User talk:Alith Anar

Wakefield standoff Edit

The source for the updated information on these cases are public record at https://masscourts.org/eservices/home.page.4, search for cases 2181CR00360 to 2181CR00369. I am unaware of how to link directly to any information there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.44.139.214 (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to that link. Unfortunately, that specific link just redirects to the home page of the Massachusetts Court Case website, so it doesn't provide anything specific about the Wakefield standoff court cases. I don't know where to find those specific cases on the website. Here's a guide on how to cite sources, you should cite this source on the Wakefield standoff article once you have the link to the specific cases on the website: WP:CITE. Panian513 14:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Manakish History Edit

Hi you messaged me recebtly about me deleting the history section of manakish without a proper reason. The reason was the source was weak (a recipe) and was in my understanding wrong. Manakish don't have an origin, the food is literally just bread and something on top you can't invent this Arabs, Egyptians, Persians, and Romans all had similair foods. Why is it just the phoenicians being credited?

The name Manaqish comes from Arabic, yet it origins are still given as Phoenician? I could provide a source (https://ifood.tv/asian/manakish/about) and claim it is Palestinian couldn't I? 45.73.5.82 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for messaging me! Now that I've looked at the citation on the article, I realize that you're correct that it's a weak source. At the same time, however, the ifood website isn't reliable, either, as it does not cite where it got its information.

As for its actual origins, I've tried looking for research articles or books, but at the moment, I can't seem to find anything. That being said, as a historian, I know that the claim that something doesn't have an origin is incorrect, as everything has to have a start somewhere. And just because the popular term's etymology is from one language doesn't mean that a food didn't exist before that language, either - for example, the English word "lemon" comes from Arabic, but the plant has its origins in India. Since there is a consensus that the food originated in the Levant (the Phoenicians were based in the Levant, and Palestine is in the Levant), I could rewrite the sentence to say that it has its origins in the Levant, and add both a tag and a tag to indicate that the current source is weak, in order to signal to others that a more reliable source is needed to find the specific point in time and specific location where the food originated. Panian513 02:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Pantisocracy

Hey Panian, I hope you are well. I meant to do this before, but anways, would you mind if we talked about the Pantisocracy page? We seem to be disagreeing?—-I don’t want to disturb anything, but really would like to include this excerpt somehow or somewhere on the page. Maybe we could shorten it a little bit, or put it under another section or something. I admire Mr. Coleridge alot, and of course want as many people as possible to know him too. Sincerely, JMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpage833 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out to me!

I think it's best to discuss these edits by first explaining the purpose behind the rules that have been evoked when undoing them. After all, essays on ignoring rules advise to still get to the purpose of Wikipedia when ignoring them. The main rules at play here are the rules on using long quotations. It's recommended to avoid long quotes whenever possible because, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are meant to be short and concise overviews of a particular topic. Wikipedia is accessible to all, and therefore needs to be readable to all, so considering the flow and readability of content is paramount.

As a result, the introduction (also know as the leading paragraph) needs to be a summary of the content of article. If you look around, various articles from the Coolidge Dam to Jun Tosaka start off with naming the subject and then explaining the subject after an "is" or a "was". This is because readers want to get to the gist of the subject - starting with a long quote (which doesn't even name the article's subject, pantisocracy) will be confusing to many readers. It's just common sense writing - articles have to get subject immediately, or become difficult to read.

Additionally, the rules on long quotations suggest refraining from devoting sections to only quotations. This is because, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles need to provide overviews of the subjects. Simply providing a quote without an explanation of the quote's significance would be confusing. As a historian, I don't present quotes simply as is - I have to be constantly asking myself "so what?" regarding my evidence connecting it back to notable themes. If you look at the "Further planning and practical implications" section of the Pantisocracy article, you'll notice that it sandwiches a quote in-between a summary of the history, using the quote to explain the plans. As a result, I suggest that you try to shorten the quote down or paraphrase it, and include it in a pre-existing section in order to make the quote flow with the article itself. Panian513 18:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Editing Kim McQuilken's page

Hi, I just made a bunch of updates to Kim McQuilken's page which was all given to me by Kim himself. How can I make those changes live? Kimmcq (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out! All additions to Wikipedia articles should be done by citing reliable sources. These sources should usually be secondary sources. This is especially important on biographies of living people (BLPs), due to the potential (emphasis on potential, I do not believe that you are a vandal) for libel. Here are some guides to citing sources that should prove useful:

Wikipedia:Citing sources

Wikipedia:Reliable sources Panian513 17:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment

I love the vandal quotes on your user page 😂 Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 23:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Panian513 23:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Huntsville Wiki

Hey,

I saw you reverted my previous edit.

