User talk:Emir of Wikipedia

Emir of Wikipedia is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Daily pageviews of User:Emir of Wikipedia A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=runbotsingle https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php/Megalodon.jp

Please help me LGBT_rights_in_Poland LGBT-free_zone

--Cautious (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC) I learned that in the past you were active in the topics. We need your contribution, because the current formulation are not clear. --Cautious (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:) BigSugarDaddy 08:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me what "bint" means on the talkpage of the article on Fatimah. The proposal to rename this page has been mentioned on Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography, so it seems there is a possibility debate will be generated. Vorbee (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emir of Wikipedia, I recently noticed that Johndoe10001 recently reverted one of your edits, the same user has been reverting my edits over external links as well over the past couple weeks. There is currently a discussion going on concerning this topic and if you are so inclined you may contribute to the conversation. However if you do not feel inclined please do not feel pressured to take part in the conversation, or you may even defend Johndoe10001's edits if you wish. Happy editing Inter&anthro (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I had done this edit, thanks for the revert. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Power Rangers (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kevin Dewitt -- Kevin Dewitt (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Power Rangers (film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Power Rangers (film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kevin Dewitt -- Kevin Dewitt (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm and Legobot: This GAN was not failed. Why does the bot say this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can find your response here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the terse revert, but that was a really annoying bot malfunction. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or was it by design? Sorry if you actually did mean to replace all the links now to prevent linkrot later... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: That is what I did, but the page should now be in the database so it will hopefully make the edits when the links actually begin to rot. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Sorry for the confusion, I hadn't been paying close enough attention to that use of the bot. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emir of Wikipedia,

I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.

Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

emirates

Thank you for quality articles such as Power Rangers (film), for articles and project work for project United Arab Emirates, for reviewing, fighting a backlog, for welcoming countless new users, for improving accessibility, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for this. It is nice to be appreciated. I am grateful for you giving out this award, and I hope it helps to keep users on this project who feel like they are not being recognized. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I feel understood! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1793 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps King and Prime Minister should be in the infoboxes as separate positions, which they actually are. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: That sounds reasonable to me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for being a great editor. Cheers! CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 04:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, which button do you press to do a revert, but still edit? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: The WP:undo button. It is more useful that a rollback (both Twinkle and userright) as it notifies the user that the issue has been resolved without needing to ping them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have to remember to start using that one. BTW, I did get a ping that my edit was reverted. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a manual ping. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The video is free, you could upload another photo from the video. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and see if I can see a better photo. Grateful for you finding the video though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you upload a new photo ? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: Actually I'll ask at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop for them to remove the text. Looking at that video the screenshot you took was probably the best. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mohammad bin Salman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Averroes82 -- Averroes82 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently used a few scripts on Exo discography. Generally these were pretty helpful changes, however, you used a script that changed en dashes to em dashes. Please be careful when using these on discographies in future, as em dashes are the standard for chart columns and the changes are often inconsistent. Thanks. Ss112 03:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You either substantiate this tagging at talk where I've explained my views or else you remove this tag. Thanks. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to revert you there. As penance I have warned the IP editor that they really really need to use edit summaries! Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS Sorry about the very bad typing in my edit summary there! I just reread it ... oh dear. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emir,

You recently reverted some of my edits and let me know why in a helpful way. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I appreciate you helping me learn proper policies. I know Wikipedia says to "be bold," but I obviously didn't understand the limits and want to do everything by the book. I will take it to the talk page because I'm certain scrutiny will reveal the truth :)

