Jump to content

User talk:KylieTastic: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:KylieTastic/Archive 2021) (bot
Fahdaltaf (talk | contribs)
29 edits
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 316: Line 316:


for the Barnstar, saw the SQL Query recently, nice work. [[User:CommanderWaterford|CommanderWaterford]] ([[User talk:CommanderWaterford|talk]]) 15:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
for the Barnstar, saw the SQL Query recently, nice work. [[User:CommanderWaterford|CommanderWaterford]] ([[User talk:CommanderWaterford|talk]]) 15:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

== Al Haaj Bundoo Khan ==

Hi,
Just got notification that you review my submission Al Haaj Bundoo Khan and rejected.

Can you help me to finalize the draft and make it publishable?
I will provide you the details whatever is required and available to publish this article.

Thanks waiting for your help to make this possible [[User:Fahdaltaf|Fahdaltaf]] ([[User talk:Fahdaltaf|talk]]) 19:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:01, 21 February 2021


View this userbox's documentationIt is approximately 9:48 PM where this user lives (Cambridge, UK).Refresh the time

I try to answer all questions, but I also have a busy real-life - If you have a general question it may be quicker to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse

Click to start a Question/section — Deleted image issue? Look up the files history here...

AfC Drafts NOTE: To be fair to all submitters I do not review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random...

Current Backlog: 1,772 pending submissions

 

Thank you

I just want to thank you for prettying up my page. CasaBasaSF (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)CasaBasaSF[reply]

A great improvement in readability. Thank you again for your generous time. CasaBasaSF (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)CasaBasaSF[reply]

