Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I am looking for other Wikipedians to comment and provide input here on this issue - honestly should potentially be applied in even a broader context for all armed forces. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The Epoch Times political alignment labels[edit]
This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
In respect to the labeling of The Epoch Times as conservative, right-wing, or far-right in the lead of the wiki article:
- Distinct, reliably sourced examples for all three adjectives are present in the article citations
- Conservative and far-right are the most common, with right-wing appearing a handful of times
Examples range from passing mentions in tangentially related articles (ex: "she got her news from the far-right One America News Network and Epoch Times, a pro-Trump newspaper produced by the Falun Gong sect that has spread the anti-Semitic QAnon conspiracy.") to descriptions in the lead of articles where The Epoch Times is the subject (ex: "Facebook's data on the first quarter of this year shows that one of its most popular pages was an article by The Epoch Times, a far-right newspaper that has promoted...", ex: "Today, The Epoch Times is one of the country’s most successful and influential conservative news organizations")
In light of the above, what are the best practices for maintaining a neutral point of view in regards to:
- Inclusion of a political label in the lead description vs. later on in the page
- Reconciling different labels when multiple sources are available to support each
ClifV (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that ClifV has just been blocked as a block-evading sock and won't be responding to this thread. MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Vlachs vandalism by Hungarian Nationalists[edit]
Hello! This is the article in question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs
The article is entirely rewritten by two hungarian users, CritiKende and OrionNimrod. These users are removing any and all mentions of the "contiunity theory" (i.e that Romanians lived above the Danube before hungarian arrival) and replacing it with the "Immigrant Theory" (that the Romanians came to modern day Romania only after Hungarian arrival). This is unacceptable and the entire article has been compromised, with over 54% of the entire thing being written by just them two without anyone elses input. Multiple important details were outright removed like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1208658409 (Vlachs traveling to Mount Athos in the 8th Century)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1198006497 (Removal of an entire paragraph about Volohoveni, who are thought to have been Romanians living in modern day Ukraine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182790311 (Entire paragraph about Proto-Romanian being spoken in the 6th century being removed)
These to just name a few, OrionNimrod is much the same, if not even worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182605334 (Entire section about Romanians in the 9th century being removed) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182605334 (Reference to Vlachs in the 11th Century is entirely removed)
This is, at least to me, really urgent since they already got away with an insane and baffling amount of edits. Not only that, any revisions that go against their own visions are almost immediately undone and they keep adding things which are not related and "personal opinions" by historians they keep finding God knows where. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza[edit]
There is a request to move Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza to Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza or to Gaza genocide, See Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza#Survey_(Requested_move_29_February_2024). Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka refer[edit]
Granted Good Article status at some point but this should be reviewed as there is significant unsourced text and non-neutral wording. Nirva20 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nirva20, you might need to be a little more specific about the issue. It's not immediately obvious what unsourced text and non-neutral wording you're talking about, and I don't see any comments from you at Talk:2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka explaining your concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
2021 peer reviewed Harvard study POV concern[edit]
An addition from a 2021 study on the ExxonMobil article has been reverted due to alleged POV concerns by William M. Connolley, despite the fact that this is a peer reviewed study that has been covered by multiple reliable sources including CNN, Time, Scientific American, The Conversation, etc...[1] [2]
When I initially proposed the addition on the talk page, they did not raise any concerns over POV, and simply stated that they agreed with Exxon's rhetoric [3] and did not approve of the citations because they were "junk" and "not good." [4]
Before I made the addition I asked them if they could provide any other suggestions, other than their personal opinion on the quality of the source material [5], but they simply reverted and stopped participating in the discussion on the talk page.
Now we are here.
Cheers. DN (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, what exactly is the source at issue? There appears to be no "peer-reviewed study" in the revery you link. Bon courage (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Article link to the study is here CNN & the direct link is here One Earth Journal DN (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- So are you wanting to discuss CNN or the "peer reviewed Harvard study" you mention in the title here? To be clear, that source is:
- Supran, Geoffrey; Oreskes, Naomi (2021). "Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil's climate change communications". One Earth. 4 (5): 696–719. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014.