Take care, Plantlady223 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantlady223: Hi. You have said "False allegations", but I have not edited a page with a name like that. Am I right in thinking you are on about the section on MeToo? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Yes, I meant that section on that page. I'm still learning. :) Plantlady223 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. If you want help learning then feel free to contact me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if I contact you after I make the section on the Talk page? Just in case you had suggestions. Plantlady223 (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had one more question. When I'm helping make a biography of a living person, what is the best way to get a picture that's allowed? Is it okay if I take my own picture of them? (I was just curious as an example; I don't think I'll see anyone in person) What about pictures taken by other people? Plantlady223 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best way would be if you took a picture and uploaded it to Commons, however you would obviously have to put it under a suitable license. With regards to other people's pictures you would have to find a suitably incensed one or persuade a photograph to release it under a suitable license and then upload that to Commons. However with regards to deceased people you can use a copyrighted image under fair use like I recently used File:Hal Finney (computer scientist).jpg at Hal Finney (computer scientist), but this requires certain criteria being fulfilled. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for answering my questions. I felt so lost and you're making it seem more straightforward. I started documenting the point on the Talk page. I'm going through the stats one by one because every source I've looked at so far is either fake or doesn't match what is said in book. I know that Wikipedia wants to make sure everything is sourced properly to ensure accuracy. Does this look good to you, should I keep going? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Me_Too_(hashtag) Plantlady223 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats look like some good work you have done. I will discuss there about this issue to help keep it open for others to contribute. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She can revert warnings. There are only a few things that can't be reverted, eg block requests while the block is in place. I did revert someone else's BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and that's why I linked to WP:OWNTALK in the edit summary. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was confused about the revert and the link. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please join in these two move discussion – Bhavana (actress) and Robin Hood (2009 film). Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Prince should be a separate article from Wonder Woman. The character Diana Prince was not just Wonder Woman, but Diana White, the person who Diana took the identity from. She could be an alternate version of Wonder Woman otherwise but not to be merged with Wonder Woman to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adwonder (talk • contribs) 06:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adwonder: Please discuss at Talk:Wonder Woman#Proposed merge with Diana Prince. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the template was originally placed in December 2017 and the dates were subsequently changed by an account who added unsourced POV cruft (that has since been removed) to the article. Seems like the date of original templates' placements should generally be retained within WP (for instance, templates can place an article within internal housekeeping categories) unless there is a clear reason within WP policies/guidelines to change it. Shearonink (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: But how are we meant to know then when it has been checked? Template:EngvarB says This is a dated template. After an article has been initially tagged, and bearing in mind article evolution, periodic script or bot runs clean up spellings, correcting any new introductions since its last visit, and updating the visit date on the template. and Template:Use dmy dates says After being tagged, and bearing in mind article evolution, periodic script or bot runs clean up formats, correcting any new introductions since its last visit, and updating the visit date on the template. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So then the template is supposed to be the date the bot/s run their clean-ups etc., not necessarily the date that the template was added to the article....Ok, yeah. But the user who altered the dates in this case wasn't a bot. It's fine. Shearonink (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Power Rangers (film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that all five of the surviving members of the original cast of the Power Rangers series attended the film adaption's Los Angeles premiere in March 2017? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Power Rangers (film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Power Rangers (film)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Dude I just got back on here and I had to fix sooooo much of your terrible writing on that page in order to format it, promote the flow, and be more accurate. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobiasthered (talk • contribs) 02:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just wanted advice the article about askari seems a bit opioniated the birth of his son has been disputed for l9ng and should have somethinf to balance it. I think it will improve the quality of article if we had major perspectives from mainstream sunni sources who say his borth was a hoax. 82.132.243.45 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean Hasan al-Askari, am I right? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I need someone who also edits the page to discuss before I edit since yoir admin I discuss with you first. Becuase opposition is likely shall I take this discussion to the talk page instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.243.45 (talk)

I am not an admin, but I do suggest that the article talkpage is best. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emir of Wikipedia. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Essential Phone at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:Zach xprize § Welcome!

 – Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emir,

I just received your message in regards to the X Prize Foundation article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Prize_Foundation).

Yes, I do work for the Foundation. We had some requests to clarify some items on our article since they were not accurate. The main summary of changes were as follows:

- The Tricorder XPRIZE was awarded, so I moved that to past contests and added the end year. - We launched two new competitions last year, the Women's Safety and Water Abundance XPRIZEs. I added brief overviews for them. - Removed something listed as a Future XPRIZE that is no longer being pursued. - The Board of Trustees don't run the organization, the Board of Directors (a subset of the Trustees) do. The Trustees are still very active in what we do though, so I separated them out. This change to board structure happened ~2 years ago.

