User talk:Kuru

Kuru's Talk Page

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Please note that I will usually respond on this page to keep the conversation together. If you have a question about a particular edit/reversion, please try to include a link to it if you can. WARNING: If you've come here because my name was used in a solicitation for a paid Wikipedia article, you are being scammed. In no way, shape, or form would I ever operate or advise as a paid editor. I also do not typically assist declared paid editors; I'm here as a volunteer to improve the project, not to help you turn a buck. Click HERE to start a new talk topic. Archives 2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 2022 • 2023 • 2024 • 2025

iNat as mirror

Yes, iNaturalist mirrors Wikipedia articles, but their use of the common name Keever's onion predates my creation of the stub on Allium keeverae. Abductive (reasoning) 18:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Abductive: Man, that is a fast mirror - I had not noticed you had created the article same day. The rest of the material is still WP:UGC, no? I was working from this conversation from last year, but happy to stop if something has changed since then. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes an article I create appears on iNat in seconds. And they do a dump from Wikipedia at least weekly to round up any strays. As for its reliablity, I feel that its raw observation data is unusable, and other sources are available for taxonomy, but common names appear to be controlled editorially and other sources are hard to find. Abductive (reasoning) 18:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, the prior discussion linked from last year did not agree with that, but this is not my area of expertise. I'm slowly going through the links for that site, but will defer on common name claims vs. material sourced to mirrors or user-generated content. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. I will try to avoid using iNat as a source going forward. I found a more authoritative source on the common name for this one. Abductive (reasoning) 21:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Page deletion Albert Aretz (Flamingo famous youtuber)

Hello, Kuru. I would like to know why my page about (Flamingo) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Aretz&action=edit&redlink=1 was deleted. Flamingo is a widely known youtuber who has over 11 million subscribers on YouTube. I’ve seen Minecraft YouTubers like TommyInnit have their page on Wikipedia, but why not (Flamingo)? People would love to know more about their favorite youtuber and (Flamingo) is widely regarded as most people’s favorite youtuber. Please redo this deletion if you can. Thanks, Angelzaed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelzaed (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It was a completely unsourced biography, laden with vague, informal puffery like "Outside of recording, he's a good guy" and "Albert can be seen rocking the shaggy haircut in real life". Frankly, the entire thing read like a fan page; that's just not what this site is. Some of the negative unsourced content also falls afoul of our policy on biographies of living persons. You can start again in the draft space (here), just make sure every part of it is sourced to reliable sources, and avoid the gossip and fan page material. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Kuru, I saw the changes you made to the draft. Thank you for the help. Afimaame (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Kindly look at my article.

Hello Kuru could kindly look at my article and give constructive review. I would very much appreciate that thanks

My article is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CW8hkx2AZY&ab_channel=AhmedFitness 119.73.117.196 (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

sorry the above post was not the link to the article, but this one is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Raimond_Magomedaliev

Apologies for the dumb mistake i made. Anyways plz review my article 119.73.117.196 (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really in to the topic, but you've tagged the article for review correctly, and a reviewer will be along shortly to assess. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit reverted on Disneyfication page

Hi Kuru, I'm withdrawing my question. I figured it out.Ghamilton5000 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Taken note on self published citation

Thank you for revising the unreliable source on last paragraph on marriage for "Family" in the Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu entry. I have now added three reliable sources for that information. Encomium Magazine, Business Hallmark, and The Free Library. Obinnanduka (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Erdoğanism

Hi Kuru,

I reverted a contribution that I did, and you deleted. It is not self publish material, I thought that it is a good overview for 'erdoganism' in a larger context. Thank you for your supervisions. You do a great job! Ashmole1652 (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Asmole1652: As noted, it's an open blogging platform that accepts any submission with no editorial control. The blogger is labeled as a "self media writer" and there is a massive disclaimer at the bottom of the article which outlines that this is user-generated material. Of course, you could just read the article, which is littered with grammatical errors and written like a high school term paper. I've removed the "reference" for you again. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Dedert

Good day @Kuru. Thank you for making some notes on the page Dedert Corporation which I submitted. I have made suggested improvements, and with the contribution of other editors, the advertising content of the article have been toned down. Could you spare a moment to to take a second look? RazaqDesigner (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Need much better sourcing. I commented at the AFD. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping and pointing out errors from other contributors in a respectful way.

