Hi, noticed you removed a filmography from an article you prodded because it was unreferenced. According to guidelines filmographys do not have to be sourced as they are primary sourced to the films and tv shows credit lists. Per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, the reference column is optional and only needed "when a work may be obscure or difficult to confirm" say, for uncredited roles.imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: that’s an essay. Could you please link to the guideline you speak of where it says sourcing isn’t required? I’d rather go with guidelines/policies and not essays where possible, especially in cases like this where the that advice (in the essay linked) seems to go against WP:BLP and WP:V, both of which are core policies. BLP and V tend to repeat each other a fair bit and have the same common theme, but I have compiled some key things from both (but this is by no means exhaustive).

BLP:

• states that it applies to any mentions of living people on the site and to be “very firm” about the use of high quality sourcing, stating near the top that “[w]e must get the article right”.
• content on living people ”requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this [BLP] policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies” (NPOV, V, NOR)

From V:

• ”Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.” (Aka WP:BURDEN, which adds later on in the page that that source must be both published and reliable
• ”All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.”
• ”Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.”

I’m not trying to pick a fight or anything, just wanting to see the guideline you speak of for myself so that I may review it. I take verifiability of information and the BLP policy very seriously, which they indicate you should. They hold far more weight than any essay. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, it is an essay but it is on the front page of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers which gives it more weight than an ordinary essay as it is approved by a large WikiProject. Verifiability includes primary sources for film plots and book plots which are sourced to the primary work itself and also filmographys which are primary sourced to the works themselves. A filmography is not usually contentious and "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" is not applicable as the filmography does not need a source in most cases in the opinion of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers unless the veracity has been questioned. Also please note that it is widespread consensus that filmographys do not need referencing, for example well known actors such as Dennis Quaid. Personally I think it is better to have a referenced filmography but that is not the common consensus. Will look for the policy later, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Found something on WP:No Original Research policy page. It states " For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Also note 3 at bottom of page identifies movies as a primary source and I interpret that as use of the credits for actors and crew and for the plot description, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: (Inline) verification is required for article content, even if the sources are primary. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." come to mind specifically. How would readers verify the information without a citation? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it says it may be removed but it doesn't say it should be removed. If it is obviously sourced to a primary source such as a film plot, book plot, or credits list then it should not be removed unless the factual accuracy is in doubt and then a reference would be needed. The reader can verify the material by watching a clip of the film or reading the book it's as simple as that and often easier to verify than other types of offline sources such as rare books, documents, and so forth, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes John M Wolfson Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui Interface administrator changes Ragesoss TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla Yunshui Oversight changes Anarchyte Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

16:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking all those promotional accounts! Firestar464 (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Firestar464: Thank you! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I hope you're doing well! I am super responsive on the 1989 FAC because I can't let it archived this time lol... But if you find my responses irrational, just jump in and discuss! HĐ (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there HĐ! I am keeping an eye on it and have jumped in before, but you are definitely keeping on top of it and getting to it generally before I am..timezones and all I imagine. I am definitely monitoring it as well, but won't hesitate to jump in as needed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I brought my issue too the attention of the Help Desk and I was told to contact an admin. I put all the admins names into a random list picker, and you emerged as the unfortunate soul that is going to have to deal with me. This is my issue (I'm copying and pasting the help desk question as I couldn't find the email this user function the member on the help desk referred to.)

I've been using Wikipedia for years, but I have never edited anything until today. I went to the article on the dollar sign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_sign) and noticed that the Brazilian real wasn't listed in the list of countries that also use the dollar sign. The sign for a Brazilian real is R$ so I attempted to add it to the list. After I did this I noticed that the other currencies in the list didn't capitalize the name of the currency so I made a new edit. After this I noticed it was no longer in alphabetical order, and made another. I then tried to delete my previous edits and accidentally made more edits. The edit history is now completely cluttered with small minor edits. Is there anyway that these edits can be deleted from the edit history from 00:09, 12 November 2020‎ to 00:23, 12 November 2020 in order to clean up the history, to erase my IP before I created an account, and to save me the embarrassment? Afterwards I will make the correction in one edit so that it is more proper.

I was told by another user that the edits will most likely stay, so that really only leaves the issue of IP, could I please get this removed from the edit history? These are the edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dollar_sign&oldid=988245921 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dollar_sign&oldid=988245969 Many thanks, Yukari IV (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Yukari IV: I have suppressed your IP address from the page history. If you encounter any edits that need to be suppressed in the future, please instead contact the oversight team privately by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I will do that, sorry if I did something I shouldn't have. The interface and rules of this site are a little less than intuitive. Thanks and have a good one. Yukari IV (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I left you one at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MilHistBot 7. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

17:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)