User talk:Johannes Maximilian/Archives 2024/November

Draft - Isidore Rigoutsos

Dear Johannes, Greetings. Thanks for taking a look at this draft. I am not sure what part of it lacks adequate references. Can you kindly point to it? Thank you for your time. Yzrzi (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Good Day! The problem is the "bare link" citation style. Many footnotes in your draft have no formatting at all, and it remains unclear what you've cited. Please format your footnotes properly. C.f. WP:CITEHOW. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft Emilio Sfeir

Dear Johannes:

You rejected the page because you could not verify the sources. Please advise whether or not the following source is a verifiable source:

https://repositorio.umsa.bo/handle/123456789/11306

Thank you for your time and attention.

Xavier Serif (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Good Day to you! Thank you for reaching out to me on my talk page. I declined the draft – which, in Wikipedia terminology, is different from rejecting it. You can always improve a declined draft and resubmit it. In your case, I declined the draft as not being adequately supported by reliable sources because I deem a sufficiently huge number of sources unreliable. In particular, your draft cites opinion pieces hosted on pages such as Blogspot or YouTube, which, on Wikipedia, do not qualify as reliable, secondary sources. The draft's subject is deceased, however, the draft is still is a biography, therefore, extra caution is warranted when assessing cited sources. The sources' verifiability does not pose a problem.

The link you posted refers to Guillermo Mejillones Quispe: El Servicio de Inteligencia entre 1927-1938: El Espionaje, Contraespionaje de Bolivia durante la Guerra del Chaco., La Paz 2017. The work is a Licentiate Thesis (i.e., a Master Thesis) uploaded the Universidad Mayor de San Andrés server. It is not a published work and thus doesn't qualify as a secondary or reliable source. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says: " (…) care should be exercised, as [Master Theses] are often, in part, primary sources. (…) Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."

Another note: I spotted multiple duplicate references in your draft, I recommend you fix that. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. Please give me an example of a duplicate reference so that I may correct that deficiency. Xavier Serif (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As of 3 November 2024, (Special:Diff/1255228371) the draft has the following duplicate footnotes:

• 1, 26
• 2, 22, 25, 28
• 3, 29
• 4, 30
• 5, 31
• 6, 24, 32, 34, 35
• 7, 33, 36
• 9, 11, 12
• 13, 14, 15
• 18, 19, 20

Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Question about Draft - Commercials related to Gyaru

Hello Johannes Maximilian,

I have a question to my article I'm writing. I don't think it is in the state to be resubmitted due to still having not enough articles instead of video footage.

But this is my current problem at the moment; as the very first subjects in the article are difficult to find (enough) viable evidence in either text or official images such as websites.

For example the hair dye brand "Palty" has many websites to gyaru related subject it created over the years that can be found through wayback machine but due to the lack of saved images or corrupted images one of the websites that would be the best for citation can not be used due to inaccessible or corrupt images.

I'd like to ask for aid. Maybe could you look if the article has currently enough new citations or which subject in the article should be expanded in citations. Just something to tell me where I need to improve before resubmiting the article. I don't want aid in help for writing or adding citations to the article; just where it could be improved. ...If that is allowed.

Thank you. 80.57.242.245 (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)