I hope I was able to update the page in an objective manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach xprize (talk • contribs)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you so much for all your help with editing, sourcing, understanding Wikipedia policies, etc., and for being overall clear and informative. I really appreciate it because you've gone above and beyond the line of duty. Plantlady223 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for straightening out what I originally started as an "uncontroversial" technical request. Everything looks great now. Lithopsian (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Emir of Wikipedia: thanks for having made the template move I requested (from Template:Rapid transit in Chile to Template:Urban rail transit in Chile); I'm sorry to bother you again, but something went wrong in the redirect: now in the pages (e.g. Santiago Metro) that contain the "old" template, the navbox is linking to a non-existent template Urban Rail transit in Chile (with a capital R): could you please verify and try to fix the problem? I really appreciate any help you can provide. Best regards, 93.57.250.33 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a redirect from the name with a capital R, but as there was just a few uses of the template currently I just went and changed them manually. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was silly of me not to have thought about a "manual" fixing... d'oh! 93.57.250.33 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emir, how are you doing? Just wanted to put out a note per this edit of yours that the script User:Lourdes/WDLH.js had been changed to User:Lourdes/Backlinks.js. You can perhaps change the name WDLH in your js file to Backlinks.js. Thanks, Lourdes 01:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emir, I posted recently on the talk page of Mohammed bin Salman. I’ve prepared some potential new paragraphs here in my sandbox for Vision 2030 and Domestic reforms. They cover some of the main initiatives he announced last year, and also further developments in women's rights. Let me know if you can review. Thank you. MOCI KSA (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MOCI KSA: Sorry for the late reply. Thankfully another editor has approved you changes in the meantime. Your username might be problematic as it just the initial for Ministry of Culture and Information Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which could imply shared use. Could you please see Wikipedia:Changing username and add a personal identifier or something to make it look like the account is not shared. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: thanks for getting back and I get your point on my username – I don’t share this account but I guess it could be viewed that way so I’ll submit a username change request. Thanks. MOCI KSA (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emir, I’m just checking to see if you saw my talk page post about the section in Mohammad bin Salman on human rights activists. It’s quite in-depth but if you do have time I’d very much welcome your view on the points I’ve raised. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this? It's not like a double-!voted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that the closer knows who that the vote is by the opener of the RfC, nothing more nothing less. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed with this edit by an admin. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^_^

Shendoah (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Imagine Reason (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mohammad bin Salman you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Mohammad bin Salman for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Averroes82 -- Averroes82 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emir,

On the RS Noticeboard, you commented regarding American Nationalism. You got me interested in this. Here is an article on it that I thought you might enjoy: American nationalism. I hope I'm never too learned to still be able to learn.

One passer by (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Emir - I created a proposal with text and references for the addition of the Palm Beach Clubs section in the article per your request. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Just adding something I just read - interesting take...but then, who believes CNN polling? 00:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC) One more - I checked the the AP poll they cite. Out of 1,337 adults the poll included a total of 388 black respondents, who were sampled at a higher rate than their proportion of the population for purposes of analysis. They obviously averaged the two according to the chart at the bottom of the page.^{Atsme📞📧} 01:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Thanks for mentioning about the poll. If it is included in the article then the mention of the sample should be included too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emir of Wikipedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Taweelah".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emir of Wikipedia I have seen that you are a new page reviewer and so I would like you to review my article Rungano Nyoni. Thank you. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Emir - was that duplicate comment at VP (policy) something that happened when I posted my comment? I've been having some issues and don't know what's causing it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: It looks like you did it when you made this edit. No ideas about your issues though, so I can't help with that sorry. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching it right away. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some new edits at Rashid bin Mohammed Al Maktoum, since you've stopped vandalism there before thought it might warrant your attention. Don't know how much to revert. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've seen that you've reported a number of suspected sockpuppet accounts of Thepoliticsexpert. I've recently taken a couple of articles originally created by this user to AfD, and on one there are two keep !votes and a backhanded delete !vote from single-purpose accounts. One of these also removed my PROD from another, now-deleted at AfD, article created by Thepoliticsexpert. Given the sockpuppet activity associated with this user, I was wondering whether this behaviour is sufficient evidence to take these accounts to sockpuppet investigation? This isn't something I've had to deal with before — I hope you don't mind my asking your advice. Thanks in advance! Ralbegen (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The three accounts mentioned have now been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets. Ralbegen (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralbegen: Sorry for not replying promptly. In the future I suggest you just go straight to the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thepoliticsexpert, this is a problematic user who has been engaging in cross-wiki abuse for quite a while now and therefore I suspect many people will be looking at the SPI who can help if I can't. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this in my watchlist:

• (Page curation log); 14:43 . . Emir of Wikipedia (talk | contribs) marked User:E to the Pi times i/Maintenance as reviewed

Can you explain what that means to me? I've read Wikipedia:Page Curation, but I'm not sure I understand the implications in this case. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E to the Pi times i: It just means that the page is fine so there is not really any implications in this case. Page curation is mainly used to review pages in the article space but all new pages such as your User:E to the Pi times i/Maintenance come in it too. If a page had violated WP:UPNOT then I would have tagged it for deletion. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know that there are nice friendly reviewers protecting Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asking genuinely in good faith. Referring to your edits on Talk:Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum#Sheikha_Shamsa_Al_Maktoum_incident . The video linked is a statement by person and channel is managed by the legal firm representing that person. Ohsin (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohsin: Please see WP:LINKVIO. It doesn't matter if the video is a statement by the person or not it matters whether it is copyright infringement or not. The website mentioned in the description of the video attributes the screenshots to "Detained in Dubai" which is different to the uploading page of "Escape from Dubai". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detained in Dubai manages that Youtube channel with name 'Escape from Dubai' and website check their contact details Ohsin (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That website doesn't say they manage the YouTube channel it just says their are in association with them. Even still if we use that source we must be careful to comply with all policies. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who owns the video, apparently it was distributed by an unnamed US attorney. Detained in Dubai press release links to same video and it is the primary source to surface publicly with the news, the Mail Online article that broke the news also links to 'Escape from Dubai' website with that video embedded. May be distributor wants to be anonymous? Ohsin (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unaware of the copyright owner then it is best to avoid linking to the video directly. We can however use reliable sources that analyse it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emir of Wikipedia,

I wanted to request your support in updated Seyed Ammar's wikipedia. I have noticed you rolled it back. However, in light of some updates, the updates I made were authenticated (some by Seyed Ammar himself) and other's by materials online. Can we revert the version to the one before rollback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowbird2017 (talk • contribs)

@Snowbird2017: What do you mean by Seyed Ammar himself? Do you have a WP:COI? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: No WP:COI - but things that were verbally confirmed through interviews/lectures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowbird2017 (talk • contribs)

In that case can you please discuss the changes at Talk:Ammar Naskshawai, this means that other people interested and knowledgeable --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC) about the topic can help. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to his Harvard webpage (https://www.belfercenter.org/person/seyed-ammar-nakhjavani)- the Official spelling of his name is Nakhjavani. Additionally, his most recent academic post is at Harvard. As per the biography, his post before that was at Hartford Seminary. I would update the description on the main page to reflect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowbird2017 (talk • contribs)

Please discuss at Talk:Ammar Nakshawani, and also sign your posts with ~~~~. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emir,

nearly every movie mentions some kind of 'user-generated scores' (like imdb, rotten tomatoes etc.) in their reception section, just like Terminator 2: Judgment Day or Titanic.

I don't think there is any kind of restriction as these scores are well-established.