Connor W (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Mathur

Hi Kuru,

thank you for your edits ( Draft:Sanjay Mathur). I was looking for an other source (13) but couldn't find the information anywhere else listed. I can simply delete the sentence otherwise. Since I am not an expert on writing Wikipedia articles I would highly appreciate a short feedback from your side on how to move forward.

Thank you so much

Wildkirsche90 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Wildkirsche90: I just saw the one source in a recurring search I do; prabook is a fairly deceptive scraper that copies material from other websites without any attribution (even from Wikipedia on occasion, although that's obviously not the case here). We have pretty strict sourcing requirements on biographies of living persons, so there really needs to be a reliable source for person background material like that. I usually do a scan of articles when I touch a draft, and I didn't see anything else that looked out of place. Thank you for your contributions! Sam Kuru (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your fast answer. If there is anything I can do in the meantime to improve the article, I would be very to do so. Wildkirsche90 (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieving a draft submission that was deleted by Kuru

Hi Kuru

Please can you send me the draft article I submitted to Wikipedia about Natalie Petouhoff? You did a rapid deletion on it around Monday May 8th. Please let me know if you need any other information from me.

Thanks in advance, Judith UnderTheRedwoods (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) revision request...

Hi, sorry to bother you, I know you're busy and you've continually been a great help. I wanted to let you know, in case you haven't seen already, that I've requested a change to the PRSA page, specifically the second paragraph in "Services," to update the Strategies & Tactics information, and I have included third party sources. I look forward to your reviewing this, and thank you again for your continuous help.

Rod Granger Rhdg1 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rhdg1: Will take a look at it over the weekend. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to check in to see if you have had a chance to review my request regarding updating the information on Strategies & Tactics. Let me know when you have a chance, and thanks again for your help.

Rod Granger

Rhdg1 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to touch base again. Would it be easier if I made the suggested edits and then you reviewed the changes? I of course want to follow protocol, as I always have, but would also like to get these changes made.

Thanks again for your help

Rhdg1 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Rod Granger Rhdg1 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, checking in again to see if you've had a chance to review my request regarding updating the information on Strategies & Tactics. Would it work if I made the changes and then had you review it that way? Please let me know the best way to proceed on this.

Thanks,

Rod

Rhdg1 (talk) Rhdg1 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, on June 2 you said you would take a look at my request over the weekend. Since then I have left numerous messages trying to follow up and have not received a response to any of them. Can you let me know if you've been receiving these messages, and what else I can do to get a response?

Thank you.

Rod

Rhdg1 (talk) Rhdg1 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request of Lebron jay

You blocked this editor a little over a year ago for excessive use of poor quality sources. It looks like in their latest unblock request, they've made a pretty decent effort to understand how to evaluate the reliability of a reference. Given that, would you have any objection to unblocking them? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: It's been a year, no harm in seeing if anything took. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	For your anti-spam efforts today. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Miles to go, I fear. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Rajendra Ramoon Maharaj

Hi, Kuru. As you may have noticed, this article has undergone extensive editing by two single-purpose accounts (one of which alleges themself to be Maharaj). Realnoise has previously been advised on their talk page back in January to avoid COI editing, and I have escalated this further by warning them against undisclosed paid editing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 10:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I did not notice. I was just chasing that particular source. Will bookmark the page to keep tabs. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for Draft Review