Umm, on one-room and two-room schoolhouses

Hey, your revert just now with edit summary "unsourced" is a tad irritating. My edit added general introductory info, appropriate for an intro, no citations necessary or even allowable there, really. I hope you do not seriously doubt that many one-room schoolhouse buildings survive and are listed on historic registers and/or survive as museums. Have you never been to one (i dunno, is this a U.S. thing, and are you not a U.S. editor)? Someone not well-informed could question about two-room ones, I suppose, but your edit didn't narrow it down. Consider Category:One-room schoolhouses, to start. --Doncram (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Doncram we don't edit from personal experience (and no I'm not in the US) but even if I was it could be a personal experience that has no general meaning, and what about three room and four room and five room? One-room school is about one room schools, and you were adding a link to two-room schoolhouses where you had also created Draft:Two-room schoolhouse that is also unsourced and has been declined as such. Yes, I'm sure there were/are two, three, four,... room schools but it has to be significant and sourced. And yes I would also guess that many one-room schoolhouse buildings are on the historic register, but maybe only a small number survive - this is why we use sources - sometimes the facts match expectations, other-times they surprise us. Currently Category:Two-room schoolhouses has four entries but the first I checked Butler School (Oak Brook, Illinois) the source does not back that up. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your not being from the U.S. explains a lot. I happen to focus mostly on U.S. National Register of Historic Places articles, including many one-room (and some two-room schoolhouses) in rural areas, especially, from pioneer days, that are preserved and many of which function as museums. And everywhere I have lived in the U.S. there are always historic one-room schoolhouses that way, even in long-settled New York State. I think it is actually a painful, boring, general growing-up-in-America experience, to have to go on a school trip to visit one of these. I would bet 20 percent to 50 percent of Americans have had to endure that! You may notice that Category:One-room schoolhouses is very American-centric, divides out by U.S. states ... I will try to update that so that it allows for possibility of examples from other countries.
About two-room ones, that is somewhat different, does require a bit of knowledge (allow me to claim that I have such, from experience with many two-room U.S. National Register articles). It is a "type", it is a "thing", like a Carnegie library is a thing and a pair house is a thing and a Rosenwald school is a thing, which I can recognize. Only just started with opening Category:Two-room schoolhouses, which will have many members soon. (Yes, the Butler School category is arguable; it mentions starting as a two-room school but the article is not mainly about that, so if you care to remove that category I would not object).
About "we don't edit from personal experience", well, I do know and even like that Wikipedians discount self-professed "experts", but I do have knowledge (not especially expert, just basic really but beyond what layperson has in this area) that is beyond that. It would be fine actually for Draft:Two-room schoolhouse to be in mainspace already, because it is so so obviously a legitimate thing, and articles don't actually have to have references. But it can wait, too.
I see you identify as British, jolly well for you you haven't had to suffer the pioneer schools.
Another British-vs.-US difference of understanding, by the way, is the significance of Masonic buildings...which in U.S. are typically major landmarks, very significant in their communities when they were built, but British editors can't/couldn't grok that. Contributing to hundreds of thousands of words battling in Talk pages and AFDs and such about lists of them, in the past. cheers--Doncram (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doncram yes the cultural differences are always enlightening and I'm always having to fight the local spell-checker. I did find the idea of Masonic buildings odd, but I'd say your Greek-lettered fraternities are odder. I've been expanding drafts on old US state supreme court justices and it's an interesting thing delving into 1800s American newspapers (but also the page 1 racism is still hard to fathom). My first schools was very old and apparently did start as a one room school in 1630 (I had no idea till now) but was already a three-classroom + attached house by 1919 and that was the old building on site when I went to it. I would assume the UK did have a lot of one and two room schools but they either got expanded, re-purposed or knocked-down... but we have a lot less space to play with. A quick google shows that the "two-room school"/"house" is defo a thing so I agree with your plan to expand on the topic. I had a quick look trying to find a general source for the Draft:Two-room schoolhouse but failed, it's late here, but I'm sure some suitable sources exist - I'd say I'd help but I have several hundred articles on my get-out-of-draft list, and AfC has an ever growing backlog. Luckily we have quite a few editors interested in historic buildings and they are usually a nice easy accept from AfC, making such a nice change from the endless promotion. Cheers from the other side of the pond KylieTastic (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was helpful exchange for me, that maybe my U.S.-based perspective of commonality of, of celebration of, one-roomers is narrower than I assumed. I don't particularly assume there would be notable stand-alone one-roomers in the U.K., it would seem possible that as more schools developed throughout the U.K. those could have been housed in existing public buildings or churches, or they were boarding schools as appear in David Copperfield novels, etc....at least I don't recall ever hearing of a one-room schoolhouse of the rural, pioneering type in the U.K. The one-room schoolhouse article alludes to one-roomers in more pioneering areas like Prussia and Norway. In the U.S., one-roomers were built with no provision for a teacher or any boarders to live anywhere; any teacher rounded up would be a local, like I think Laura Ingalls Wilder was, I think she taught school in her town. Or if they were hired from afar they would come by Wells Fargo stagecoach or by train and they would be set up to live with a local ranch family or similar; later-built schools which included a teacherage are not so clearly classified as "one-room schoolhouses" at all. A very simple one-room schoolhouse was something that the local farmers and townspeople could come together and put up, free of any connections to pre-existing institutions without complications; I don't particularly see that happening without any complications in the U.K.
Perhaps you noticed the U.S. vs. Norway academic-type article source added by me to the one-room schoolhouse article. That is interesting to me in comparing fact of hundreds of U.S. National Register of Historic Places listed one-room schoolhouses, vs. zero in Norway's equivalent. And how expansion of schooling in Norway was more about imposition upon resistant, conservative farmers, than about being prideful cooperative creation by U.S. pioneers, and being a U.S. national icon (which I see that it is, i just didn't perceive how narrowly U.S.-based that may be). I found three Canadian one-roomers, and one Norway one, to put into Category:One-room schoolhouses so far, while it is looking to me that there will be 500 or more U.S. ones, when I finish revisiting all the articles on National Register-listed school buildings. (And this will be missing many non-NRHP-listed ones, which have been moved or altered too much or otherwise are not eligible for NRHP listing. But there are many of these, celebrated as local historical places, though few of them have articles in Wikipedia yet and maybe they are not Wikipedia-notable. Hard to guesstimate: another 500 or so?) The writer about Norway noted that while some one-roomers are preserved in open-air parks, it is with more an attitude of shame that we had such pathetic, non-modern things, while in the U.S. there is great pride in the humble/primitive starts which nonetheless were crucial in educating/building local and national greatness and all that. Maybe the dreaded tours of one-roomers I spoke of is really only a U.S. thing, not even a Canadian thing. The one-room schoolhouse article is pretty sucky, overall, though, by the way. --Doncram (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Doncram glad to hear you found it helpful. I think in the UK other buildings including people homes were used as schools as they were for other purposes, such as pubs (public houses) really did start out as just someone serving beer in their house. I did do a search on the UK historic register of listed buildings this and although it has results many just have "one room" in the text rather than being just one room. I've not seen anything like the pioneering type in the UK. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can see the schools in England starting in homes, presumably of the more well-to-do. One U.S. example is Prudence Crandall House, regarded as a mansion, in Connecticut, where Prudence Crandall opened a girls' school (i think not a boarding school at first, I think serving locals in the town), then a black girl's admittance led to controversy and its closure, then it was reopened as a black girls' boarding school, causing more shameful actions. (And there you go with astonishing racism in America.) But in frontier areas, I think there were not any spacious houses of the well-to-do, there were not any unused/extra indoor spaces built, the homes of settlers were crowded and one couldn't school 10 or more students anywhere. And land is cheap (or many would be happy to donate land or allow it on their land), and much of the necessary building materials would be free if labor is applied to moving native stone or collecting logs or whatever, and people were more or less equals (just some pioneers maybe a few years ahead in getting established), so people could see their way to contribute time and throw up a simple one-room building to serve all. I project that in the U.K. there would not be available land or building materials or equality of people's time and interest that way. Theorizing informed by some knowledge of facts on the ground in some places I know, and upon lots of historical fiction, i suppose. I don't think we are far wrong, anyhow. End.
About the Greek letter fraternities and sororities at U.S. universities, it's also interesting to me that you are struck by them. I also find those somewhat weird, and myself avoided getting close to them in life...it was a significant factor for me in university selection to go where they weren't present or numerous. I gather they might be pretty much an American phenomenon. Not that significant in U.S., I would hope, certainly not celebrated widely, and relatively few listed on the U.S. NRHP when significant for their architecture (but not ever, or only rarely, to commemorate social development of the nation). The U.S. is proud that Abraham Lincoln got educated in a one-room schoolhouse (or at least I think that he did), but doesn't much care what secret societies or fraternities George Bush snr and George W. Bush belonged to. (Maybe they have had more effect than I know of, though. Hmm, Yale secret societies.) -- cheers, --Doncram (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dobha Page

