User talk:Aoidh

DYK for An Appeal for Human Rights

On 6 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article An Appeal for Human Rights, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that An Appeal for Human Rights was published by college students in 1960 in response to racial inequality in Atlanta? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/An Appeal for Human Rights. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, An Appeal for Human Rights), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

enjoy

Zedsamcat (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

K-Meleon GA Review

Just making sure because this is my first GA nomination. You've closed the discussion. That means you're officially saying no here, right? There's no reason to explain or change anything; it's done? Rjjiii (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: For now, yes. It's not uncommon to have minor issues with an article nominated for GA that require some addressing before proceeding, but they're usually relatively minor things that can be fixed in a short time period. The issues with K-Meleon are much more significant; there are a substantial number of sources that quite simply do not verify the statements that they are attached to, to the point that the article requires a major rewrite or wholesale replacement of many sources. Take away the references that don't verify the information and a significant portion of the article is unsourced or unverifiable, failing the second of the six GA criteria per WP:GAFAIL and Wikipedia:Good article criteria#The six good article criteria. The article can be renominated once those issues are addressed, but in its present state it is still unfortunately a long way from meeting the GA criteria. I absolutely encourage you to continue to work on the article and when its ready to renominate it. - Aoidh (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Rjjiii (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: I do want to stress that this should not put you off from improving the article and this certainly isn't anything with any finality, it just means that the article isn't ready yet. I nominated an article in October that failed its review (Talk:Shoshin/GA1) because it's still a long way from being up to GA standards, and that's certainly not a negative reflection on me, that article just isn't ready yet. I'm taking a break from that article but I do plan on improving it and I would love to see K-Meleon improved and become a GA as well. I hope this doesn't put you off or discourage you because it's absolutely not meant to, the article just needs additional work before it's at the GA level is all. - Aoidh (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I looked at the tags that you've added to the K-Meleon article. Thanks for the citation needed tags. I can go through those soon and add sources. I also noticed very many "verfication failed" tags. For the verification failed tags what are you wanting to see in the article? Rjjiii (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

With the failed verification tags, it means that the source doesn't actually verify the statement in the article that it's purported to verify. Just to take a random one for example, this reference talks about Cyrillic displaying correctly, but it's only talking about Cyrillic, it says nothing that could be construed as Previous versions had excellent support for rendering Unicode characters in web pages. While there is Cyrillic script in Unicode, Unicode is much more than just specific Cyrillic characters, and the statement in the article is a much wider claim than the source makes any attempt to state. In order the claim that it has not just Unicode support but excellent support, the source would need to discuss Unicode support, not just the displaying of Cyrillic; the source doesn't appear to say how it's displayed, it could be using MARC-8 instead of Unicode, the source doesn't say. To pick another example at random is this source, which actually appears to contradict the claim in the article. The article says K-Meleon 1.5 also included a more in-depth graphical interface to change settings from the browser, while maintaining backwards compatibility with the existing text-based configuration files. but the reference says (at least concerning 1.5.3) that It's open-source, and all aspects of the interface are flexible and able to be configured and customised. However - there's no interface for doing so - just a set of files that you can tweak in a text editor. The article says there's a more in-depth graphical interface that the reference specifically says is absent. These are just two examples at random but with each of the tags, the statement in the article isn't supported by the source attached to it. - Aoidh (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining both of those! I've rewritten the Cyrillic section to focus on translation since that was focus anyway. I've also separated the 1.5 section into multiple lines to make the sources more clear. Configuration and preferences can be synonymous but in KM refer to different parts of the browser.

If you have other sources or language in the article that you want changed (It looks like there are 12 other "failed verification" tags.) feel free to post on the talk page. Rjjiii (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

A quick update: I believe that I've removed all of the tags. Thanks for the assistance and happy holidays Rjjiii (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Undoing “moksh bas dharma edit”

Why you undid dharma to religion i am talking about hinduism page. infact dharma means duties and has a different meaning than religion. The Nerdy science (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing from this section's header, you may be talking about this edit made by ComicbookCollector (talk · contribs)? If that is the edit you're referring to, I reverted the change to the short description because it is not an improvement over the previous wording. Per WP:SDJARGON the short description should avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject. Describing Hinduism as an Indian Moksh-based dharma over simply describing it as an Indian religion is introducing unnecessarily technical jargon. The overwhelmingly majority of English speakers would not know what "Moksh-based dharma" means, so that description is not going to be a helpful tool in distinguishing that article. - Aoidh (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The Web case controversy

Seasons greetings, Aoidh. You do not act in the best interest of Wikipedia by removing an obviously pending improvement. We already have the Web disambiguation page and the Word Wide Web article telling us how it should be done. Regards, M. B., Jr. (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "obviously pending" means, but in my opinion the edit that I reverted is not an improvement to the article. Multiple editors have reverted this addition, so I don't believe I'm the only one with that opinion. I suggest you make your case for your edits at Talk:Website#Capitalization of the word web and get a consensus for your changes before reinserting them into the article. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aoidh. You answer was evasively cynical because I have provided clear evidences, e.g., the Web disambiguation page and the World Wide Web article. Your attitude towards this situation seems dishonest. Regards, M. B., Jr. (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)