Help:Contents

Archives

Previous requests & responses
Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128
Other links
Frequent requests Talk Third Opinion Incident Noticeboard

Pizzagate[edit]

Answered

Your article on Pizzagate says that Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that was “widely debunked.” It then cites several news organizations that “debunked” it. Yet it never says what exactly was debunked, nor how it was debunked.

Point by point:

1. “Much of the purported evidence cited by the conspiracy theory's proponents had been taken from entirely different sources and made to appear as if they supported the conspiracy.”

“Much of?” Even if it were true that much of the evidence was taken from “entirely different sources,” much of the evidence was taken directly from Comet Pizza’s and James Alefantis’s own Instagram account, including several disturbing photographs of children with sickening commments under them, like “hoetard,” and references to the “kill room.”

The fact that some, or even “much of” the evidence was false obviously does not “debunk” the evidence that is actually evidence. Only a stupid person would assert that. Does Wikipedia have stupid people writing and editing and approving entries? Evidence, yes.

2. “Theorists linked the conspiracy to Comet Ping Pong through similarities between company logos and symbols related to Satanism and pedophilia. However, The Times noted that similarities were also found in the logos of a number of unrelated companies, such as AOL, Time Warner, and MSN.”

The symbols and logos of Comet and Besta Pizza are clearly identical to, not just similar to pedophilia symbols. If AOL or Time Warner or MSN also have logos similar to pedophilia symbols, that does not change the fact that Comet and Besta’s symbols are identical to pedophilia symbols. That “debunks” nothing. Take a logic course. You are just embarrassing yourselves by citing that.

3. “Theorists claimed an underground network beneath Comet Ping Pong; however, the restaurant actually has no basement, and the picture used to support this claim was taken from another facility.”

The only source of the assertion that Comet Pizza doesn’t have a basement is Alefantis himself. I’m a 2013 article in Philly.com, however, Alefantis is quoted talking about buying tomatoes for Comet Pizza and canning them “in the basement.” He also says his other store, Buck’s Hunting and Fishing, located nearby, has a basement. So, again, you debunk nothing.

4. “Theorists claimed John and Tony Podesta kidnapped Madeleine McCann using police sketches that were, in fact, two sketches of the same suspect taken from the descriptions of two eyewitnesses.”

Again, no logic whatsoever here. Who cares if the two images were allegedly of the same suspect taken from two different witnesses? Why do you think that changes the fact that one of them looks exactly like John Podesta and the other looks exactly like Tony Podesta? Nothing can “debunk” that fact.

In summary, articles like this destroy Wikipedia’s only commodity: its credibility. This is why people laugh when anyone cites Wikipedia as a source for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C400:3D7C:C862:F290:F912:D17 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This page is for help on how to edit Wikipedia; if you have a question about that, please be more specific. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you have the aforementioned concerns, you should express them either directly on the talk page of that article or by using Bold, Revert, Delete. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Issue regarding the history section of the France article[edit]

Hello everyone,

My request might seem a bit strange considering I do not own an account on Wikipedia.

I posted a comment (titled "Lack of objectivity in the history section") at Talk:France last year (on November, 9th) regarding an issue with the contributions made in May 2018 by the user Odoures on the history section of France article. These contributions, by focusing on a specific aspect of French colonisation and decolonisation of Africa and Asia (the death tolls that is), result in a biased view of French contemporary history. For this reason, I asked for these contributions to be removed and put in a more appropriate article. This comment got no answer and has been archived by a bot since then. Following Wikipedia's policy, I tried to discuss the issue with Odoures and sent him a message last January but got also no answer.

Not sure about what to do next, I am seeking advice from the community. Thank you in advance. ~~A French reader~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by A French reader (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

First, it is a fact of life here that requests and modifications made by IP editors are often given short shrift. It would be in your own best interest if you were to register an account to make requests or other edits here. Next, it is unlikely that Odoures is going to reply, since they have been indefinitely blocked from editing since July, 2018. However, the edits he made that you're complaining about were improper block evasion by Odoures sockmaster Krajoyn at the time they were made and could have been deleted without consideration of their appropriateness due to that fact at that time. Unfortunately, since time has passed they may have been further edited by good faith editors whose work ought not to be deleted simply because the original edits were block evasion. On the other hand, it looks like that Krajoyn returned several more times to that article using new sockpuppets, and other sockpuppets also added material which might be removed as block evasion. It might be that the edits made to Odoures' edits (if any) were all also made by sockpuppets and can all still be removed as block evasion. I, to my disgrace, have neither the time nor inclination to work through all that, but I'm going to ping @Blaue Max who tried to remove those edits by Odoures at the time they were made (though Odoures restored them and added more after Blaue Max's attempt) and who is still an active editor on the France page. Perhaps Blaue Max might be interested in working through the history (or, for that matter, just seeing that they're not that great and taking on removing them). If there is going to be any additional discussion about this matter between the IP editor (aka "A French reader") and Blaue Max, it ought to take place at Talk:France, perhaps restoring the IP's original request and copying over a copy of this request as well, just so other editors there will know what's going on. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello TransporterMan. Thank you for your answer and for having explained to me the whole background. Following your advice I will use an account from now on. The revision attempt made by @Blaue Max was very good. I think a new revision like this one is much needed. Regards, RMSBCM (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Budapest (2018) film image[edit]

