User talk:KylieTastic

It is approximately 7:28 AM where this user lives (Cambridge, UK).

If you have a general question it may be quicker to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or Click this to start a New Question

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: 1,857 pending submissions

 

Request on 11:57:39, 19 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Gareth Beyers

• Gareth Beyers (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:AfricaRare: Africa's first metaverse project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,I really need help getting this article published. What guidance would you recommend to get this article up to scratch?

Many thanks,

Gareth Beyers (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Gareth Beyers all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). Currently only one of the sources appears to mention Africarare. So it's not just showing notability that is lacking but sources in general. Also note that articles related to General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies are under Wikipedia:General sanctions. Hope that explains things a bit - Regards KylieTastic (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I have restructured the article, and added references to some very credible sources. Forbes, Mail and Guardian, and a local News site. This is a first-of-its-kind project n Africa. I have a list of publications we are linked to. Would it help our cause to list all the publications as well as a whitepaper we have crafted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Beyers (talk • contribs) 13:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Gareth Beyers I had tried to answer earlier but had a powercut at the office :/. It looks like an improvement - as at least now you have sources and they all actually mention the subject (but I haven't read them). However - No, listing whitepapers you have created is not very helpful - yes they can be used to source facts in an article, but in general non-primary sources are vastly more helpful. Apart from the general point of having all claims sourced, for notability (which is what you need to show) we look for 3+ sources with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. However as I noted above blockchain and NFTs are so heavily trying to use Wikipedia to promote these days that such topics are much more carefully vetted and usually need a bit more to show notability. It's late so I just quick scanned but it does not appear promotional or have any obvious red flags so moving in a good direction. If you can find any other serious news sources with significant coverage then please add, but I would not add any whitepapers etc created by the subject. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks KylieTastic,

  I appreciate the help in restructuring and formatting my article. I have resubmitted my draft do I just wait for the next update?

  Should I add the list of publications we have? Or should I right the article purely around the articles we have published about us?

  I look forward to hear back from you.

  All the best, Gareth Beyers (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Gareth Beyers although adding extra primary sources should not distract for notability as judged by the independent sources it is probably best to avoid. Especially as you have a declared WP:COI. If their is a single link to the publications/white-papers the best place to add would be as a single link in an external links section after the references. However if these are all available for the root website leave at that (note I have added a link to africarare.io in the EL section). Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	For helping me understand more about citations are needed and why. DragonsBreathUP2 (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Remember me!

Hi @KylieTastic. I was trying to check the AfC review counts in the last thirty days through this link but I fail to get any helpful response. Could you help me doing it? I'm not sure how this works exactly. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hey TheAafi, here is a query of the last 30 days, which is the length of time the recentchanges table changes has. As the note at the top says it does not count deleted as you need to be an admin to see that data. I've recently run so quite up-to-date, but if you want to re-run or keep a version to link without changing then just Fork it. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Arun Adhikari

What does, "pure fantasy" mean? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hey Deepfriedokra, claims from the sources "one of India’s most popular EDM artists", "earning millions of hits on his singles online", "collaborates frequently with international artistes" sounds massive! Reality spotify 2 monthly listeners, YouTube 622 subs 1,114 views, Twitter 135 Followers (1,207 Following), spinnin records 1 song, 0 followers, Soundcloud 4 followers (102 following), personal website no links to this hugely popular music. "chart-topping 'City Of The Lonely Hearts'" - Well it was chart-topping for Zaeden, but their are no google hits for any version by arunadh007 or Arun Adhikari. "premiered live in front of 50,000 people at Tomorrowland in Amsterdam, when he was just 19" - Tomorrowland is in Boom, Belgium - there was a spin off event in 2019 but at 19 would make 2015 - not listed in lineup (so not shocked). As per other fantasy bios they have created self promo fantasy IMDB and crunchbase profile also started 2 'companies'. Even after all these years doing this I still can't even being to fathom the mindset behind people like this :/ Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. That's a fantastic job you did fact checking. Superficially, the sources looked OK. In case you did not notice, they took over an article and are now blocked for spamming. Wait, can I delete the draft as a hoax? Fake refs = hoax. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hey Deepfriedokra, I get stuck down the rabbit-hole thinking no one would surely be so keen on promoting how bad they are that they must have done something real.... and just find a longer list of ways they promote their nothingness. I agree deleting as a hoax was a fair call, but could also gone with G5 created by blocked user/block evasion from Arunadh007 and NNBDigitalMedia - Also I think they were Acvofficial and Arun Adhikari. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  The socks keep appearing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's amazing. They seem really intent on creating an article about themselves. 2011? 2017? Argues in favor of deliberate hoaxing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Our Biographical pages