Could some of the pictures I took stay on the page? American Diabetio (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, go right ahead! Panian513 04:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response!

Do you think anything that I mentioned would benefit the first paragraph. I thought it gave a good snapshot of the city that wasn't all about Huntsville's History as their is a section for History.

I understand where your coming from but I thought to check if some of that material could be added back in too. (Maybe a diff section?) American Diabetio (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course! I think that you could add back the U.S. News' naming of Huntsville as the best place to live back, as I think that it help to briefly sum up the state of the economy in the city. Panian513 04:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, cool! What are your thoughts if we add back the "commonly referred to" and updated pop. figures? I think it would improve the articles relevance. American Diabetio (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The nickname, "Rocket City", is already included the infobox, under the section titled "nickname" (visually, this can be seen under the seal and logo). Since it's not included in the introduction, I think that it could be mentioned after the sentence about the rocket industry (that starts off with "NASA's Marshall...") Something along the lines of "As a result of its rocket industry, the city has gained the moniker "Rocket City"" might work.

As for recent population estimates (the ones given for non-census years, such as 2023), they're also in the infoxbox. It's typically not good form to include them in the introduction except in the very largest cities (such as NYC and LA), so it would be best to keep the 2020 census figures in the introduction for now. Panian513 04:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks!! American Diabetio (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Automated tools for recent changes patrol

Not sure if you're already aware of this, but there's some automatic tools for patrolling recent changes that are a bit faster than Twinkle. I use Huggle, but Antivandal is another. I mention this because after you reverted this edit, the person vandalized the page again before you put a tag on their talk page. In either case, your work is appreciated! Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 23:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! Panian513 00:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend"

Hey,

You recently took down my edit to the above mentioned article due to a lack of sources. The YouTuber in question wasn't a fairly big channel and I was only able to find out about the controversy when researching about this division as it was in the recommended tab, due to the small YouTuber taking down his video I am unable to cite a source (that being his video) and the only source I can provide is his channel. -InsertLettersHere InsertLettersHere (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out! If there aren't any reliable sources for a specific incident, then that that incident shouldn't be included. I think that the essay WP:POPCULTURE sums this up rather well - basically, with the massive amount of events happening day in and day out, Wikipedia cannot and should not attempt to document every single instance of something being referenced in modern media - therefore, Wikipedia ought to focus on the most high-profile cases. Since, as you explained, it's a YouTuber with a small following, and there is no independent media coverage of that YouTuber's video and its controversy, then it seems that the controversy surrounding that particular YouTuber and their video does not fit relevancy guidelines for inclusion on the article. Panian513 05:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought it should be added due to it being an event that racked up 680 views and 300 anger comments, considering the channel was heavily active at the time of his controversy, like said before, his channel still exists- as that would be the only source. -InsertLettersHere InsertLettersHere (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, a YouTube video with only around 680 views and without any significant, reliable, independent media coverage does not fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines, found here: WP:N. What this would look like would be a academic journal or a neutral newspaper describing the video and the subsequent controversy. A YouTube video with less than a thousand views is not notable in of itself, no matter how many comments there are on the video. Panian513 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Therianthropy Edit

Hi, I saw your message, the reason I changed it all is because everything on that page was wrong. I saw someone had deleted all the correct information and replaced it with false info, if I could get some advice on what to do that would be fab, thanks. Cardboard.Reality (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

First things first, since you're seeking a large alteration of the content and description of the article, then it's best to go to the article's talk page to seek consensus before undertaking such changes. This is espescially important when changes involve removing reliable sources.

Secondly, additions and changes to the content of Wikipedia articles (basically stuff that doesn't involve copyedits such as grammar fixes) should be backed up by reliable sources, of which secondary sources are preferred. Here are two great guides about reliable sources and citing sources:

WP:CITE

WP:RELIABLE Panian513 00:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Cardboard.Reality (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Awlad Sidi Shaykh

Hello I have seen that you removed everything I edited on the Awlad Sidi Shaykh. my source is that I come from this tribe and I know it’s history pretty well, so I know it’s history and heritage. Zineddine al-Hashemi (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It's nice that you know so much! However, on Wikipedia, there's a need to provide citations to published reliable sources, in order to verify if something added is true. The website cannot rely on word of mouth alone - for example, I could claim to be a man who lives on the Moon, and argue that it's made of cheese! Thankfully, there are some guides for identifying reliable sources and citing sources on Wikipedia:

WP:CITE

WP:RELIABLE Panian513 02:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Façade_(video_game) Edit

Hi, Panian. I noticed you reverted by edit on Façade_(video_game) where I listed the composers of the game due to it being unsourced. While I understand the importance of Wikipedia's policy on adding sources to confirm legitimate information, I did not see that being the case here.