why it has been declined — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srawan Tripathi (talk • contribs) 09:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:48:19, 7 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Abaumik94


please review the references of Draft:Arnab Bhaumik. The first article is his IMDB title, all of the rest have his name listed as a writer. Abaumik94 (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's make it to be WP:BLP1E and not notable enough. — Amkgp 💬 15:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie, will request you to search for Arnab instead. His name has been misspelt as Arnab Bhowmik in many articles as it is another common spelling for the last name. Kindly do go through all the articles and search for Arnab, the first name. Abaumik94 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zhila Hoseini

Hi, I added some new sources to the draft:Zhila Hoseini as you asked me to do . All sources are about the poets's life and poems. please if possible remove decline tag on the draft and send to review. Thanks.Arashbara (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Arashbara thanks for updating and improving your article. Previous decline notices are not removed so that the next reviewer can see what issues there were are see if they have been addressed (we get a lot of people not addressing the issues and just resubmitting). You have submitted again so it will be reviewed at some point. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Pobal

I dispute the reason given for rejecting an article about the not-for-profit Irish state agency Pobal. The stated reason is that there is insufficient mention in independent reputable sources. This is incorrect as any google site search for Pobal on rte.ie (national broadcaster), irishtimes.com (paper of record) or independent.ie (other mass circulation paper) will show. Like many quangos that deal with child services issues and handle large amounts of funds for state and EU agencies, in a not-entirely-transparent or accountable way, Pobal has been in the news a number of times over the years with various politicians and agencies alleging mis-use of funds or even corruption. But for me to arbitrarily pick a "best of" list of controversies for the article, would result in an unbalanced article that would potentially fall foul of NPOV. Finally, there is already an article for Pobal on the site, which is misleading because it is about the now-defunct NI language advocacy group, which is of far less notability than the actually-existing (RoI) state funding body. Leaving the one without including the other is misleading users of wikipedia, imho.

