User talk:M.O.X/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  25 -  26 -  27 -  28 -  29 -  30 -  31 -  32 -  33 -  34 -  35 -  36 -  ... (up to 100)

Caption reverted

I reverted this edit] at Indigenous Australians as it seemed very dubious. I can say with great confidence that having that caption will require clear sourcing. The wp:edit summary was not helpful.- sinneed (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Please keep your Wikipedia account secure, and use the "stay logged in" option with extreme care.- sinneed (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Staff Names for Artix Entertainment

I reverted your edits to the Core Staff section of the AE article... frankly, while a search may bring up these names, there have been no official confirmations of them. Because of that, their names cannot be officially sourced, and thus are only original research (or very, very educated guesses... for example, it's pretty obvious when you look at the staff list in the front of the MQ Artbook that Milton Pool is Miltonius). So... they have no place in the article.

Besides that, as the note at the top of the article says, the AE staff did actually request that the names be removed, except for the few they've officially released. Actually, I corresponded directly with Safiria on the request of Artix (and she was using her official Battleon email address, so I know it was actually her), and confirmed that it was true, and they really did want the names removed. So the AE Wikiproject sort of talked it over and decided that we'd respect their wishes and not reveal any other names in the article, even though there are a couple that we know for fact (Warlic, for example, always used to have JD Adams on his forum profile). Just explaining why I reverted your edits. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at WP:PERM/R.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--03:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue!

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome template

Hi - I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of making this change. The Jimmy Wales account was actually a blocked impersonator (but now redirects to the correct account). However, a number of people (myself included) have a script installed which strikes out users who are blocked and it will look very strange to anyone reading your welcomes to see Jimbo as blocked. Regards,  7  05:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know that thanks :D Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No problemo.  7  05:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

IP Block at my School

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

M.O.X (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Talk to me 09:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you are caught in a range block, you will need to follow the process at WP:IPEXEMPT in order to request an exemption from it - as you're not directly blocked, there's nothing we can do at this moment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Is there an actual problem here? You seem to be editing just fine now. Is your complaint that you can't edit at school? If so, when you're at school, don't log in and instead you'll see a notice with an IP address. That should help us figure out if we can at least allow you to log-in and edit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok after I come back from school holidays I'll do this. Thanks anyway.Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 10:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fridae'sDoom

Hi Fridae'sDoom. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read WP:GRFA, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and WP:NOTNOW, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that RfA and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY ^{Happy 4th of July!!!} 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I realise that but I thought past experience would help but I see things are different here, I know I'm capable of doing the job. The problem is you can't go through a trial period as such so I'll probably have to get some more experience. Thanks anyway, Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 22:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you still wish to run, despite the fact you will more likely than not be unsuccessful? -FASTILY ^{Happy 4th of July!!!} 22:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No I don't want to run, but I think a trial period to allow candidates to run would let other administrators see if the user has what it takes. Isn't it better to evaluate the user based on what you see them do, not what they've done? After said trial period the new admin will be under close observation and receive help where help is due. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 22:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you may find Editor Review process useful. It is similar to the situation you describe above. Regards, FASTILY ^{Happy 4th of July!!!} 22:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok I already submitted one, thanks FASTILY! :D Appreciate it. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

How would I create userboxes for my page? l5€for (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Go to and pick one you like, if you want a sidebox like mine put your userbox in between {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} do this on separate lines so for each new box it is one line and if you want a line separating each userbox, say if I wanted to separate my achievements from my group memberships I'd add {{userboxbreak}} between the userboxes. Hope this helped.Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks for the help. l5€for (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 23:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

How do my userboxes look for a user who just joined an hour ago? =P l5€for (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to link you to the page... here it is if you didn't see it: Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Account Creation Tool

I requested access to the Account Creation Tool, have read and understand the Terms and Conditions, and hold myself resposible for any problems that may arise. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 09:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Date on welcome message

I've noticed that the date after your signature on the welcome messages you've been adding to new users' talk pages today is incorrect. See User talk:Ronald Chevalier for an example. --JD554 (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll fix it right away. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

AdventureQuest Worlds

Hi Fridae, I've moved the old article to User:Fridae'sDoom/AQW, happy editing.