Best regards PassioEtDesiderium — Preceding unsigned comment added by PassioEtDesiderium (talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PassioEtDesiderium: I have removed the IMDb references from Terminator 2: Judgment Day and what I think you meant Titanic (1997 film). With regards to RT there is a difference between the critic scores and user scores. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out this edit. Is the lead transcluded somewhere, or is something else going on? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: Portal:Donald Trump/Intro included an outdated (and possibly copyright violating) version of the lead. To fix these issues I attempted to transclude the lead, but the technical version of the lead includes things not needed for the portal so I made a special section for the actual lead text. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! Makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

- SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you filed the latest SPI concerning Ehsan iq, would you care to check the edits of WeWuzPhoenicians?

WeWuzPhoenicians editing mirrors 151.236.179.140 on Tiberius Julius Balbillus and Titus Julius Balbillus articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: I am sorry but I won't be much help there based on behavioral analysis. The only reason I reported it at Ehsan_iq was because an IP randomly brought up that account and admitted to being blocked. It looks like the IP you have mentioned has already been blocked as it matched the range of previous IPs, as the edits are similar I could say that the accounts might be linked but I don't really know the socks behaviours. Apologizes for not being more helpful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I believe in ROPE. :) --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Emir! Just a comment regarding this edit: when you are suggesting that a user may be a problem or suggesting that an eye be kept on them - is it really a good idea to ping that user in your message? --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not a problem with regards to the their username then can defend themselves there. With regards to their editing that is a separate issue that I have not really looked into, but obviously an admin like you can help with that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emir. As you are already aware there has been a proposal suggested since March 2018 for two different articles to be merged into the article about Charles and Diana's wedding. As you and I have already opposed it and there has been no "support" votes in over a month, is it possible for me or you to close the discussion, or should I ask an administrator to do it? Keivan.f^Talk 17:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: I closed the discussion. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: My close was reverted by Capmo --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I don't know why he resists on merging those pages. Is there anyway we can close it again or should we just wait for a consensus? Keivan.f^Talk 22:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left a new message on the article's talk page. It's absolutely ridiculous to have those articles merged when we have separate pages for the birdal gowns of lesser known princesses. If these pages get merged, then basically all of those other pages need to get merged as well. Keivan.f^Talk 23:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll for someone else to close it but thanks for the new message on the article talk page. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emir,

I'd like to use the lead transclusion method you applied on Portal:Donald Trump/Intro, but I can't get it to work with any other topic.

This works: {{#section:Donald Trump|Lead text}}

This doesn't work: {{#section:Physical geography|Lead text}}

What is {{#section:}}, and please provide links to documentation on this.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   23:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: please {{ping}} me in your reply.

@The Transhumanist: Hello. You are probably aware of this already but please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals before putting in any time, effort, or hard work in the portals that may soon be undone.

The lead transclusion method I used at the Donald Trump portal is to transclude a manually marked section. {{#section:}} transcludes a section of a page, the technical lead includes the the infobox and the hatnote so I marked the actual lead text with <section begin=Lead text /> and <section end=Lead text />, you can obviously label this something else instead of "Lead text". This is documented at Help:Labeled_section_transclusion#Section_marking, there could perhaps be a more elegant solution but this works. Hope this helps, sorry if it is a bit confusing but I can't think how else to word it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of the of the MfD that was posted as an RfC. The primary way that deletions are averted is to fix the problem with the nominated page(s) while the deletion discussion is taking place. Fixing 1500 pages is a challenge, but a worthwhile one, I believe. Also, unless the opinions of the newcomers to the discussion shift radically toward deletionist, the portals are safe. Currently, there is no new consensus. leaving the portals to people wishing to improve them. Once the problems are fixed, the rationales to delete them will be minuscule in the face of the support to keep them.

Looking over the problems of portals reported in the discussion, they boil down to 1) out of date / lack of maintenance (lack of volunteer labor) 2) useless (static / unchanging) and 3) low traffic (few repeat visits).

The 3rd is to be expected, since portals get their traffic internally, rather than from external search engine results. Traffic would naturally be higher if users found portals worthwhile enough to return to them. Dynamic content, in the form of randomly generated on-topic selections, would be a valuable service, turning the portals into a form of periodical or newsletter.