- which is some primary research in the journal One Earth? Bon courage (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I came across it in secondary reliable sources, which I used in the addition to the article. See their revert. DN (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Those look like lay sources, not decent secondary sources for academic research. If the original research is to be cited, it could be cited itself and attributed to its authors (and not asserted in Wikivoice as something that has been "shown" as you did). Whether it's due is a matter for editorial discretion: consensus needed I'd say. Bon courage (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote that "the study showed." Which is backed up by all the sources. If you think WP:3O should be the next step, I will happily take it there next. DN (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now about that POV concern... DN (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral wording would be the study "said". I assume since more than two people have now commented, 3O would be inappropriate. I suggest either wait for more discussion or pursue a WP:DR of some sort? (I am not interested in participating further). Bon courage (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would be fine with changing the wording, but since William is the only other participant and they have decided to resort to reverting instead of using the talk page, 3-O looks like a good option. DN (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since I've given a view, that's more then two. Bon courage (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since you aren't interested in participating I have reached out at 3-O. I appreciate your suggestion, but without more editors the issue will languish in a deadlock. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Would you agree that if we change the wording to say..."The study says"...that takes care of any POV issues? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- What I get from it is something like
It's an interesting point; whether it's due or not is for discussion. Bon courage (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Science historians Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes have analyzed documents originating from Exxon and write that during the 2000s the company's public position shifted away from outright denial of climate change, but that they used rhetoric which minimized its impact and portrayed the responsibility as being due to consumers, not corporations. In Supran and Oreskes' view this shift mirrors tactics used by the tobacco industry when seeking to disassociate itself from the harms of smoking.
- What I get from it is something like
- Since I've given a view, that's more then two. Bon courage (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would be fine with changing the wording, but since William is the only other participant and they have decided to resort to reverting instead of using the talk page, 3-O looks like a good option. DN (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral wording would be the study "said". I assume since more than two people have now commented, 3O would be inappropriate. I suggest either wait for more discussion or pursue a WP:DR of some sort? (I am not interested in participating further). Bon courage (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Those look like lay sources, not decent secondary sources for academic research. If the original research is to be cited, it could be cited itself and attributed to its authors (and not asserted in Wikivoice as something that has been "shown" as you did). Whether it's due is a matter for editorial discretion: consensus needed I'd say. Bon courage (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I came across it in secondary reliable sources, which I used in the addition to the article. See their revert. DN (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- So are you wanting to discuss CNN or the "peer reviewed Harvard study" you mention in the title here? To be clear, that source is:
- Article link to the study is here CNN & the direct link is here One Earth Journal DN (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Human rights in the United States[edit]
Does this article need to be rewritten because it gives undue weight to critics of the U.S. government? Jarble (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Bruno Gröning NPOV issues and disruption by IPs[edit]
I'm not totally sure if this should go here or on the fringe theories noticeboard, hopefully I'm in the right place :)
The article Bruno Gröning, about a 1940s-1950s German faith healer, has some issues. When I initially came across the article in January, I removed a large amount of biased and unreliable information derived from sources written by followers of Gröning (see Special:Diff/1200327399 and attempted to improve the coverage of his life using more reliable sources, though this has been a bit of a challenge as most contemporary sources on him are written in German. Since then, a few IPs have added unsourced, biased content to the article, removed/altered content to be more favourable to Gröning, or tried to call reliably sourced content that makes Gröning look bad into question (see Special:Diff/1209401763, Special:Diff/1209400839, Special:Diff/1208811002). I have just now made an edit to correct some of these issues, but NPOV seems to be an ongoing issue with this article. The talk page seems to show a history of bias in Gröning's favour, and many edits to the page appear to come from his followers (or others sympathetic to his and his followers views on faith healing).