Some new story links: https://www.irishtimes.com/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_organisation=POBAL https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/government-stunned-over-rising-childcare-premiums-as-it-considers-fund-38791432.html https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/1212/1098729-hyde-and-seek/ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/charitable-status-of-not-for-profit-pobal-being-reviewed-1.3486675 https://www.rte.ie/deprivation/

Helvetius (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Helvetius Draft:Pobal (IE) was not rejected but declined for now as not yet showing notability. It has no independent reliable sources let alone enough to show notability. It was not declined stating that source do not exist but "This submission's references do not show". It is not the job of AfC reviewers to go searching for sources, unlike at AfD where editors must check before proposing deletion. There are over 4000 submissions and growing daily with few volunteer reviewers, so it is up to submitters to add enough sources to show how the pass notability WP:N. So please do update your draft article with the sources above, and any other significant ones - see Help:Referencing for beginners - and re-submit. If the sources show the subject is notable a reviewer will be happy to accept. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vendee Globe Sailors Pages

I am concerned user:Onel5969 discourage people from wanting to be involved in wikipedia. In good faith I created pages for sailing athletes concerned with the Vendee Globe everyone concerned have wikidata, wiki common and extensive wiki french profiles. I have no idea why one editor can send items to a review process with a four month unordered review process. Particularly when similar articles have already been approved following review and other nominated for speedy deletion have had significantly improved following nomination by myself and other users.

I was under the miss belief that starting the articles linking them to common data across the wikipedia platforms, writing a couple of lines and adding the appropriate common template would be a good starting point for the wiki community to build on. It is more than literally 1000s of athlete pages on wikipedia so I don't get why these pages are getting reviewed to a higher standard. The policies now cause me on these later articles to link to plenty of website that regurgitate press release to show notoriety. Can you tell me why you rejected the pages Draft:Yannick Bestaven for example if you just put this name into google you can see the level of press interest. I appreciate your a volunteer and trying to work for the community hence asking for feedback is there anything you can do to get these pages approved. Yachty4000 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Yachty4000 I understand why such things can seem annoying and confusing. There has been a tendency to WP:DRAFTIFY a lot of articles that previously the only option would have been to maintenance tag or take it to WP:AFD. If an article is taken to WP:AFD then the editor has to have done notability checks outside of Wikipedia (WP:BEFORE) and would have found the sources. Once in draft WP:AFC does not require us to look outside, as it is already backlogged due to vast numbers of submissions and few volunteer reviewers. However this is meant for new editors and can seam unfair to editors like yourself. Firstly currently sailors do not have and special notes for determining notability in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) - you could see in there are enough active editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing to suggest suitable standards - i.e. which competitions are major. As such a sailor is judged on WP:BIO and you only had a single source. Having wikidata and other language versions does not help per se as other languages have generally lower standards (as English Wikipedia did in the past). So the key to not having an article 'draftified' or sent to WP:AFD is to make sure there are at least two, preferably three good reliable sources (WP:RS). I would have thought you had to have used sources to create the article so it's just a case of quickly adding them <ref>https://url 1 </ref><ref>https://url 2 </ref><ref>https://url 2 </ref> and your done. In AfC we often get translations that just point to a Wikipedia article in another language, but sources have to be used directly, and hopefully its a quick fix. I don't know if your aware but there is no reason once your happy you've added the sources to address the concern you can just move back to article space yourself. WP:AFC is only mandatory for the really new users and anon editors. it just means your taking the responsibility for deeming it meets WP:BIO rather than the reviewer (or more correctly we are supposed to judge it has better than a 50/50 chance of surviving any Afd challenge). You could also ask Onel5969 if they are happy your additions make them main-space ready. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thankyou for taking the time to write such a detailed response, lots of wikipedia policies I was unaware of with a lot of hints. I didn't realise I could move things out of the draft space I always up to now thought this was a review process. I think given people like User:John B123 have reviewed the article I am tempted to improve them and move them back. Having said that I hate nothing more than editor wars so will just give up and stop contributing again as I have to articles related to another hobby of mine RC Cars. The notability in sports page just made me smile seeing so many silly sports given exemption bases on the fact someone has gone to the effort to defining a policy. I will write a definition in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing and hope someone understands wikipedia better to get it included in the notable section. This will obviously include competitor in pinnacle events within the sport as sailing is lucky to have more than the Olympics. Yachty4000 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Yachty4000 yes the fact that there is nothing to stop people moving stuff out of draft is not wildly known and many think it should not be allowed because many just move back unsourced drafts with no attempts to show notability, and then these go to AfD taking up more time. However for some editors they would rather go to AfD where they can argue the point rather than wait in draft for ages. Sports notability is an area that unless you are in the know about a sport it's difficult to judge what is notable, and thus it relies on interested parties putting forward recommendations. There is always disagreement and I don't get involved in such discussions, but if the community comes to a consensus then it help stops the "of course they are notable they won the....." or "they competed in ....". Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help Draft:junaid_bhat

