User talk:HouseOfChange/Archive 6

Moving here everything more than 2 years old from my Talk page. Sad to see those nice messages and barnstars disappear but so it goes. Tomorrow is another day! HouseOfChange (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more today, from 2022 and 2023. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work on Mining in Sweden!

Snowycats (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Snowycats!! HouseOfChange (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for your Teamwork with me to rapidly contributing & improving content & references for the article about Suhai Aziz Talpur of current events. JogiAsad  Talk 15:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this Barnstar! I really appreciate it very much. It has been a pleasure collaborating with you on this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found you very courteous, thanks a lot, I want to make some of my articles featured, if you can help me to make it possible, I'll appreciate, Expecting a positive and a dignified role from you. And My pleasure too for collaboratively works.JogiAsad  ^Talk 23:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		A glass of Thandai for you
		Here is a glass of Thandai for you. Thandai is a traditional Indian cold drink prepared with a mixture of almonds, fennel seeds, watermelon kernels, rose petals, pepper, vetiver seeds, cardamom, saffron, milk and sugar. Thanks for keeping wikipedia articles free from BLP Violations. Keep it up. cheers. Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply] For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Thanks so much, @DBigXray:! I will do my best to live up to your kind words. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Gerda Arendt:! I am honored to be thought of in such company. I greatly admire your many and long-standing contributions to Wikipedia, so it makes me especially happy that you in particular like my work for the project. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are welcome! What do you think of an infobox for Barulina, because at a glance it looks like an article about lentils ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, to quote a different farm boy. I will try to remember to add these in the future when creating articles. 19:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2150 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much User:7&6=thirteen for this delicious gift. Wishing you good luck and fair winds here in Wikiland. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for you support on the recent page creation of a notable female architect. Wikipedia has a lot of work to do in order to be more welcoming to new users from different communities and you are helping make that happen. Carthradge (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Carthradge: this is very kind of you. I am glad we were able to un-discourage the new user and I hope he/she will continue on to become a creative part of Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of those users are now harassing me on my page and reverting valid edits in completely unrelated pages from anonymous IP addresses. Is there recourse for dealing with this? --Carthradge (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your many fixes and improvements to Marquita Bradshaw during its AfD, here's a barnstar. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ritchie333. I am honored and touched by your kind words. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Gerda has already noticed your talents and contributions, and who would I be to argue? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure if there is an award like that but happy holidays :-) Vikram Vincent 16:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this unexpected award. Wikipedia needs just such an award (though many others should get it before I did.) I am honored to be thought of in these terms. I should try harder, I know. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your hard work at In Praise of Blood article! (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gerda Arendt, thanks for this reminder of your warm-hearted encouragement two years ago. It was very welcome then, and it continues to be welcome today. Thanks also for your own improvements to the musical side of Wikipedia. Gratefully, HouseOfChange (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your compromises for the long-lasting DYK noms. I said more about how dear to my heart Jesu, meine Freude is here. Not only close to the first funeral of a beloved family member, but also in defiance against arbitrators not looking, which I feel strongly again right now. Back to music, from missing users. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wild garlic

Thank you for the final hook for that article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude, on its long way from the start in 2006 to the Main page today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HouseOfChange,

Thanks for your message. As you have seen, I have been working on the article "anyon" by including some historical developments. As a secondary reference which support my changes I can propose the article:

Biedenharn, Lieb, Simon, Wilczek [1990], The Ancestry of the ‘Anyon’ Physics Today 43, 8, 90. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2810672

I am happy to discuss this matter further. PierreAlexis1788 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is the place to discuss an article, so that other people with knowledge can express an opinion. So we should move the discussion there, if you wish to continue.

The citation you give here is a letter to the editor, not a refereed review article. The work by Goldin et al. is mentioned in the context that it is early work relevant to anyons that was omitted from a 1989 article discussing the early work on anyons. Notably absent from the letter you cite is a claim that the Goldin work influenced any later work about anyons.