One thing I want to make clear though is that the article will need to cite reliable secondary sources. The design notes (a primary) and wiki (not reliable) you linked to are not sufficient. Furthermore, to justify a seperate article you'll need to show how the game is notable - you mention that the mechanics and storyline are worth noting, but who's noted it? If you can construct a "critical reception" section, citing reviews from reliable publications, that would be perfect. If you've not already seen it, WP:VG/RS has a good list of online sources, and of course dead-tree magazines are preferable. My final observation is that the article has an in-depth description of the game's storyline. For the editing of this, I refer you to WP:WAF - again, the amount of space we give to describing the fictional elements should be proportional to the attention given by secondary sources.

I hope this helps, Marasmusine (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Marsmusine, I'll work with some others who want to expand the article. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome template

Hi, just a suggestion that you stick with one of the established templates such as W-graphical when greeting new users. I saw your template when leaving a message at User talk:Josocal. The template seems overly detailed to drop on a newbie and not particularly friendly (I speak of the don't-be-a-dick admonishment). Just sayin'. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

True but it's a summary still, it's concise and to the point, besides only one of the users whose talk page I posted it on bothered to ask me or an admin for help in fact around 10 - 20 of them just ignored the welcome message and decided to vandalise articles or create articles which were promptly deleted. Thanks for your concern though. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 10:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I also find the message overwhelming (no newbie needs to know about applying for administrator or becoming an account creator) and a bit rude. But if nothing else, at least fix the signature. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the signature when CliffC posted, I thought it'd be a good idea to give them a lowdown of enwiki so that they know procedures and so on, I forgot to subst: that one sorry. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

• News and notes: WMF expansion, community hires, award for MediaWiki, admin recall

• In the news: Accidentally anonymized donation, democratized learning and more

• Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature

• Features and admins: This week's highlights

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I remove certain categories?

My user page has too many categories and I don't want a lot of them to be listed at the bottom of the user page, is there a way I could remove them??? Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 04:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Each category your userpage is in is the result of you transcluding a certain template on your userpage. To remove your userpage from a given category, simply the associated userbox from your userpage. For example, you can remove Category:Metapedianist Wikipedians by removing {{user meta}}. Skomorokh 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Some templates have support for category suppression so you can use still display the template but not have your user page added to the category. Try adding "|nocat=true" to each template that adds a category to see if it removes the category. For the ones that don't work, try "|categories=no" as an alternative. Not all of the templates you're using support this, but it will help you remove some of the categories without having to remove the templates themselves. Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 12:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Spectrum 7 Ronglu Tim Harrod The Regiment (video game) Icons.com Billy Kay (actor) To the Bottom of the Sea Robert Haynes 2002 European Men's Handball Championship Kevin Bleyer Extended Secondary School Oroch language George Scully, Jr. Chatichai Choonhavan Even language Asia-Pacific Kumyk language New Year's resolution Ulch language

Cleanup MP3 Men's spaces Forest Nenets language Merge Unobservable List of African American United States Senators Stephen Colbert's AmeriCone Dream Add Sources 2007 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship qualifying round 2007 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship elite round The Zoo (TV series) Wikify Charlie Bewley Get Set Go Cardinal tetra Expand FIVB World Grand Prix 1997 Donald Rumsfeld Rush Limbaugh

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Help

I set up an archive per the instructions on MiszaBot's page but the threads aren't being archived, I might have set up the archive wrong but could someone please take a look and tell me what's wrong? Thanks. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 06:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The parameter algo = 7d should have been algo = old(7d). I've taken the liberty of fixing it for you. Also, as it is at the moment the bot will archive to User_talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive. The counter parameter will be ignored. If you were wanting it to use User_talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive 1 you should change the parameter to archive = User_talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive %(counter)d. Regards, AJCham 07:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :D

Your GA nomination of George Washington

The article George Washington you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:George Washington for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