Hello, hope you are doing good i'm new here on wikepedia , i'm trying to contribute some articles on wikpedia ,i have just started contributing to wikipedia and a day before i went through a draft of Draft:Junaid Bhat after analysing this draft i came to know you had rejected it before because it was incomplete, I collected all the info about the said person from internet and then i started working on that incomplete draft as it's complete for now, i request you have a look on this draft ; help me to get my first work published thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakrutiprajapanti (talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P has asked many editors to help her with her drafts. She has been advised to do her own work. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Horn of Plenty (James Burke album)

Hello Kylie,

My name is Mark and I'm really very new to all of this and have a real hard time working things out without talking to a live person. I created a page for a very famous person, my trumpet teacher James F. Burke (Musician). I am trying to add articles to Wikimedia to use as references to certain points on his page. I am also trying to create pages for the LPs he recorded. I am also trying to upload photos of him from a website I own. Failure on all. I think I understand the photo issue. The article I uploaded to wikimedia today was done with permission from the copyright holder and it was still rejected. Another article i uploaded was his resume which he sent to me personally from his own typewriter in 1974. I uploaded a pdf of that and now it's gone. When I provided a link to discogs.com for confirmation one of his LPs existed, that was rejected and the page not published. Please advise. Cheers!

--Mark O'Keeffe (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mark O'Keeffe and welcome. Firstly if you do want to "talk" live to someone there is the "live help" link on the decline notice (disclaimer I've never been involved wit the IRC live help but I've seen others say it helped). Now onto the main issue. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). In this case we would use the guide WP:NALBUM. Note that just because a musician is notable does not mean every recording is notable on its own for a separate article and WP:NALBUM gives the criteria required. Also discogs is not considered a reliable source as it is user generated content (see WP:RSPSOURCES). So for notability and verifiably it currently has zero effective sources, and multiple are required. As for the uploads on our sister site commons not all have been deleted see c:Special:ListFiles/Mark_O'Keeffe and I see from File:James F. Burke With Admiration By Raymond Crisara Page 1.pdf that you have already found the OTRS is needed for some items. Copyright is taken very seriously here and on commons due to the legal ramifications for the project, and it can be very frustrating. In this case just because a photo is from a webpage you own does not mean you own the rights to the image to give freely for use here, but also once published elsewhere (unless very old and now public domain) OTRS would be required, as I guess you have already found. I would suggest rather than bundling all these issues together in one bug frustration, deal wit them separately and in the case of commons although we can link to any files directly it is a different project. Lastly do use the Wikipedia:Teahouse (link on your talk page) as you can ask questions and get the eyes and opinions of many experienced users and admins. Hope that helps explain things a bit. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and 1 more question please

File:James F. Burke With Admiration By Raymond Crisara Page 1.pdf
James F. Burke With Admiration By Raymond Crisara (Page 1)

Hi again Kylie,

Thank you so much for finding my article! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_F._Burke_With_Admiration_By_Raymond_Crisara_Page_1.pdf

Can you please instruct me on how to make this article accessible. I tried to use it as a reference and it was deleted as "circular". I get that part. I just don't know how to link to it and make readers aware it is there. Cheers!

--Mark O'Keeffe (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mark to be honest I don't think I ever have used an uploaded document as a source, but in it's simplest form something like (note the extra colon before the File stops it rendering as an image):
<ref>[[:File:James_F._Burke_With_Admiration_By_Raymond_Crisara_Page_1.pdf|James F. Burke With Admiration By Raymond Crisara (Page 1)]]</ref>[1]
Unless you want to use as an image then it's just [[File:James_F._Burke_With_Admiration_By_Raymond_Crisara_Page_1.pdf|thumb|James F. Burke With Admiration By Raymond Crisara (Page 1)]]: However without knowing the history of the document it would be hard to say it was a neutral independent source, it may depend it it was published, but tbh I'm not sure and it's late. That may be one to pass by Wikipedia:Teahouse for someone with experience of using uploaded docs as sources. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ James F. Burke With Admiration By Raymond Crisara (Page 1)

Thank you!

