User talk:Anfornum/Archive 1

Archive Page

Lutudarum location is unknown

Hi Anfornum. The location of Lutudarum is very uncertain and contentious. So it seems inappropriate to attribute specific coordinates to it. So please remove the coordinates from the Lutudarum article. However please do add the coordinates to the article Carsington Roman Villa which has a known location. It is very questionable that Lutudarum was at the same location as Carsington Roman Villa. There are various theories but no evidence of this. Thanks Douglal (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Douglal! I actually found many articles saying that WAS the Carsington Villa so I apologise if it wasn’t the right one! I suspect there is more than one in the area. The one I referenced is one of them. Could you let me know a little more about the one you are talking about so I can make the “correct-correction” for you? :) Anfornum (talk)

actually, if you look at the Carsington Roman Villa page on here it also agrees with the location being underwater in the reservoir...? https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Carsington_Roman_Villa

omg wait. Are you just wanting me to move the coordinates to that page?? If so I am an idiot and I apologise! However, the geotagging project would like to put some kind of reference point for each place. Is there a midpoint or a road that was known to go into the site perhaps?? :)

Hi Anfornum. Exactly! Please just move the coordinates from the Lutudarum article to the Carsington Roman Villa article. Adding coordinates for Lutudarum would be a bit like adding them for Atlantis!! Some people think Lututdarum may have been at Wirksworth, others at Carsington, with Matlock and Cromford as other candidates ... it is all speculation though. So it would be very misleading (and controversial) to include any coordinates for Lutudarum. Douglal (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Anfornum, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Anfornum! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christine Giampaoli Zonca has been accepted

Christine Giampaoli Zonca, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MurielMary (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spidi (December 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Spidi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Spidi, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello Anfornum. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Anfornum. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Anfornum|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Blablubbs|talk 17:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I read the information you linked, and I do understand there are companies out there who can do these pages, but I don't work for them! I am working through all the links you posted and will try to improve the article (assuming you are alright with me doing so), and I will try to make sure I write in a more neutral style. Can I please ask if you have any examples of a clothing company where the wiki is done particularly well? Specifically, I am concerned with the sponsorships and things of that nature. The problem with sponsorships is that most of the time, the most reliable source of information is the company's own website (eg. press releases). The same could be said for new tech introduced. Fabric for motorcycle-specific sportswear isn't exactly easy to find impartial references for - does this invalidate the concept of a Wikipedia article about Spidi themselves? (honest question - not being argumentative at all!) Is there a way to work with this kind of information in a more impartial manner? I understand I need to put more/better links, but how does one handle these sorts of things? Since I am just starting out (it appears I picked a really bad topic here... I'm just a motorsports fan...) I would really appreciate any feedback you could give me about this, not because I plan to make more of these pages, but because I am curious about how to manage this type of information within the Wikipedia environment. Thanks! Anfornum (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers "articles" to "pages" because the former conveys an independence from the topics the articles are about. For same reason, people who work for companies are not supposed to directly edit articles about the companies, but rather make suggestions on the Talk pages of the articles. See Bell Sports for example. David notMD (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Note: This has since been resolved. Having mentored them off-wiki for a while now, I can confidently say that Anfornum is not a paid editor and that the draft was mostly a result of genuine enthusiasm and lack of familiarity with encyclopaedic writing. Blablubbs|talk 13:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Anfornum! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, One to one help to improve my work?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Mountains

It seems you have thoroughly messed this up. According to this there are nine different mountains called Blåhø, Blåhøe, Blåhøi, Blåhøin. You moved them around indiscriminately, also messing up Wikidata connections. Please read up thoroughly on these mountains, or else please refrain from editing anything about these mountains anymore. Geschichte (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I spent quite a bit of time looking at this and as I'm Norwegian, I checked through the national map archive. According to the Norwegian national map (Norgeskart), there are a 5, but several extra entries to account for spelling variations, which does not mean there are 9 peaks, but in fact only 5, but some may have more than 1 peak (but are labelled separately to indicate there's two). However, the pages I was working on were pointing to only two of these mountains, so they were fixed. The peaks that should be represented are: 1) Blåhøa (a mountain peak in Sunndal/Lom) 61.6684, 8.0737, 2) Blåhøe (mountain peak in Vågå) 61.8970, 9.2851, 3) Blåhøa (mountain peak in Oppdal) 62.7542, 9.3323, 4) Blåhøe (Mountain peak in Skjåk) 62.0850, 8.0359, 5) Blåhøin/Blåhøe (Mountain peak in Dovre) 62.1289, 9.3891. If you have reliable sources, I would be happy to work with you to sort this out?Anfornum (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Geschichte Sorry, forgot to ping. Anfornum (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)