Hello! I am magnolia321 and I have recently been working on making and editing biographical pages on wikipedia. I am doing this in conjunction with an organization called HGAPS. This organization is dedicated to making evidence-based psychological information free and accessible to all. The current biographical pages our team is working on are all leading researchers in psychology. We specifically chose to create pages on women and minority psychologists. I have recently noticed the pages we have created have drawn the attention of experienced editors, and you were someone that stood out to us. Your critiques were very helpful in understanding what we needed to improve to make the page of better quality and to meet wiki standards. Based on your recent activity on the pages, we were hoping to propose a collaboration with you. We want to add more biographies of psychological leaders in the future, specifically those of minority backgrounds. With your help to guide us, we can keep the pages to wiki standards. We would love to hear your thoughts about this collaboration!

Thank you again for the feedback on our pages :)) Magnolia321 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Magnolia321, sorry but I have more work than I have time for already not even including a list of a few hundred historical biographies to create or finish. Also WP:BLPs articles are not my area of interest. However I approve very much on your goal of "evidence-based psychological information free and accessible to all". I would suggest maybe approaching Wikiprojects for help such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology and if any are women Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Psychology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red (and you could add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Psychology list). Regards KylieTastic (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Rejected DuKane Conference

Hi I'm not getting why this simple athletic conference page keeps being rejected for references.

• 1. Every other athletic conference has a similar page, with similar references.
• 2. I modeled mine after the nearby Upstate Eight Conference, which is deemed important enough to have a page.
• 3. The DuKane athletic conference is just a few years old.
• 4. Do you need more links from local newspaper articles about one team beating another with player names and scores?
• 5. What is the harm in having this be a page? It gives some information about a high school level athletic conference in the Chicago area.

Aaron Miller Aaronatwake (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Aaronatwake all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). Most of your sources are basic mentions that are good to say show that each is part of the conference but not for notability. The Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists argument does not help as there are still many sub standard article already in main-space - if others exist like this then it is more likely they would be deleted then it help add more possibly non-notable articles. Unfortunately Upstate Eight Conference does have referencing issues as well, and may not be notable. Also often when comparing people get mixed up with the number of sources vs having 3+ independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Wikipedia is an international Encyclopedia so issues are only of interest to locals usually fail to pass notability. Lastly in answer to 5: Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a place to promote local interest subjects, the harm is that Wikipedia would become filled up with so much similar content that it's effectiveness and reputation would be affected. If any other independent reliable sources with significant coverage exists please do add, if not it may just be WP:TOOSOON and for now social media is more appropriate. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I am shocked about YOU!
Analogy, so you can understand it:
Me: Writes an in depth article about the Intel 80386 CPU and giving the "Intel 80386 Hardware Reference Manual" as source. The best source on this world you can ever use for such an article about this topic.
You: Declines Submission with the words "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified."
Me: Wonders about YOU. You call yourself a programmer and can't even comprehend a technical manual from Texas Instrument as reliable source. I am astonished.
Conclusion: You know what, I don't care. If the people here are like you, then the article just won't go into Wikipedia, it would be a waste of effort. Fix your "reliable sources" mimimi yourself. IT-Compiler (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

And btw. you also deleted the new additions. You can't even use the Wikipedia tools accordingly like they are supposed to use. IT-Compiler (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• IT-Compiler the only article I see that this comes from is Draft:20-bit computing... if that is what you call an "in depth article about the Intel 80386 CPU" I'm confused as it's neither in-depth at under 100 words or even mentions the I386#M80386. You also appear to have missed the notability tag which is the main issue, but we have no control over the order they are put in. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). I would expect more sources to exist even though it's a uncommon structure. Also please note the notice does not say the source given is not a reliable source (it is) - it says "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" i.e. not enough reliable sources to show notability. The article had already been sent to draft, if any reviewer accepted with just one source it would just be either sent back to draft or sent for deletion. KylieTastic (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  1. I am laughing out loudly because of you. Learn what an analogy is. :rolleyes: The ability to think abstractly is one of the requirements of programming. Yes, that was a test.