Hi, Kuru. I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request a review of my draft article titled Draft:Musa_Muhammed_Olayinka I have worked diligently on this draft and believe it is ready for evaluation and potential publication as a Wikipedia article. The draft provides a comprehensive overview of the subject matter, highlighting their accomplishments, contributions, and significance in their field. I have included reliable sources to support the information presented in the article, ensuring its compliance with Wikipedia's content guidelines. I would greatly appreciate it if an administrator could spare some time to review my draft and provide feedback or guidance on any improvements that could be made. Your expertise and input would be invaluable in helping me shape the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. Thank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Best regards Sammarkk (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll look at it in full when I have more time. On a quick glance, you will need to source everything to reliable sources - no silly press releases or fake SEO blogs. I'm not sure what the notability claim is? Those are self-published books. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

All is updated and rewrite sir Sammarkk (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Kuru Hope you don't forget sir

Draft:Musa_Muhammed_Olayinka Sammarkk (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed it again; you've again used advertorials and obvious silly PR. Additionally, you re-added fake sources (blackhat PR/SEO blogs that pretend to be news sites). I've deleted the article as promotional. It would be best if you concentrate on other topics until you have a feel for what constitutes reliable sourcing.Sam Kuru (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Mark article as reviewed

Thank you for the edit you made on Johnel. Please assist in reviewing it. Adambenji (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft Article Deletion

Hello Kuru, I was editing an article about The New Life Mission (Draft:About The New Life Mission) and realized that it had been deleted while publishing. Can you please clarify the exact issue and how it can be resolved. Thank you. Being born again according to the scriptures (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The material was promotional adcopy for a religious institution. Text such as "renowned for its generous distribution of gospel books worldwide" and other puffery is not acceptable here. The material needs to be completely neutral and encyclopedic, and sourced to reliable third-party sources. It is also best practice to identify your conflict of interests. Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. noted. Will remove the promotional terms and include more third party sources to make sure the article is neutral. Thank you. Being born again according to the scriptures (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My draft: The gospel of the water and the Spirit was deleted

Hello Kuru, can you let me know why the draft which is still under development was deleted? The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_gospel_of_the_water_and_the_Spirit, I have not even submitted it for review but you deleted it with reason that it contains unambiguous advertisement or promotion. Can a draft under development be deleted? BluePurpleScarlet (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Same as the section above; please consult with your friend. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Can a draft under development be deleted? BluePurpleScarlet (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If it's unambiguous adcopy for your institution/sect, then sure. As above, neutral material that does not promote your church, supported by solid, reliable sources would be a good start. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Kuru

I am knew here and appreciate the input- please forgive any inappropriate means or methods. The reason I proposed that change is because there is no time constraint on 3PL- I have managed and started 3PL operations and often contracts may only be for a day or so.

Cheers!

Von VonZipper412 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit to PRSA page...

Hi, I've reached out several times and haven't heard back (I know you're busy and you've continually been a great help), but wanted to let you know again that I've requested a change to the PRSA page, specifically the second paragraph in "Services," to update the Strategies & Tactics information, and I have included third party sources. I look forward to your reviewing this, and thank you again for your continuous help. I'm happy to make the edit myself and then have you review it if you think that would work.

Rod Granger Rhdg1 (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Youssef Semaan

Aw shucks...I was enjoying removing the egregious bubbles of guff from this. Article would have ended up as a very short para....TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: Yup, that was over-the-top. I did copy "vast bubbles of vainglorious guff" into my list of rotating edit summaries for "this article is a hot mess". Sam Kuru (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Glad to be of service!TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Explanation of Removal of Site Listing From the Hubpages Page