From what I read in the guidelines, it is required to source information that is challenged or likely to be challenged, but it is an exception for an artistic work if the information comes directly from it. Façade features an "About Façade" section with credits for development, voice acting, music, etc. which I made sure to check before editing the page. From how I see it, if a game by itself has information about who worked on it, there's no need to add it based on an outside source. This has applied to a majority of articles on video games.

But anyways, I just wanted to talk to you about this since I'm new to Wikipedia and want to help fix little things when I can. It seems from your work, you certainly care about information being properly sourced and correct which I commend. Thanks! AverageLiteratureEnthusiast (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fair - I almost never work on video game articles, so I had no idea about that. I also just pulled up my download of Facade and noticed that the composers are listed accurately from your edit, so that was definitely a mistake on my behalf. Thank you for letting me know! Panian513 16:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent Rollback

Hello, apologies for the rollback/warning a few minutes ago! It appears that we tried to revert vandalism at the same time. It should be straightened out now. Have a good day! Ternera (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It's alright, I understand. Panian513 20:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, although I'm well versed in sources (I'm an academic librarian). Thank you for helping clean up my recent Bryan, OH notable people edits. I greatly appreciated your guidance! 2600:8803:B308:1300:F5FB:4795:6A4F:63AA (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course! In the future, try to avoid using social media (such as LinkedIn) and blogs as sources, as they qualify as non-reliable sources. Here's a guide about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources: WP:RELIABLE. Panian513 04:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Undid a Revision

I added a necessary revision to the Ontario Local Schools District Page under the schools section The tech Department is not a part of any of the schools and is it's own entity within the district therefore it should remain on the wiki for it to stay entirely accurate 2600:1009:B113:37C:0:51:7A79:5801 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Excessive Detail

you once again removed one of our posts for excessive detail although you said beforehand if we added a source it would be okay 2600:1009:B113:37C:0:51:7A79:5801 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No, this does not fit. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and adding a source does automatically not make information encyclopedic. Verifiability does not equal relevancy. The names of IT workers at a school district is too trivial of information to be encyclopedic. See What Wikipedia is not. Panian513 17:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

but you told us if we added a source it would be fine 2600:1009:B113:37C:0:51:7A79:5801 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the autogenerated message said that it was removed due to its lack of a source. It didn't say that a source would make it relevant to be included on an encyclopedia. Again, verifiability does not equal relevancy. Panian513 17:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

"verifiability does not equal relevancy"🤓 ☝🏻 2600:1009:B113:37C:0:51:7A79:5801 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the encyclopedia. Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOPROMO. Also please be sure to make sure you are logged into your account when editing. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Harlette is a British ITU UN unoosa member and not a fashion model read it head hunted king College London sent to un and itu and unoosa for British government

Harlette commenced a PhD in space telecommunications 2015, King's College London invited to British delegation of ITU 2016-2020 Geneva and awarded title of UN Expert through UNOOSA Vienna 2024 published twice UK Parliament Defence Sub Committee space security NASA LuxuryUK72 (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's still misplaced, the section is for heads of state, government and international organizations. Being a member of a delegation or being awarded the title of expert is not the same as being the head of the UN. Panian513 02:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

UN ITU UNOOSA is international organisations its government as your not member of any government or accreditation with un itu or UNOOSA clearly you have no understanding of heads of government and international organisations

UN ITU UNOOSA is international organisations its government as your not member of any government or accreditation with un itu or UNOOSA clearly you have no understanding of heads of government and international organisations it is in the exact right position LuxuryUK72 (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

MoonPie

I have images of the MoonPie factory and of the Red Bank News Paper but I don't know how to up load them Shauf1948 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Why was the cover of "Shall Be Released" by Stop Light Observations removed from the song's article?

It's a legitimate song, linked to a legitimate band, and the video I cited has a substantial amount of views. I don't see how anything I added was in fact "link spam" as you declared. Can you kindly clarify? I was only trying to be helpful and add another beautiful cover to a beautiful song's Wikipedia article.