  2. To this date, there is only one 20-bit computer that I know of and it has been mentioned and credited with a reliable source. This one source is supreme and therefore no other source is required for this 20 bit processor and article. This microprocessor does exist and can be bought in large numbers. If there were other 20-bit CPUs that I know of, I would have mentioned them. So what is there should be taken as a reliable source and is enough to validate this article. Live with it and accept it. IT-Compiler (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Removed Instagram Link

Hi there! I was wondering why you removed the Instagram link on Draft:Uozu Aquarium, citing WP:NOSOCIAL, since there it says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject", and the instagram link is the official page. Still working out how things work. Thanks in advance. Purplemontart (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Purplemontart yes an Instagram link can serve as the official page if that is all there is, however in this case Draft:Uozu Aquarium has official websites in both English and Japanese both that link to the Instagram and other socials. WP:NOSOCIAL is to keep from spamming loads of social links which are usually not very Encyclopedic, when there is an official website that is usually preferred and should be the place readers discover social links if they want them. Hope that makes sense - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  @KylieTastic Hey, thanks for the quick response, and yep, I get it, I was misunderstanding the policy as usual hah. Thanks for the explanation too. Purplemontart (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hey Purplemontart no worries and many of the guidelines are up to interpretation especially if you don't know them all (and I've been doing this a long time and still get pointed to new ones). Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL (on the same page) "Normally, only one official link is included" - however I interpret this as having both the English and Japanese versions valid in the intent of the rule (i.e. stop promotional link spamming). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Help

Hi hope you are doing good ? Its request to check and Review Shivam Gupta and Draft:Yeshu (TV serial).

Thanks Pp01902 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Pp01902 hope your well. 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. KylieTastic (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Morning Edition (BBC radio programme)

Hi,

I see that you have refused to move my article about this national BBC radio programme to the main website, and seemingly for the same reasons as before. I have added two independent references to the article which are directly about the programme. They are not passing references and they are both independent sources which are not related to the programme and not related to the BBC.

I am therefore puzzled as to what I have to do to get this article onto Wikipedia as I now do not know why this article keeps getting refused.

Any guidance would be appreciated. Rillington (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Rillington, all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). Ref1: just shows(ish) when Danny Baker started assuming "Radio 5's new breakfast cereal" refers to him starting - not a clear source and does not help notability; Ref2: Similar, vague and does not help notability; Refs 3 & 4: Similar, minimal and needs interpretation; Ref5: which appears to be a copy of the first show, but from listening to the start in neither says the date or that it was the first show (but I'm not going to listen to al 34 minutes) - not independent, not significant coverage and probably a copyright violation; Ref6: Independent, no reason to not take as a WP:RS, has the first actual coverage but far from significant with 3 sentences. We normally look for 3+ independent reliable sources with significant coverage and so far I would class this as 0.5 out of 3 and also a lot of claims unsourced. Hope that explains the thinking behind the review. I would be surprised if more sources do not exist but as it's pre popular internet much may be in news and magazine archives. Also I did a quick look for a start source and was surprised that on a 1990 search it was not August as I found this listing the "Morning Edition" at 6:30 am on BBC Radio 5, Jan 3, 1990 which is confusing - I'm guessing maybe it was a non national pre-launch or something? Other sources like this and this suggest there was a "Morning Edition" show on Radio 5 starting on the 28th. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Good evening, I have corrected the sources and everything seems to be OK. If you could just take a look I would be delighted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Warsaw_Philharmonic_Choir

All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek Gudowski (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Corrected sources

Good evening, I have corrected the sources and everything seems to be OK. If you could just take a look I would be delighted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Warsaw_Philharmonic_Choir

All the best

Marek Marek Gudowski (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)