Can you explain why you consider this a "promotional addition"? The table simply listed the sites with an explanation. There were no hyperlinks to the sites. Google doesn't have any references to these sites and Wikipedia fails also because it lacks any information about them. Your removal of the table is analogous to removing a discography from an artist's Wikipedia page. Eugbug (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't for a lack of trying; the editor attemted to spam 20+ blacklisted links, and originally just did a cut&paste of the adcopy from the site. The edit removed sourced content and added unsourced puffery like "The platform celebrates the 'everyday expert' and seeks to create a community where authors and readers can discover and create original, in-depth, useful, media-rich pages on topics they are passionate about" and "HubPages employs a full-time team of editors and moderators who work with authors to make the content on the HubPages Network the best it can be." Please let me know if you have any other questions. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "blacklisted links"? Who blacklisted them? Eugbug (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I presume the sites can still be cited in the references? 109.79.29.219 (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The About Us page and Editorial Policy on HubPages both back up the "unsourced puffery" you referenced, but I was unable to list them as sources since all HubPages domains are blacklisted. Many other companies on Wikipedia have robust sections detailing every feature of their site/business/products/etc. (e.g., YouTube#Services or List of Ford vehicles). Why is a table listing which sites are in the HubPages network and what topics they cover considered a "promotional addition"? Rox Robbins (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

See response above, you cannot use the site itself to support your adcopy. third-party, reliable and neutral sources, please. Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" section seems to indicate that in certain cases, it is permissible to use these types of sources ("may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves"). If that isn't the case here, can you explain why? Can you also explain why the table was removed? Rox Robbins (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Certainly they can; for non-controversial statements of fact. "Was opened in Seattle in 1905" is likely fine, although we'd still prefer non-primary sourcing. "...create original, in-depth, useful, media-rich pages on topics they are passionate about" is silly marketing, and no reliable source would ever state that. Given the business model there, it would be best to stick to third-party rock solid sources throughout and tread carefully. You may want to also read WP:COI. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

What part of describing the author base and saying that there are editors working on the site is controversial? The following are the criteria listed in that section, which seem to be met:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

Why was the table removed? Rox Robbins (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer to focus on one thing at a time, in order to avoid the typical shifting goalposts from COI editors. Do you understand why your replacement of the neutral introduction and other materials were inappropriate? Or do you feel that copying the marketing gibberish directly from the site describing the "author base and saying that there are editors working on the site" might actually be not just controversial, but absurdly promotional? Sam Kuru (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed sources:

- editorial team https://seochatter.com/medium-alternatives/

- author base https://beebom.com/medium-alternatives/ Rox Robbins (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Kuru, if you're unable to confirm whether those sources are acceptable, let's circle back to the table. Why was that removed? Rox Robbins (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed the last message above. Seochatter looks like a wordpress blog that is mainly the work of one person - the post is from a group account that does not identify the author. The content is generally written neutrally with some editorial comments. Beebom looks much better as a source as there are clear editors on staff, a cursory editorial policy is indicated, and the author is named and works as a technical writer. I don't know what specifically you're trying to use it to source, though. You can't use this to source the material you originally tried to add, but could use it to source neutral additions. I would suggest doing two things: put a note on your page identifying your WP:COI, then use the article's talk page to propose a specific addition, with clear sourcing. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

ENSA edit

Hello. I was just wondering what you meant by "rmv reference to clearly identified wikipedia mirror per WP:CIRCULAR" on the Entertainments National Service Association article? I am in the process of writing the biography of Muriel Lanchester, one half of the Lanchester Marionettes, together with Waldo Lanchester. I'm curious why you removed their details from the list of entertainers for ENSA? Is it because there needs to be an article specifically about the Lanchester Marionettes? Thanks BJCHK (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

As noted, the source you included copies material from Wikipedia and is not a reliable source. If you feel the entries to that generally sourced list are common and intuitive, then just re-add, but the preference would be to maintain sourcing on the material. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Marshmallo

Hello Kuru. I noticed you reverted a redirect. Marshmallo is a safety-focused dating app that I think bears mentioning given there aren't dating apps that check ID, selfies and profile pictures to prevent catfishing. It is spelled differently than Marshmello. I think we should undo your reverted redirect. --Yesukhan (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yesukhan: It did not look even remotely notable, there were no sources, and it appeared promotional; I would suggest creating a draft first and get assistance in creating a viable article. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Superior Codelabs