The initial design concept for portals was that they would each be a main page for a subject. The reality has been that they have become a snap shot (one day's version) of a main page for their respective subjects. Imagine if Wikipedia's main page never changed its content. That portals never became what they were envisioned to be is the crux of the matter here.

I believe the solution is automation, which is why I am interested in the method you used. Refreshing the intro entry so it doesn't go stale, using transclusion, is one form of automation that can help. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.

By the way, you were right about there being more elegant solutions. For example:

{{#invoke:String|match|pattern='''.+|s = {{#lsth:Water}}}}

That transcludes the lead from water, but only everything after the first bold code, in order to skip hatnotes and gripe tags. The regex in that example could be modified to remove templates as well, and infoboxes, etc. The benefit of this approach is that it requires absolutely no coding to be added to the source pages.

I'm looking for volunteers interested in helping to make portals configurable and automated, to turn them into specialized main pages that do not rely on human labor to keep them maintained. In addition to programmers, we need designers, to help figure out what portals need to be able to do, to locate where the resources (content) are for accomplishing that, and discern how to differentiate that content so that it can be selected automagically.

Are you interested? If I created a page or thread to share ideas on improving portals, would you drop in from time to time to comment?    — The Transhumanist   01:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: please {{ping}} me in your reply.

@The Transhumanist: I think you should mention at the RfC that you have solutions to the problems. With regards to helping with other portals I don't really have that much experience but I would be willing to learn and contribute if you made a page or thread about their improvement. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RfC has nearly run its course. To make it in before someone archives it, I've posted a response there; and I used some of the wording you inspired above. (Thank you). By the way, you have yourself a deal. I'll let you know when a project page is ready.    — The Transhumanist   23:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking around the portals, and they are rather impressive. I don't see what the naysayers are complaining about. It is true that many of the pages are static and so the repeat visitors (editors) probably got bored with them. But there seems to be an endless supply of new readers, as page traffic remains pretty steady.

As I peruse them, I keep finding gems. Like the fully automated Portal:Wikimedia featured content.

Okay, I'm working on the page you suggested above about improving portals. I think I'm not even half done with it yet. Would you mind taking a look at what's there so far, and let me know what you think of it, whether it is easily understandable, how it can be improved, and so on? I intend to write opening statements for each of the empty sections on the talk page, but I don't think I've even identified all the features of portals yet. There will be a discussion section for improving the design of each common component.

Any and all feedback, ideas, and suggestions are welcome. Feel free to post them below...    — The Transhumanist   12:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: please {{ping}} me in your reply. Thank you. -TT

@The Transhumanist: WP:WPPORT looks like a good start. The main thing I would suggest now is to highlight this to other editors, we don't want this to end up inactive like people claimed about portals. Also if you are not aware there template:nw which writes a message asking to be pinged in replies instead of manually typing, something else that we can somewhat automate 😊. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no danger of it becoming inactive while we're around. It's not ready for prime time yet. The revamp needs to be completed before spreading the word. But, you need not worry, I will be sending out invites. As you have probably noticed, the volunteer section indicates that updates will be sent to those who sign up. That should help establish some ongoing lines of communication, and get additional people involved. The wikiproject page overhaul should be done in a few days, hopefully less. By the way, thank you for volunteering, and thanks for the template idea, I've made a new one ({{pme}}).    — The Transhumanist   23:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Please ping me in your reply. Thank you.

Do you still think that the brothers of Saeed bin Maktoum bin Hasher Al Maktoum—Sheikh Juma bin Maktoum Al Maktoum and Sheikh Hasher bin Maktoum Al Maktoum—should be given their own articles? Векочел (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: I am not sure at this moment. What do you think? We need to keep in mind that there could be Arabic sources about them if not in English. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can add their articles. There should be more information about Sheikh Juma than about Sheikh Hasher because Sheikh Juma is the paternal grandfather of Hind bint Maktoum bin Juma Al Maktoum. --Векочел (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: Start a draft on Sheikh Juma then in the draftspace or your userspace. I will try and help you with that. If that goes well then we'll try and see what we can find on Sheikh Juma.