After you added extensive material about Goldin to the anyon article, I searched in vain for endorsements of the Goldin work in review articles about anyons. The 1989 Khurana paper ignored Goldin, so did the 2008 Stern article. What is the citation count of the Goldin article? And yet the material you inserted gives far more detail about what the Goldin paper says than the article provides for verifiably important work on anyons by Leinaas, Wilczek, Halperin, etc. The part of the letter you cite that sounds more interesting and relevant is the tie-back to Dashen, Dirac, etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to BLP articles! ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 16:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, FormalDude, this is a kind and courteous gift considering that you and I have disagreed in some discussions. I like editing biographies in general because people in general are just so gosh-darn interesting. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that's one thing we can definitely agree on! (Though I'm sure there's many more) ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseOfChange, thank you so much for reviewing Tess Posner. I have been a longtime Wikipedia Women in Red writer and really appreciate your support and speed in growing Wikipedia's content. I saw that you added a notability to Posner's article and was wondering how to resolve it. The biography cites many "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention", currently 20 sources (more than many other new Wikipedia articles I've seen) that span publications that Wikipedia has classified as reliable such as The Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, USA Today, VentureBeat, and Fortune. If you have any suggestions of improvement, I would really appreciate it. Thank you! - Catyeo18 (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Catyeo18: Thanks for your civil message. I know from experience that it is disappointing to have another editor question the notability of an admirable person. I also tried to find sources that had "significant coverage" of Tess Posner. The most in-depth information is from Accelerate.withgoogle.com, which "is a blog from Google" that spotlights "Googlers and Google partners," not independent RS or evidence of notability. The Atlantic article you mention has a brief quote from Posner plus exactly one sentence about her: "They hired Tess Posner, who had led initiatives aimed at getting more diversity into the digital economy, to be the CEO." That's not "significant coverage" of Tess Posner. WSJ quotes one paragraph worth of an interview with Posner and describes her as "CEO of AI4ALL, a nonprofit focused on increasing diversity and inclusion in AI." That's not "significant coverage" in the WSJ. Similarly Fortune gives a paragraph quote from Posner but says ABOUT her only "director of AI4All, an organization working to get more women and minorities into the industry." There is a broad spectrum in between a "trivial mention" and "significant coverage." For notability, we need "significant coverage" of Tess Posner in sources other than speaker bios and similar non-independent sources. This coverage should be added to the article; otherwise it will probably be deleted or re-directed. I tried to find coverage of TP and the closest I came was that one sentence about her in The Atlantic. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: Thank you for your swift and kind response! I really appreciate hearing your thought process and learning about your research process, and now understand the nuance of in depth coverage. I did a quick search and I have found a few articles that profile and feature Posner's opinions extensively in Forbes (an entire interview of her), Teen Vogue (a feature about AI ethics that extensively quotes and features her), and the Center for Data Innovation (another interview) - would articles like these qualify as significant coverage of TP? She has truly been a domain expert all across the field of AI ethics and social entrepreneurship (so she should not be treated as an academic), in being referenced and featured in so many notable publications and leading an influential nonprofit, that I guess I'm not sure how to further make the argument for her notability on Wikipedia when it is already so clear in the industry. I am extremely appreciative of all your kind help and support, thank you!

@Catyeo18: The multiple cites and interviews may add up to notability via WP:NCREATIVE #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." So rather than trying to meet GNG, which is hard, maybe make it more clear that she meets that part of NCREATIVE. With this in mind, I removed the N tag I had placed on the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HouseOfChange - I'm sorry to have been so slow to reply to you; it can be difficult to engage with Wikipedia in a serious way during the work-week when things get busy. But I simply wanted to record how grateful I am to you for tremendous display of good faith, generosity of spirit, and Wikicamaraderie; you've restored some of my faith in this project, and I hope I can continue to learn from watching how you proceed on this site.

I hope my additions just now will be of some use; if not, please accept them as a gesture of thanks and goodwill (and I'm also very glad to have learned a bit more about an important chapter in mid-century American cultural and political history). --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Publius In The 21st Century: Thanks so much for your kind words and your addition to my draft about Shelton Tappes. I hope you stick around, because although we differ on politics, I value your contribution. It was your civility I valued first, but having seen your new articles, I think you bring strength to an area where Wikipedia can perform a real service, by providing NPOV articles about US conservative politics.