I would really appreciate getting another set of eyes (or several) on this article to help improve the neutrality/factual accuracy of the text and/or expand it with further reliable sources. I believe the Reception section in particular could use some work, but I feel very out of my depth here and could use some assistance from more experienced editors.
Cheers! Ethmostigmus (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Bulldozer politics[edit]
The article on Bulldozer politics ignores how the authorities selective enforcement of permitting laws on informal settlements is being used as an extrajudicial punishment against a disfavored population, while ignoring the unlicensed building owned by favored groups.
“Amnesty International found that Muslim-concentrated localities were chosen for demolitions, while Muslim-owned properties were selectively targeted in diverse areas. Nearby Hindu-owned properties, particularly in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, were left untouched.”
“In all five states, Amnesty International found that the demolitions — often carried out under the guise of remedying illegal construction and encroachment — were enacted without following any of the due process safeguards outlined in domestic law or international human rights law. State authorities enforced the demolitions and evictions without offering any prior consultation, adequate notice, or alternative resettlement opportunities. The destruction of buildings sometimes took place at night, with occupants given little or no time to leave their homes and shops, salvage their belongings, or appeal the demolition orders and seek legal redress”
“Such demolitions constitute forced evictions, which are prohibited under international human rights law and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to which India is a state party.”
additional sources:
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220706-india-s-bulldozer-justice-flattens-muslim-dissent
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/nyregion/bulldozer-indian-parade-new-jersey.html
https://time.com/6303571/how-bulldozers-became-a-symbol-of-anti-muslim-sentiment-in-india/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/02/india-authorities-must-immediately-stop-unjust-targeted-demolition-of-muslim-properties/ FlamingCat (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- @FlamingCat: Wouldn't this be more appropriately discussed at Talk:Bulldozer politics? How would the editors of Bulldozer politics know to come here to discuss this? Peaceray (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
List of wars involving Ukraine[edit]
Our discussion with User:Olek Novy came to a dead end and edit warring. I would be grateful if someone familiar with Eastern European history in the 20th century would join the discussion. Dƶoxar (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Negative Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse[edit]
See article: Pretty clearly POV article listing terms allegedly used by Israelis to refer to Palestinians, checking two sources at random did not even verify that the terms were used in Israeli discourse ([6] and [7], now removed). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm someone who sympathises completely with the Palestinian people and I think that article is literally just vandalism. Per WP:VAND: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." AusLondonder (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Some of the alleged language is completely out of context and deliberate misrepresentation of sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it meets the definition of vandalism for G3. The sentence you quote refers to removing/changing existing content, not to creating new pages. While the page is a horrible mess and should most likely be redirected to Anti-Palestinianism#Israel if anything, being POV alone doesn't qualify as vandalism for G3 speedy deletion (cf. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely not vandalism. A crap article, but not vandalism. Make it a redirect to Anti-Palestinianism#Israel, and if there is anything at all that can legitimately be copied there (which seems unlikely) do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to revert the CSD tag, do think we can get a bit bogged down in exact details of policy (new article vs existing). It's definitely not an attempt at encyclopedic content. AusLondonder (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would say it's a form of G10 attack page. Not sure it warrants a redirect - is it likely search term? DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's less about the details of new article vs existing and more about whether the edit removes actually good content when replacing it with NPOV stuff. Which is pretty much the reason why we don't label every NPOV or non-encyclopedic addition as vandalism. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I saw the page at NPP and honestly it's been a long time since I've seen a newly-created page this plainly unconstructive. I honestly don't think it should remain in mainspace for at least a week. AusLondonder (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- You don't need to wait a week to convert it to a redirect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm going to WP:BLAR it as everyone seems to agree it is completely unconstructive. Anyone can feel free to dig in its history if there are any sources worth merging. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Good decision; that wasn't a constructive article. — Czello (music) 09:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Was just checking some more of the alleged quotes, purportedly said about Palestinians in general. One of the insults was reported as cannibal, yet the source says the Israeli defence minister was referring to Hamas leaders. Another insult was sourced to "A-Z Quotes". Is this good faith editing? AusLondonder (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, a few of them are clearly about Hamas from the title alone. I won't deny that Israel sometimes blurs the line between Hamas and Palestinians in discourse, but these sources alone are not a basis for a factual article on such a topic. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, but many of those issues have been covered at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza and Anti-Palestinianism during the Israel–Hamas war. AusLondonder (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Positive Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse is a red link. What should that be redirected to? Todays puzzle. Setting aside the potential utility of Negative Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse as a useful reference for that perfect word for someone's hate speech tweet or whatever, maybe there is potential for an interesting article buried in there somewhere, something based on work that has looked at dehumanizing language of this and other conflicts. The current article looks irredeemable. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is absolutely an 'interesting article' in dehumanising language used in conflicts. If Wikipedia doesn't have one, it certainly should - decent academic sources will surely not be hard to find. What we don't need, however, is a ragbag primary-source list of such terms, for each side in each and every conflict. Even ignoring the obvious PoV problems with separating content out like that, they are liable to be grossly repetitive, and utterly uninformative as to the underlying factors that lead to their use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Probably could make up part of Dehumanization, which doesn't go into specifics of the language used (and is probably better off for it) but also has the issue of the various maintenance and expand tags on it. Reconrabbit 14:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is absolutely an 'interesting article' in dehumanising language used in conflicts. If Wikipedia doesn't have one, it certainly should - decent academic sources will surely not be hard to find. What we don't need, however, is a ragbag primary-source list of such terms, for each side in each and every conflict. Even ignoring the obvious PoV problems with separating content out like that, they are liable to be grossly repetitive, and utterly uninformative as to the underlying factors that lead to their use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Positive Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse is a red link. What should that be redirected to? Todays puzzle. Setting aside the potential utility of Negative Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse as a useful reference for that perfect word for someone's hate speech tweet or whatever, maybe there is potential for an interesting article buried in there somewhere, something based on work that has looked at dehumanizing language of this and other conflicts. The current article looks irredeemable. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, but many of those issues have been covered at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza and Anti-Palestinianism during the Israel–Hamas war. AusLondonder (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, a few of them are clearly about Hamas from the title alone. I won't deny that Israel sometimes blurs the line between Hamas and Palestinians in discourse, but these sources alone are not a basis for a factual article on such a topic. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm going to WP:BLAR it as everyone seems to agree it is completely unconstructive. Anyone can feel free to dig in its history if there are any sources worth merging. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- You don't need to wait a week to convert it to a redirect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I saw the page at NPP and honestly it's been a long time since I've seen a newly-created page this plainly unconstructive. I honestly don't think it should remain in mainspace for at least a week. AusLondonder (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to revert the CSD tag, do think we can get a bit bogged down in exact details of policy (new article vs existing). It's definitely not an attempt at encyclopedic content. AusLondonder (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely not vandalism. A crap article, but not vandalism. Make it a redirect to Anti-Palestinianism#Israel, and if there is anything at all that can legitimately be copied there (which seems unlikely) do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The page has been blanked and redirected, and is now being recreated from scratch by another editor. The glaring issues noted before do not appear to apply to the version being currently worked on. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- This strikes me as something that is more appropriate for our sister project Wiktionary. Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The new version isn't as obviously problematic but while purportedly about dehumanising language in the context of conflict I'm not sure it's heading in that direction and the creating editor is reluctant to take feedback on board. Seems like a lot of synthesis and editorialisation going on to me. AusLondonder (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's certainly not as bad, but it's not looking especially great either. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The new version isn't as obviously problematic but while purportedly about dehumanising language in the context of conflict I'm not sure it's heading in that direction and the creating editor is reluctant to take feedback on board. Seems like a lot of synthesis and editorialisation going on to me. AusLondonder (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