@Emir of Wikipedia: Here is the link: User:Векочел/Sheikh Juma bin Maktoum Al Maktoum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Векочел (talk • contribs)

Here is another draft of mine that you can edit if you would like: User:Векочел/Hashemites --Векочел (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: I am grateful for you informing me of that page but you do know that Hashemites exists right? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an addition of more information to the Hashemites page. --Векочел (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Emir - I'm of the mind that it would be a wise investment for me to get a different perspective from an uninvolved editor (or two) about what/how much would be reasonable to add. I've queried an editor whose views doesn't always align with mine, but whose judgement I trust, especially considering the added material is likely to be challenged. Does that make sense? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: That makes complete sense to me and I think it is a good idea to do. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Allison Stokke you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Allison Stokke for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the discussion at MastCell's - parts of it were edited and posted on the TP of NeilN and BullRangifer in a POV way that is typical of the author... ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Allison Stokke you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Allison Stokke for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently Talk page discussion about your good edit at the Avengers film here: [1]. Another editor User:Shayaan is supporting your position and you might take a glace at it. Good edit. FutureForecasts (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand capping the sourcing at RSN as you did here. the whole point is for people to look at the refs and the content... How is hiding them "better"? (real question, not rhetorical..)

Would also appreciate input on the question asked there. :) Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Apologies. That was listing all the references on the pages which is confusing but not your fault I edited from the section and not the whole page so when I previewed I thought it just showed the sources for your section. Adding input now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been ready to move for quite some time now. This is not a single purpose editor asking for a move. There are multiple respected, long time users wanting it to be moved. I wanted to go through WP:RM but the template explicitly says it is not to be used for moves from draft space to article space. So please move the page or advise me on what you think is the better solution. I am referring to move Draft: List_of_box_office_records_set_by_Avengers:_Infinity_War to the article space. Tutelary (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary:  Done --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jared Kushner you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JohnWickTwo -- JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This 1st GAN has been closed as failed. It should not be re-opened which is against Wikipedia policy. A second GAN may be opened by you or any other editor when the article is ready according to GAN policy. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a second opinion please. Your review did not look at the GAN policy but instead whether it fit your desired sectioning. Let's hear what the second opinion says before passing or failing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is against Wikipedia policy to do that for a review which has been closed. Please read the policy the policy statement for re-nomination of articles at WP:GAN. A closed GAN should not be re-opened once closed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently listing your nomination in two separate categories which is against Wikipedia policy. Please remove the nomination which you manually re-added to the GAN list which is against WP policy and appears to be edit warring. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this? It is only listed in one category. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what is this?[2] All the users who have advocated for removal of content sourced to the NYT source have characterized the NYT article in question as unreliable (two users referred to it as a hit piece, and the third claimed that the article contained unsupported insinuation). I demonstrated this in the thread in question, yet you claim "Nobody is saying it is not RS from what I can see." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see the users you are on about have not said that it is unreliable. If you are on about Lionelt they have literally wrote "This is about WP:DUE amongst other things. Not WP:RS". I did not see anyone say it was unreliable if someone has said that they feel free to take off the hat and present that there, but otherwise you should get a Wikipedia:Third opinion if the talkpage of the article is not helpful. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When someone says that a source is a hit piece and that it contains unsupported insinuation and that it should be removed for those reasons, are they not saying that the source is unreliable? The claim that the NYT is not a RS is of course so absurd that nobody would cop to it, but the reasoning for excluding the source is solely based on arguments that the content in the source is unreliable (e.g. it's a "hit piece" and contains "unsupported insinuation"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: Has the issue been resolved now? Have they decided to include the content from NYT? Feel free to remind them about Wikipedia:RSOPINION if they have forgotten that. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the content has not been included in the article, and I'm pretty sure that it never will unless I take it to a RfC or get broader Wiki input. My experience with Lionelt is that the user will edit-war to keep the content out (in particular, if another editor partakes), staunchly oppose any inclusion no matter how reliably sourced (i.e. more RS won't matter) and threaten sanctions if someone takes action without his explicit approval. The dispute still revolves around the accuracy of the NY Times (i.e. it's a dispute over whether the NY Times articles is reliable), regardless of what the users on that talk page say when they face scrutiny by the broader Wikipedia community. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: You don't have to go as extreme as an RfC for broader input, other options like WP:3O and WP:DRN are available. If that user is problematic then you should report them to an admin, they should definitely not be threatening sanctions at anyone which sounds like a WP:OWNER. If the dispute is about if the NY Times article is an RS then tell them nobody on the noticeboard said it was unreliable, if they are bringing forward the argument that it is undue then you will have to prove it is due. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Govvy (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emir of Wikipedia, I saw that you added this Copyright notice to the Wei Dai article. This expanded upon the notice added by User:Diannaa. I wonder if all this can be simplified as I am the author of the referenced article. The original article was actually written for Wikipedia, but was later deleted per WP:N. I then decided to publish on the Bitcoin Wiki. Eventually it made its way back to Wikipedia (thanks to User:Xinbenlv) and recently passed another WP:N challenge. Seems it is finally here to stay.