You might try submitting new (< 7 days) articles at WP:DYK, where a wider community will give input, usually collegial and helpful. I had fun with mine so far. Also, when one of mine gets featured, I send a screencap to my adult children, nearly the only thing I do these days that comes close to impressing them. Happiness is where we find it. Best wishes! HouseOfChange (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gerda Arendt, so many thanks to you for your ongoing encouragement! In a project that spawns many discords, your work fosters harmony. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I try. Prayer for Ukraine - I took the image of the choir. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for support in the RfC for DYK - music with a chance to listen, - the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices afterwards call "Freiheit!" instead of "Freude". Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that if you ever want to delete an article that you have recently made (by mistake or otherwise), you can tag it with {{db-author}}. Happy editing! – Pbrks ^(t • c) 16:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbrks: Thanks so much for this kind helpful message. I was feeling very discouraged. Thanks to you and to Jo-Jo Eumerus I am ready to encyclopedia-ize some more. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Carrie Campbell Severino at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10: Thank you so much for your detailed and helpful review of this article! I am working to address the issues you identified. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: @HouseOfChange: do not move the Russian disinformation page again without discussion. Neither of you has previously made a single edit to either the article or the talk page and you appear not to have read it at all. If you had even read the lede you would appreciate how inappropriate your move was. It was extremely disrespectful to show up there for the first time ever and assume that your random Google search based on unknown search terms entitled you to think you knew enough about the content of an extremely lengthy article with 299 references than the people who put them there. To show up there in tandem with another editor who also has never touched the article, minutes after I told you on another page that you don’t understand the reliable sources policy, is blatant edit warring and only proves my point. You cannot prove a preponderance of RS if you do not understand RS. Please go read the reliable sources policy: WP:RS Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: Your assumptions are mistaken and offensive. The article is on my watchlist because it is in my area of interest; I last edited it on March 21. Therefore, on March 22, the page move and RfC showed up on my watchlist. I agreed with Buidhe that there should have been discussion before your previous page move. Your arrival on my talk page to bludgeon me for making a comment on an RfC is surprising.

Let me remind you of the article lede on March 2, before you began work on it: "The Russian–Ukrainian information war is a campaign by governmental and non-governmental organizations of Russia and Ukraine to demoralize or mislead. This information war began during the collapse of the USSR and continues as an essential part of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict."[1] Wikipedia has had a useful article since 2020 on the topic "Russian–Ukrainian information war." Your rewrite of the article and its lede do not give you OWNership of the page or its title. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you are suggesting exactly. You appear to be suggesting that I should not have improved the article, Are you really unclear about the editing process? Elinruby (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be suggesting that your reading skills need an upgrade. Go battleground somewhere else. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is not uncivil to be unable to manifest a cell tower to go your bidding

1. You appear to have believed that you were posting the following to an article talk page. You were mistaken.

Elinruby, being harried or busy or in the wilderness, etc. does not exempt you from WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia, not a fancy dance editors do when in a good mood. Article talk pages are for arguing about the best way to improve articles. And before you offer Buidhe any more insults or advice you might like to consider her impressive editing history. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This is not an article talk page. I accidentally hurt this editor’s feelings while trying to make him feel better. He made a comment on an editor, which is usually not good, but his feelings were hurt because he misunderstood a joke and I am not about to get upset about it. If you have something to say start your own section. Preferably elsewhere. Buidhe needs to read the reliable sources policy. Elinruby (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your antics are neither witty nor wise. Stay off my talk page in future please.[2]HouseOfChange (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are an anonymous username. Your feelings, my feelings, are of no import. I don't need you to apologize to me or the other editor you named. All I care about is the integrity of WP articles. If you now believe that Pepe Escobar is "one of Kremlin's useful idiots", then please update your version of the article to reflect that. You claim it "doesn't whitewash him", but your version of the article makes no mention of his Holocaust denial (and continued writing for websites such as RussiaInsider that promote Holocaust denial as a matter of policy), 9/11 denial, Covid denial, current pro-Russian warmongering and spreading of fake news on Twitter and Facebook (for which both platforms have recently banned him), PodCasts, etc.

The funniest of which were his late-February assurances to his followers/viewers that Kiev would "certainly collapse in 3 or 4 days, that much is obvious now" (March 1st: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8syVHWRv_k)

Your version of the article portrays him as a legitimate, notable, renowned journalist.

The lede of your article refers to him simply as a journalist and "geopolitical analyst" - neither source you cite actually refers to him as such.