Was it the link to their website? If so, look - I'd rather link to a Wikipedia article for Stop Light Observations, yet none exists. I'd create it myself, but if my efforts can be immediately reverted without discussion, it seems like a waste of time. Jmessenger919 (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed it according to the Wikipedia guideline on External links. External links should be kept to a minimum, and should prioritize official websites or other sites that supply important, relevant information that should not be included in the article body. The single external link on the article, the lyrics page on Bob Dylan's website, fits this criteria because it is important information (the song's official links), is on an official website (the original artist's website), and provides something that shouldn't be included in the article (lyrics are almost always something to be avoided in Wikipedia articles due to copyright concerns). Attempting to share a specific cover because one believes that others must listen to it essentially treats Wikipedia as social media, which it is not - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Panian513 01:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I should also add that the edit on I Shall Be Released was done by an IP address, while this comment on the talk page was conducted by your account. Since you have an account, please avoid editing while logged off - it might count as sockpuppetry, which is a bannable offence. Panian513 01:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Victor Yannacone

I am trying to follow the guidelines but I have problems understanding why a reference to the USPTO for a patdent is not acceptable. It is the most reliable source for any patent cited in an article.

I have been using the Robert J. Kennedy, Jr. wikipedia page as a guideline and it has many citations to Wikipedia general articles such as Harvard and citations to materials he has written. I have over 100 publications in Journales, a two volume treatise, and a text book. Can I quote from and cite to any of them?

Thanks for your guidance. PeoplesBarrister (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit Reversal - Singer Lake Bog

"

• curprev 18:43, 29 August 2024‎ Panian513 talk contribs‎ m  1,741 bytes 92‎  Undid revision 1242964492 by 69.54.55.158 (talk) - vandalism undo Tag: Undo
• curprev 18:41, 29 August 2024‎ 69.54.55.158 talk‎  1,649 bytes −92‎  I'm a representative of the owners of this property. Because this is private property and is not open to the public, we ask that you please do not disclose the coordinates in the future as we do not want to attract attention to our protected areas. Thank you very much. undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit"

What is the proper way to request that the exact location of a piece of private property be removed from Wikipedia? This is a sensitive ecological site that is not open to the public and we do not wish to attract undo attention to it. Thanks. 2603:6010:DA01:E6:A18F:2A13:3B11:EA04 (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know the exact Wikipedia policy for that matter, I would highly suggest that you consult the Teahouse, which is a space to field questions about Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy so that various editors and administrators with varying expertise can answer. Panian513 03:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I will do that thank you very much! I don't interact much with editing Wikipedia, but I'm trying to learn - why did you reverse that edit as "vandalism" then? 2603:6010:DA01:E6:DD2E:C291:2C66:F3E (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Help with Little Barford

Just wanted to say thank you for helping with what is going on in the article Little Barford. There is a clear consensus that it is in Bedfordshire based off maps, located at User talk:2A02:C7C:6D8A:6A00:CB4:C4C9:ECD6:51D4, but the edits keep being undone. I will request a temporary page protect as at this point it seems to be vandalism unless you disagree with me. I don't know if all of these accounts are related to each other or not. Unfortunately I have to go do schoolwork, so you might have to take over but I'll poke in on occasion. Thank you for the help with undoing it.
QUICKWITTEDHARE _CONVERSE 18:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a temporary page protection is the best course of action - it'd be nice if the IP would be willing to provide a reliable source or explain at least explain the geographical issue in greater detail, but the best way to halt the disruptive editing in the meantime is to get the page protected from IP editing. Panian513 18:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I submitted a request for page protection a couple minutes ago. I might add to the list if I keep seeing IPs vandalize articles about similar areas. There was a similar issue with Little Barford Power Station from a different IP around the same time that has since stopped and now another causing problems at Thomas de la Dale. The IPs seem to be possibly related, but it may just be coincidence and I'll assume as such.

QUICKWITTEDHARE _CONVERSE 18:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring a vandal

Hey! We (you, I and @Untamed1910) should probably avoid reverting that IP vandalizing portals. Let's wait until an admin blocks them to avoid spamming the logs (please [[Special:AbuseLog looks so bad) and to WP:DENYRECOGNITION. Thanks! win8x (talking | spying) 03:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Cheers! Alith Anar 03:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sexism

Please do not be sexist by claiming that a claim that is objective, well-known, and supported by the the premise of the model is not neutral. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0 (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that the model is objective or well-known. I'm just bringing attention to the need to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I would suggest adding a section, backed up by reliable sources, about criticisms of the model, rather than adding value-laden adjectives in the article lede. Many articles have a devoted Criticism section, this could be applied to that article as well. Alith Anar 18:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide an alternative wording you would "like" that provides a clear and immediate message that the model is harmful. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)