For the life of me I can figure out how to get the Budapest film poster to the info box. Cannot figure out if it is copyrighted? I would like a step by step instructions. I Have read at least 5 how to image instructions and am just lost. If someone would just load the film poster to the info box that would be great. Thanks Eschoryii (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What you really need is not an image, but more sources. In its present condition, the article would not survive a deletion nomination, see the notability guideline for films. You need at least two independent non-trivial sources. The TV Guide one may be enough for one of those two, but you desperately need a second source since your first one is a dead link and (I can't check it since it's dead) may have been a PRIMARY source to begin with, which can't count towards those two. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Examples portion of “Lagrangian (field theory)” references non-existent material and equations.[edit]

Answered

The examples section starts out “To go with the section on test particles above, here are the equations for the fields in which they move”, but there is no section on test particles.

At the end of the paragraph, the article continues “when substituted back in equation (1), the Lagrangian equation for the test particle in a Newtonian gravitational field, provides the information needed to calculate the acceleration of the particle.”, but there is no equation (1) in the earlier portion of the article.

How can I alert a qualified editor to this problem?

2600:1010:B02D:233F:C499:2F55:7F0C:EC3F (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "qualified editor" here: all editors are fungible since any editor can edit any article and we judge edits not editors. Having that technicality out of the way, however, use the edit request method to post the request to the article talk page or, much better yet, register an account and fix it yourself since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and anyone includes you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Undeleting a talk page[edit]

Hello, could someone please look at this old failed proposal for the Manual of Style: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Identity_(failed_proposal). At one point it was located at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Identity_(proposal). It seems like, when the page was moved, its talk page was lost. When you click on "Talk" you're just redirected to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. I'd like access to that talk page because I'm helping to collect old discussions about identity. Could someone please restore the missing talk page? Thank you! WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The deleted pages only ever contained redirects. The actual talk history was simply archived with the main MOS archive set. This is how the talk page appeared at the time the page was moved to its current location. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thank you! WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

How to structure the lead section of a controversial, political topic?[edit]

Hi. I'm involved in an editor dispute over the neutrality of the lead section of Neoliberalism. Could an editor here please give their opinion?

Most of the discussion has taken place on Talk:Neoliberalism#Origin of neoliberalism, what it actually is; articles needs a significant rewrite. I would also appreciate comments on how disputes like these are generally best resolved. Temporary political account (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Postscripts[edit]

What is the policy or guideline in using postscript information in film articles?Eschoryii (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Eschoryii You have a reply from CodexJustin. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film (a guideline) does give a good deal of advice on layout of film articles, but doesn't seem to mention postscripts. To discuss this further maybe Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film could be good places: Bhunacat10 (talk), 20:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Map update[edit]

Greetings,

On the page Armenian Genocide recognition, under "Position of the United States" the map needs an update and wondering if an editor could please assist? Alabama should be colored green as the State recognized the Genocide on March 20, 2019.^[1]

US states that recognized Armenian Genocide

Much appreciated! Archives908 (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Archives908 Let's ask the maker of this map, Goran tek-en, to please amend File:US_states_that_recognized_Armenian_Genocide.svg on Commons: Bhunacat10 (talk), 19:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Goran: Bhunacat10 (talk), 11:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Imagine on Comarnic Town[edit]

Hi. I noticed with my friends that in Google search results as first shown image comes from your website. The picture does NOT show Comarnic City but a street old sign and the blue sky ONLY without any nice streets, buildings, people, trees....city life in few words. Could you please be more accurate in showing a good looking town picture of Comarnic CITY, my lovely town? By showing default odd images under our city name on Google search, you do not make us a favor but breach on a huge scale the reputation of our people and places. Please promote my town this time. Thank you. Regards, Ondin Dinescu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondin Dinescu (talk • contribs) 15:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)