Indeed, the only undisputed RS in this field (journalism review) that directly comments on Escobar in his capacity as a "journalist", is The New Republic's "Pravda Lite" article which, quotes him only to pointedly mock him - with his own words - for his obvious lack of journalistic integrity: i.e., he admits that RT is controlled by the Kremlin, but he's impressed by its YouTube hits, so, all good! But you have watered that down, and buried it in the 12th paragraph (out of 15) of the article.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EnlightenmentNow1792: I can't put my opinion into an article unless I am citing some reliable source that shares said opinion. I certainly can't put a negative opinion about a living person into Wikipedia without really good sourcing. The US State Department sources I found and cited were extremely coy in describing his work for pro-Kremlin media. I did find one (1) article that explicitly describes him as pushing a pro-Kremlin line, which is now in the article.

I did my best to improve a crummy article about a barely notable journalist, sorry you don't like it. The Harvard Negotiation Project has an interesting piece of advice that I think about often: "Go hard on the problem but soft on the people." It is very hard to collaborate with people who are attacking you, because your first response is to defend yourself and/or fight back. We disagreed. I felt you attacked me, and soon my efforts were aimed not at learning from you but at defending my own side and attacking you. That was a mess, and I now regret it. Our own viewpoints on world affairs are not that different and we both really, really dislike Russian disinformation campaigns. I wish you good luck in the future with your projects. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources HouseOfChange, sources, that's all that matters. Nothing to do with opinion or what you think my "viewpoints on world affairs" are. WP:NPOV is all that matters. Your version of the article is not NPOV, because it doesn't reflect what the reliable sources say. You can either rectify it yourself, or wait until other editors do so. That, I promise you, is only a matter of time, given the current climate. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy if other editors find new RS or old ones I missed, or improve Pepe Escobar's bio otherwise. My efforts are better spent elsewhere now. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your honesty. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what went on between you and EnlightenmentNow, and I am not asking you to explain it to me.

However, I just want to tell you that I noticed that you stood up for someone who apparently had just been quite rude to you over something or other, and defended that editor’s right to momentarily be grumpy, as you said. If that is what happened, and again, I am not asking you to explain it to me.

I had spoken to them a few times, and think their topic ban was actually a net loss to Wikipedia, which might have been better served by a short block to get the editor’s attention, and some coaching on AGF, but I am not an administrator and did not have the power to make that happen. I will try to talk to that editor about this. If they will accept email from me. We could use some help with sourcing, and that editor is multi-lingual in languages that are hard to recruit.

In any event, I just wanted to let you know that I saw you do something that looked to me like a kind act based on a generous impulse. I still think you were completely wrong about the Russian disinformation page, mind you, but if I —how to put this — hurt your feelings (?) I want you to know that this was never my intention. I felt blindsided and misunderstood — in fact am still very damn sure you misunderstood — but I suppose I should have been less defensive and tried harder to explain to you that the topic was really really narrow... and been less curt in doing so...but I really don’t want to seem insulting all over again.

Let’s just say this, and leave it at that: at ANI I saw you be gracious and also kinda brave, and appreciated you ;) I looked for a barnstar but couldn’t find one that seemed appropriate. So you get a compliment instead; I hope it is coming across that way, at least. Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elinruby, coming to my talk page with that was a generous and kind thing to do. By the way, I agree with you that I misunderstood you, and I apologize for the hurtful way I behaved once I got angry and dug in to my own position.