Hi Kylie,

That was the perfect solution. Thanks so much! Take care!

--Mark O'Keeffe (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:BENA_World

Hello Kylie,

I hope you are safe and healthy at this critical time. You kindly commented on 3 December 2020 with "not even mentioned in 'sources'. The draft now is registered in "Maroof" E-platform, by the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Commerce. "Maroof" in Arabic language means 'famous', 'well-known', and to the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Commerce, BENA registered with "Marouf" E-platform means 'authentic' and 'reliably sourced'. I have reviewed and sent a request to publish changes. Kindly conclude the review and publish the article. Eseelalsammarraie (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Eseelalsammarraie thanks, and I hope your healthy and happy too. However a subject being registered anywhere is not something that Wikipedia uses for notability. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). If such sources exist please add them and re-submit. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranikot Fort

Hello. So apparently you reverted my changes to the Ranikot Fort page, where I basically corrected the spelling of Ranikot Fort which was misspelled in some places as "Rani kort forte". I also corrected a translation to "The great wall of Sindh" from "The Great Wall of Pakistan". Which was removed altogether. I would like to know why? 2400:ADC3:102:5400:7107:493C:ABAA:C949 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I noticed your edits as you broke the image, buy 'correcting' a filename. You also changed the title of the unesco.org reference from what it actually is. I then removed the "The great wall of Sindh" / "The Great Wall of Pakistan" as it was unsourced and had been marked as such since 2018 - If you have source please feel free to add back with the reference. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, thank you for the response. 2400:ADC3:102:5400:7107:493C:ABAA:C949 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair discrimination in content approval

We feel that we are being unfairly discriminated against in the rejection of our Wikipeida entry. Our non-profit educational organization has been active for over 40 years, and has had a lot of press coverage before there even was a worldwide web. We have included several citations from external sources. Yet, I regularly see hundreds of existing entries that have ZERO and say This article does not cite any source. This is not professional behavior, and as someone who in the past has made an annual donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, I now regret doing so and won't again as long as such unfair conduct continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry01301 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Larry01301 that fact that you use "we" and "our" indicates that you have a conflict of interest - please read WP:COI. Now I'll deal with your statements in order. You may "feel" discriminated against but the truth is reviewers just use the current guidelines when reviewing submissions. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). One of your sources is your own website (not independent), the greenenergytimes source is written by the " executive director of NESEA" (not independent) and the last two are from UMASS that from what is written appears to have a link to your organisation so not fully independent. The UMASS source on "American Tour de Sol Records" is more of a passing mention not about your organisation - this is fine as a reference but does not help much in judging notabilty. Being active for 40 years means nothing in itself, however I would expect that being an active non-profit for that long would mean sources should exist. Sources do not have to be online (its just preferred), and I can see for newspapers.com 966 matches for "Northeast Sustainable Energy Association". Other stuff exists is never a helpful argument. Yes there are many articles created in the past before the current guidelines that still have no sources and either need them adding or need to be deleted - this is not a good reason to add more. If you find any that are not notable as specified in Wikipedia:Notability you can submit them for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) and help the clean-up. Yes this is "professional behavior" we are applying the same community agreed guidelines to all new submissions. I personally think non-profits (charities here in the UK) should have some intrinsic notability if they have been around a while but previous attempts to add did not gain consensus. Lastly donations to the Wikimedia Foundation go to running the servers they have nothing to do with content. Content is handled by volunteers working to the guidelines that are decided by consensus of anyone who chooses to take part. I too have donated money, as well as hundreds of hours of my time, but unlike you I don't expect that gives me the right to be able to publish an article about my own company. Also if you see "hundreds" of entries with no sources you must use Wikipedia a huge amount, and your money is going to keep the servers running so people can access Encyclopedic content, it is not to run a platform for companies to write about themselves. For the article to be accepted it must have independent reliable sources to show it passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - you can choose to find some and add or not. KylieTastic (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ULAQ (AUSV)

Hi! Would you please check whether the Draft:ULAQ (AUSV) is now qualified for submission. Thanks. CeeGee 15:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi CeeGee thanks for adding more sources however to be fair to all submitters I don't review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random, so it may or may not be myself who reviews it next. Also I'm trying to catch up with a lot of other things I want to get done this weekend. I see no obvious issues so the please do re-submit - blue button on the decline note. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently declined AFC submission

Hi KylieTAstic!