Hello Kuru can you retrieve Superior Codelabs Page as its an IT Services & Consulting Company in Bangalore. Robot26072001 (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it was complete unsourced spam and puffery. There's an older version that can be restored as a stub to get you started, if you'd like. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright

Hey Kuru, I saw the image from an article I worked on (Kevin Gruft) got removed. I asked the musician if he could upload a free image to Commons and he kindly did, I specified that he had to own its copyright. Was wondering how could he prove this. Thanks! Loganmac (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

There are a few option enumerated at Wikipedia:DONATEIMAGE. Since the image was previously published under another license, we'd need proof that they are the actual person who owns the copyright and that they are re-releasing it under a compatible license. So, tag the image with the license somewhere official, or contact UTRS basically. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Would this suffice? https://twitter.com/kthrash/status/1683916887783243777 or maybe if he replied below with the license text? Loganmac (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Not clear; does not seem to state a license and I'm really not sure on the state of verifiability of Twitter accounts these days. I mean "X" accounts or whatever fever dream Elon is having this week. It would be a good idea to consult with the experts over on Commons before asking the esteemed Mr. Thrasher to jump through more hoops. They have a help desk here. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'm pretty sure he has linked to that account via verified profiles. --Loganmac (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ya, sorry, Copyright law is fickle and complex. Usually best to use images you've created directly vs. previously published works. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Cracker Barrel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

CU blocks

Hey - in that particular instance, I don't disagree with your decline, since you had independently come to your own conclusion based on behaviour. Generally speaking though, I'd suggest that it's best to let another CU evaluate an unblock request on a CU block - partly because the blocking CU might have made a mistake in evaluating the CU data (it happens), but also because they will run another check and potentially discover any new accounts they've created since being blocked. Hope that makes sense, cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 12:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware. As you note, in that rare instance, I'm 100% convinced that all of those accounts are either the exact same person, or possibly one other person coordinating. I have a long list of notes detailing the obscure spammed domains, technical connections between the sites, and consistent patterns in behavior. For that particular account, it was not just the one obscure domain they spammed, there were two others that were previously spammed by other accounts in the group.

I understand completely that checkuser data is tricky as hell and that sometimes the toolset is more like reading tea leaves, especially in certain geographical regions of the world, and that different checkusers may see different things. Thanks again for jumping in from just the AIV report. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing. Sounds like this is a recurring problem, so please do let me know if you think they've come back. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 13:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind Vents Magazine being removed from the SALEM tv series article

I'm talking about S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters. Its one of those indie animations, which I expected, back in 2021, would come out soon but it did not... Historyday01 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

rmv non-WP:RS : wikipedia fork / pov problem on Apocalypse of Peter

So what's the problem? is licensed under the same license as Wikipedia is? I don't see the problem. From newworldencyclopedia.org:

"New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Apocalypse of Peter history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

History of "Apocalypse of Peter"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed."

New World Encyclopedia: About under Purpose:

"The New World Encyclopedia is intended for use by teachers and students who are drawn to the ease of use of Wikipedia, but are concerned about quality, consistency, and core values. New World Encyclopedia combines the great benefits of open source internet media with those of traditional and careful editorial supervision by scholars. Here we have the benefit of hyperlinks and greater detail found in on-line encyclopedias, combined with the traditional review of facts, grammar, and values."

Supervised by scholars as lot better than Wikipedia for quality and reliability. ;-)

It's written from a neutral point of view. Why didn't you check the talk page before reverting it?

From the Talk:Apocalypse of Peter:

"NEW content under the content section

I added some content from NWE is it okay its licensed under creative Commons attribution share-like? in fact they used a old version of this Wikipedia article to make it. Scroll down to see the license on New World Encyclopedia."

It's a way better than what is currently on Wikipedia for this article. with its licensing it would be compatible with Wikipedia. I don't see a violating any Wikipedia policies. Please explain?

Accoun1 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)