I'm not sure that a short block to get the editor’s attention, and some coaching on AGF can turn quick-fisted editors into collegial ones. Editors get angry when they feel attacked, as you say, and my critiquing people's manners at ANI was a hurtful way to try to improve their behavior. I hope your friendly outreach to other editors succeeds, as it deserves to. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not really a campaign. This is special, just for you, except that I do believe in letting people know when I notice them showing integrity or generosity or self-reflection or some other admirable trait. As for the other editor... I will discuss that with them if they will hear it. I have no idea what was up with Pepe whoever that was the topic of all that, and I sincerely don’t want to have one, but I’m glad their comment on your talk page didn’t keep you from speaking up on their behalf. An editor who speaks Persian and Russian could help Wikipedia quite a lot if they learn how. Which is probably true of all of us, come to think of it Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: Yes, I hope we all stick around, and thanks again for kind words. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you recover soon and completely. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: thanks for the kind thought. It feels like a bad chest cold and is getting better, so I am lucky. Thanks also for your help at the ANI. This is such a good place. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note you had participated in the discussion on the requested move on the Russian information war against Ukraine to Russian–Ukrainian information war. There is currently a similar discussion ongoing at Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation where your input may be valuable. Kind regards.79.155.36.178 (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I believe that my efforts to improve Wikipedia are better spent on topics where I have more to contribute. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you’re a member of Women in Red, and interested in improving articles about notable women. I was hoping you could take a look at some edits I suggested to improve the article about Tamara Gustavson, which have been partially reviewed. I’ve declared a COI. The suggested edits are on top of the Talk page: Talk:Tamara Gustavson. Thanks in advance.Wiki64gus (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseofChange, I work for Hamilton E. James and have a declared COI. I came across your activity on the Center for American Progress article, of which Mr. James is a board member. I was hoping you would check out my edit request on his Talk page. As you wrote on your user page, you encourage accuracy in WP:BLP articles and I am trying to update Mr. James' page. Thank you! KWray (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KWray: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for declaring your COI. I looked at your edit request, and I hope somebody else has the time to look into your proposed changes, but I don't have the time right now. I would suggest instead that you try to get a local paper or alumni magazine to write a fact-checked profile of Mr. James; Wikipedia could then quote from it or link to it. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HouseOfChange,

I recently made some edits to my personal Wikipedia page, but I noticed that you reverted most of them and removed my photo. I would like to understand the reasons behind these changes, as I believe my edits were accurate and updated the information on the page.

I understand that you mentioned a possible conflict of interest (COI) in your edit summary. Could you please provide more details on which specific edits you found problematic? I am more than happy to work with you to address any concerns and ensure that the page meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

If you have any suggestions on how to improve the page or if you think there are specific sources that should be included, please let me know. I appreciate your help in maintaining the accuracy and integrity of Wikipedia content.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Levashov.peter (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Levashov.peter: thanks for your civil message. Wikipedia rules strongly discourage people from editing their own biographies, this page looks like a good start toward understanding why. To summarize, you should disclose your conflict of interest on the article talk page, and then propose there the edits you think should be made, backing up each suggestion with a "reliable source" to support each change you think would improve the article. It would be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to sound like an ad for your consulting services. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HouseOfChange,

I wanted to let you know that I have disclosed my conflict of interest on the talk page of Peter Severa Levashov's article, as you suggested. I have made some changes to the article, including adding information about his current activities based on his website and personal knowledge. I kindly ask you to review my edits for neutrality and accuracy.

If you have any concerns or suggestions, please feel free to make necessary changes or contact me on my talk page. I appreciate your guidance and assistance in ensuring that the article remains balanced and informative.

Thank you,Levashov.peter (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion about an article should happen at the article talk page, not on my talk page. This is not a personal dispute between you and one of many volunteer editors here. I briefly described Wikipedia policy with the intention of helping you. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HouseOfChange,

Thank you for your response and guidance. I apologize for any inconvenience and understand that this is not a personal dispute. I will follow your advice and direct any further discussions regarding the article to the article talk page. I appreciate your assistance in ensuring that the content on Wikipedia remains accurate and adheres to the guidelines.

Best regards,Levashov.peter (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Levashov.peter: I hope some of the experienced people at the TeaHouse will give good advice. The Time magazine article I found has some information about your new business ventures, so it could be used as a source in the article body. The article lead summarizes the most important facts that are already in the body of the article, so work on the article body first, is my advice. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondered how that thing was going. Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @HouseOfChange. You reverted an edit in which I eliminated an image declaring that certain news orgs are disinformation. Please see my note on the talk page of disinformation about why it is a bad idea to declare any news organization a source of disinformation without strong support. This is true especially when there is a conflict of interest, for instance, when two rival countries like if US and Russia declare that each other news are propaganda. I hope that you agree and either delete that image or source it with a strong reference (right now it does not have a proper link)

Thanks MexFin (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MexFin: I responded on the article talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange Sorry, it was my mistake, and you were correct. I did not notice that it was an extract from the other page. MexFin (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fully understand the reason for your cancel edit on Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, what did you mean? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should discuss this on the article talk page, not my talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]