Hope you're well, I was just notified you rejected my draft for "Max Mezo". I just updated the sources so hopefully, this draft will be accepted. I was wondering if you could possibly assist me on how to make the subjects page fit the criteria, or guide me somewhere I could find help. I understand you are busy.

Thanks so much for your time. Mezofilms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezofilms (talk • contribs) 19:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mezofilms all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). So the subjects own website and youtube channel/videos are not independent. That's the main thing, apart from a few special cases usually 3+ good sources that are independent and talk about the subject in some depth (not just passing mentions or quotes). See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for more detail. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your reply! I understand the website/youtube wouldn't count, the subject has had over 3 national news article written about him,(The Toronto Star, BlogTO, Toronto.com) would that be sufficient coverage? Mezofilms — Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mezofilms in general 3 national news article would be notable if in depth but they also in this case from the titles they appear to be about one event (see WP:ONEEVENT. But that depends and I haven't read the sources, I would suggest adding other sources if they exist not about that event then re-submit and see what the reviewer says. KylieTastic (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to improve something...

If you want to improve something, but don't have the time, just leave a request in a section here using ==text==, then wait. I will inform you on your talk page with "Re: Article". Thanks! AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 13:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Town

Hi there. First thanks for your assistance with the helping regarding the County Londonderry related disruptions we been seeing the last couple of days. I'm protecting some of the pages as they're seeing sustained edits. Secondly I just wanted to explain why I reverted this edit of yours. I know it was good faith and completely understand why you changed it, however Post Towns in the UK are always written and displayed in capitals. It's just the way it is (there's more explanation on the actual article on them.) Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Merlyn “Bud” Lea added significant reliable independent sources... Is this what you are looking for?

I've added 9 or so independent sources to my article, but it's still in limbo. I'm not sure if these are the sources you are looking for? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boottrax (talk • contribs) 14:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Boottrax for notability (in this case see WP:BIO) we are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. So we wouldn't count those that are interviews/mostly quotes as independent. Also the lombardibroadway.com stands out as just being a site root not mentioning Lea. Also the first few sentences are un-referenced, you can use the same source for multiple parts, and its generally good to use your best sources in the lead section as that helps clearly show notability (by best I mean one that is significant coverage of him, and independent). As for "still in limbo" I assume you mean still waiting for review.... yes unfortunately we appear to be getting more submissions a day and have less volunteer reviewers so the backlog is not just long ut growing - I've added some Wikiprojects to the talk page that may attract interested parties... but in general its just sit back and wait. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:32:48, 15 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by S5KsMQx


Thanks for your feedback. The project is listed in the German Wikipedia article about #WirVsVirus. Because of this cross-reference, we believed it is a valuable submission. S5KsMQx (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S5KsMQx (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi S5KsMQx all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). With one of your references being the subjects own website you only have one source so not enough to show notability on English Wikipedia. If you can find other sources please add and resubmit. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. Draft User Page User:Cathcam/sandbox/Cathcam

I'm confused, I created a simple User page as an achor to start collecting updates for a number of pages, I followed what I thought were the steps to publish just a User page and you declined almost immediately with: Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)

Are there now restrictions on who can create a page in the User space? I wasn't trying to create a page in the wiki space. What did I do wrong? --Cathcam (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers KylieTastic, well that would explain the rejection, but I have to admit I did think I'd started in User:Cathcam. Before I go ahead and try again, do you just mean the link in external links section or all the links? They were included to at least give a point of reference, I have a whole new section on awards for Creed Taylor, as well as a fairly major correction, that I was hoping to flush out on my page with others input before actually making the changes. So those links to ctproduced and discogs at least give others the chance to review some of the things I've already done in relation to Creed and his recordings.