Does it still make sense to reference the external (bitcoin.it) "source"?

If so, we can probably remove Taras as an author of the copy/pasted text because his stub article was 100% removed when I published the actual content which was later used here on Wikipedia (see diff).

Thoughts?

@Diannaa:, @Xinbenlv: Anything to add here?

Cheers, JonathanCross (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could just add a note for further attribution? Like this: "This content was previously published on Wikipedia as User:JonathanCross/Wei Dai. Please see the history of that page for attribution." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa, Sure, that would be fine. Would you care to make the edit (and remove any info no needed)? -- JonathanCross (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I have left the other attribution data in place so patrollers will be made aware that all these webpages have been compatibly licensed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- JonathanCross (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome~ Xinbenlv (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa, Xinbenlv, and JonathanCross: Is this issue all resolved then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that User:JonathanCross/Wei Dai is deleted so we can't see the history for attribution, should we perhaps restore and change it to a redirect? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JonathanCross: I have restored the userspace draft and redirected to Wei Dai to provide a better attribution chain. Not sure this is legally required under the terms of the license's legal code but better to be sure. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the draft is a great improvement -- the entire editing history is now available for anyone interested. Thanks! -- JonathanCross (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emir of Wikipedia!

Thank you for reaching out to me, it was very helpful and I am grateful. I am still very new here on Wikipedia and am constantly learning. What has me so interested in contributing is my love for grammatical editing.

The explanation for my contribution on Ivanka Trump's page was not its being a controversial topic, as it's labelled. As you saw, I edited her described Alma mater. As she completed her degree from the University of Pennsylvania and not Georgetown University, it additionally included from where she transferred. I edited this for consistency with the rest of Wikipedia's pages. People do not regularly include in their Alma mater their first school if it isn't where they completed their degree or switched elsewhere. If we are to begin including the schools from where people transfer, we would also have to add Fordham University in Ivanka Trump's father's page and Villanova University in Bradley Cooper's. There are so many different examples. Now, those are changes I would not be against contributing, but in removing the one from Ivanka Trump's I only made a step toward consistency.

Again, I am grateful for your help. I did not previously see the location to add explanations to contributions. This response to you can in a way explain my decision making. Although you saw my choice for editing Ivanka Trump's page for being a controversial topic, it was instead for grammatical consistency with other pages and the understandings of other users and readers. Please, reach out to me if you want to understand my point more. I would be glad to hear more and listen more to greater advice in my future editing.

Cheers, StPaddyC (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Do you think the article on the the current king of Saudi Arabia should be nominated for good article status? Векочел (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: It is worth a try, looks like there a still a few small issues to fix though. I suggest you read Talk:Salman of Saudi Arabia/GA1 and Talk:Salman of Saudi Arabia/GA2 before you nominate it though. Sorry but if you nominate it soon I probably won't be able to help but I wish you the best. Good luck. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for [3] it was a misclick, I was about to revert it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your edit to