which is lacking contemporary examples from this century. I don't see anyone else offering their work with the relevant licence, and it is a historic, iconic photograph. There should not be any issues there, and the credit was in line with formatting elsewhere on the page, and not hyperlinked. If you take issue with content which seems to promote then on that same page the very first reference is to a professional photographers own website where they very much are selling their services and work - far from an impartial source, and that's in the first few sentences! The photograph is representative, and worthy of inclusion. Without the credit as removed there should be no conflicts with any guidelines. Sleyatx (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sleyatx: A "historic, iconic photograph" or a photograph of a "historic, iconic" event? The reference spam you mention is significantly less obvious than an actual inline photograph at the top of the page; and I have now removed it. "The photograph is representative" of what?. The conflict is with WP:PROMO, as already explained. The other Documentary photography article photographs that represent outstanding historic examples of the genre are from John Beasly Greene, Jacob Riis, Lewis Hine, and Dorothea Lange. Now we also have one from Simon King, so please tell me just how you fit into the canon? It's one thing adding your own work to represent, for example, a physical thing, and an entirely different matter adding your own work as representative of one of the finest examples of an artistic genre. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes you are right, a photograph during a historic iconic event, in a historic iconic space. I saw the removal of the spam, seems an appropriate adjustment. The photograph is representative of a contemporary example of the genre, and a quality one at that. Again, I don't see many others coming forward to donate an iteration of their work for this. The name is removed as previous, so there is no conflict with promo, any mre than any other photographer applying an image of theirs to an article. I agree there are some outstanding names on that page, but that is not a requirement and it is not a requirement that the photographer is anyone impressive, only that the work is representative. The page isn't a list of notable characters, it is about the genre itself. I would also say that it is not an artistic genre but a journalistic genre with artistic tendencies, but that's entirely a semantic distinction. I take your point about it being the header image, and have opted to include it further down the page - again in a non-promo way, meeting none of the 5 outlined criteria on the wp:promo write-up. If there is an issue with that then there would be an issue with hundreds of other images used in such a way. Sleyatx (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all editing and streamlining on the massacre articles. From time to time I try to contribute, in line with yours and others' edits, but am very busy with other non-wiki work. you write: "Remove generic explanation of what a massacre is, we have an article on that" - fair enough, but then the term massacre should be bluelinked, I think? Rastakwere (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rastakwere: Hi, and Thanks. Yes, good point, I did so on the first articles I performed the same edit on, but forgot to on subsequent articles. Thanks for the nudge. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly how to speck to you on this Wiki page,but the info I have is sourced you should Google me I've been doing entertainment along time..you should refrain

@Nancy O'Dell: You need to cite your sources then if sources exist. It is very important, especially with biographies of living people, that all facts need to be supported by references, not by merely stating thatyou know them to be true. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed in extentions I believe..but there are other sources that state the same thing..look you obviously are a good writer not gonna argue that however I would ask that you leave those particular things up..infact I think we can work together