Thanks for your time and advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathcam (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Cathcam when you say "I have a whole new section on awards for Creed Taylor" etc. it's sounds like you are trying to write an autobiography on yourself. As Wikipedia:User pages says "While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages, not a personal website" and in the WP:UPGOOD section it should have "Limited autobiographical content". People often indicate their location, languages, interests, skills etc. Some (few) do have external links to websites, who they are on other collaboration platforms etc. but this would be balanced by content about activities on Wikipedia. There are no hard and fast rules but for accounts with few edist people are more likely think it's an attempt to write an unofficial article. I've seen people write a bio on a user page then post links other places such as twitter referring to it as an article. If people just follow a link they'll notice it's on en.wikipedia.org and the content and miss that it's a user page (i.e. it's just an extra User: in the url). However if you include things that make it look like an editors page more than a biography someone will be less likely to challenge. I'd suggest looking at others, and maybe add some Wikipedia:Userboxes to indicate your areas of interest etc. Also once you've done more editing people wont be looking for illicit use. Hope this makes sense. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shalev Alon

Hello Kylie I will be happy to know why exactly Shalev Alon page was declined and what i need to do to change it so it can be approved Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.A Mixing (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You have been helping fight vandalism brilliantly ever since you joined and started editing here, leading me to give you this award for helping us build Wikipedia and revert vandalism. Thank you for your work. Please keep going! KirkburnFandom (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Draft

hello, my draft which you checked said This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could maybe help me fixing it? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Pilot21 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Gowran Grange Airfield

Hello,

I noticed recently that you made some changes to my draft "Gowran Grange Airfield". I'm wondering if you could help me with getting it reviewed? I waited so long to have it reviewed before that someone deleted my page, so I had to get this un-done, and now it seems to be forgotten about. Could you help?

Thanks! SierraTangoAlpha (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my update?

Was there some problem with my update on the Smallwood page? Please explain to me why it was changed. Thanks, Ulaixky

Thank you! I understand now, I'm new to Wiki edits. --Ulaixky (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:SARLOC Technology

Hi Kylie,

I recently had my (new) SARLOC Technology page declined.

The same content/page, except being written in Welsh, was accepted over a year ago as can be seen here https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARLOC

I just translated it to English but it is the same information.

What needs to change to make it compliant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russoggi255 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Russoggi255 each language Wikipedia has its own guidelines and those with less article and editors tend to have less strict guidelines. English Wikipedia probably has the most strict guidelines. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). When I declined it only had the one source, and on top of notability it looked more like promotion. I haven't read the new sources but the BBC is a reliable source if the content is significant, but you'll have to ask Amkgp about the second decline. However I would try to rephrase in a neutral encyclopedic tone, and use the sources inline using <ref> url </ref> (see Help:Referencing for beginners) to make it clear and more easily verifiable (I've done one example). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Review for Draft:Francis Baraan

Hello. I was hoping you could review Draft:Francis Baraan and assess if it's eligible to be moved to article space. And if you could help move it, that would be awesome! JanitorPH (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi JanitorPH sorry but to be fair to all submitters I don't review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random, so it may or may not be myself who reviews it next, although I generally avoid most WP:BLPs. I have however checked that it is submitted so it's just waiting. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply! Do you think it would be accepted, my draft? Thanks! JanitorPH (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You should have been the reviewer and approver of my draft and my yet to be finished drafts! Ha ha! JanitorPH (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kylie! Greetings! Is there any way you could find 30 seconds to read my draft article, and advise if improvements should be made, or if it could actually be approved, and be moved to mainspace already? Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks! JanitorPH (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined

Hey Kylie, Just wondering, why you are declining my submission? I'm not really understanding the reason for why?

Thank you!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zach_Broom_(Pastor)

Information

Hi KylieTastic I believe this athlete doesn't really exist. What evidence do you have about him? Leaving aside the newspaper articles.

Best regards,

Giorgio Nassio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgio Nassio (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie, google is not a 100% reliable source as you well know. Money-making newspapers write anything. I believe the only reliable source is a certificate from an internationally recognized sports club. Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgio Nassio (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed all the issues you mentioned in my submission, can you please advise?

Regarding my submissions: Draft:Merlyn “Bud” Lea

I have 10+ references and corrected the Broadway listing as well with a new reference. Can you please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boottrax (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Boottrax thanks for fixing, adding more references and re-submitting. However to be fair to all submitters I don't review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random, so it may or may not be myself who reviews it next. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for the Barnstar, saw the SQL Query recently, nice work. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Haaj Bundoo Khan

Hi, Just got notification that you review my submission Al Haaj Bundoo Khan and rejected.

Can you help me to finalize the draft and make it publishable? I will provide you the details whatever is required and available to publish this article.

Thanks waiting for your help to make this possible Fahdaltaf (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&oldid=1008132416"