John Barnett (Boeing employee)[edit]
John Barnett (Boeing employee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biography of a recently deceased person. There's been some back-and-forth in the edit history on how much, if any weight, to give conspiracy theories regarding his death. Additional experienced watchers would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- An I wrong in thinking this is a BLP1E that should be fixed with an AfD? Springee (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly, before his death. Rather like the suicide of David Kelly (weapons expert) (in the UK) you don't have to believe in a conspiracy theory for the death to take this out of BLP1E. Hang fire for the moment to see where this goes. As an aside, I'm doubtful that moving the page to John Barnett (whistleblower) is an NPOV improvement, particularly without the benefit of a RM discussion. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Springee: I did evaluate that when I saw the article. I believe they met WP:SIGCOV prior to their death. @DeCausa: if you disagree with my bold move, by all means feel free to revert and we can have a discussion. VQuakr (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in the topic enough to do that. There's controversy around the subject and it's just my opinion that a bold move (particularly to a value-laden disambig term such as "whistleblower" where there was a perfectly fine disambig already) was not appropriate. A discussion should have been had. Do what you will with that. DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- VQuakr, my feeling is this seems to be just part of the bigger Boeing story. I'm not impressed by the conspiracy theories here and would probably leave that off Wikipedia as a BLP issue for an otherwise not notable person. Would we even have this article otherwise? However, I'm not motivated to the point of actually trying to challenge the article. Springee (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Springee: I did evaluate that when I saw the article. I believe they met WP:SIGCOV prior to their death. @DeCausa: if you disagree with my bold move, by all means feel free to revert and we can have a discussion. VQuakr (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Genetic studies of Jews[edit]
There has been a lengthy discussion about this article's inclusion of unproven or discredited theories, but the article still has a POV tag. Does the article's bias remain uncorrected? Jarble (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting. I went ahead and removed the tag per Template:POV#When to remove, since it appears the discussion has been dormant for a month and a half. Generalrelative (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Potential Conflict of Interest and Promotional Activity by User Espandero[edit]
I am writing to express concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest (COI) and promotional activities undertaken by a user named Espandero. It has come to my attention that Espandero may be engaging in actions that contravene Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and conflict of interest, specifically in the context of deleting new visual contributions to promote their own images. Description of Concern: Espandero has consistently removed new images contributed by other users, including myself, across several articles. While the rationale provided is often related to image quality or relevance, a pattern has emerged where Espandero's own images are favored or promoted in place of those deleted. This behavior raises concerns about a possible conflict of interest and the promotion of personal work over community contributions. Examples and Evidence: [Chillon Castle]: Detail instances where your contributions were removed, and Espandero's images were used instead. Replacing a photo from 2022 with one of 2007. And the list is long.
I respectfully request that this situation be reviewed by the Wikipedia administration or the appropriate committee. An investigation into the edits and actions of Espandero concerning the potential COI and promotional activity would help ensure that Wikipedia remains a reliable and unbiased source of information. I am fully committed to the principles of Wikipedia and believe in constructive collaboration. I am willing to provide further information or clarification as needed and am open to dialogue to resolve this matter amicably. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your ongoing efforts to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia.
Sincerely 87.196.80.191 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is clearly no COI problem here, just normal editing. If you think your images should be used, open a discussion on the talk page and discuss that with other editors. There is no reason administration should be involved with this. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with MrOllie. As an aside, I noticed that all the images that have been uploaded by Conceptuel are named "[something] photographed by Robbie Conceptuel". M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification I guess... I sincerely suspect this IP address to be the same person as Conceptual given the style in which this message and other messages I've received on WP:FR from this user are written. Also this message mentions edits on the Chillon castle article but I haven't made edits to it on WP:EN. Best regards, Espandero (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)