RFA

I get involved in way too many tiffs to get through an RFA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Before wasting your time, talk to the regs at WP:FPC. I am always fighting with those guys.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you retract and apologize for the racist comment and show clear need for the tools, I'd support you. (to just randomly jump in) — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to argue do so on your own talk pages please, you may have differences but set them aside and you'll see that Tony's work has helped improve, as many others like him, the quality of Wikipedia's articles, surely one must consider that. EDIT: Many administrators have less GAs, FAs, VPs, DYKs, etc. than Tony and when considering someone you shouldn't judge based on mishaps but on the eagerness and tireless contributions they've made and shown.Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So you can get an idea of what is going on at FPC, I feel there has been a series of ridiculous decisions at both FPC and VPC influenced in large part by the above editor, who I promised I would pretend not to believe is a racist. Currently, there is an atmosphere where the community first started claiming I was bringing down WP by spamming articles with images. Although, I am not always right, I pointed out that most of the rest of WP feels that adding somewhat tangential images is useful. That pattern has ended and a new one has emerged where they are supporting versions other than the ones I create to be consistent with long-standing preferences. Regardless of whether Raeky (talk · contribs) and I are seeing eye to eye, an RFA is not going to get through at a time when they are going out of their way to vote against or ignore the majority of my work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged, yes I concur, I know you would have made a good admin. I'll ask again in a few months. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the thing. In order to get an understanding of what is going on look at this. Note that at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture all but one image has almost no perspective distortion. Then see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Willis Tower2 and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA Control Tower 18 and loop junction (2nd nomination). Basically, when I learned how to use hugin, they started acting as if the preferred presentation includes perspective distortion. I can't run around calling everyone a racist, but it is pretty ridiculous over there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, well I understand. Surely tiny disputes are no grounds for bias in an RfA.... Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 07:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In my experience at RFA no votes are cast aside and by the way they are treating me at FPC/VPC, if everybody coordinates there bias, it is not considered a bias. I will wait until the winds change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, I respect your decision and keep up the good work. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token efc1c123d6c9d8b319a616090939be71

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Verified, signed and timestamped for archiving. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Errr...

How do I set up indexing for my archive like on other user's talk pages? Thanks. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those things where it is easier for me to just do it, and show you what I have done, than to try and explain it. So, if you'd like me to simply set it up and then show you how I did it, please just let me know the time you'd like - ie after how many days of no further input would you like sections to be archived? 30 days? 48 hours? etc. I will see your response below; no need for a further {{helpme}}.

Alternatively (and easier) talk to me with this.  Chzz  ►  00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

7 days is what I set for the archiving. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't realise you'd already set it up. I checked it; the only problem I saw was, there was no initial archive number, so I just changed that to | counter = 1. I also think you'll want some kind of link, so I've added an {{archive box}}. I think it will start working within 24 hours, but I don't see anything older than 7 days right now anyway. Please let me know if you have any problems. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :D Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 12:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It is working.  Chzz  ►  21:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, thanks for your help Chzz. I thought I did something wrong just I didn't know what that was. Your help is appreciated. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 21:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerking

Hello there. I have passed your request onto the clerks-only mailing list for discussion. Please be aware that we only take on new clerks from time to time, and typically new clerks are taken from the ranks of very experienced users or those with special or unique skills that can be of use in the field of clerking. Nonetheless, I'll mention your name and bring your request to the attention of the other clerks. Please note that because we only take on new clerks intermittently, it may take a while to get back to you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC).

J. Woodland Hastings

I am new to this and finding my way with limited time - so excuse me for now if I screw up somehow - especially with the codes and not knowing how to find my way through the maze of pages etc. The request was to "expand it," and for "more citations for verification." It seems to me that the article is already expanded enough [unless there is a different meaning?]. I have inserted many more verification connections to my already extensive citations, added 3 more citations and made a few other minor changes. Hopefully I have done what was requested [?]. What must I do next to move it along in the process? Or do I just wait? Photeros (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand, looking at the article now it's almost done, all the work that needs to be done is expanding the information on his career. When that's done the article will be marvelous. :) Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 21:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Note, you might want to add what information you can on his university years, childhood etc. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 21:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Trivial GA nominations

Hi, I just reverted your GA nomination of Second Sino-Japanese War because I saw that you have been nominating articles that are not close to GA level, ones that you are not involved in. I have reverted this recent nomination because these actions of yours cause others to waste time trying to assess the article. I think it is wrong of you to nominate an article if you have no past involvement and if you have no intention of future involvement. A similar nomination of yours at Kriegsmarine was mercifully cut short by the reviewer, but the one at George Washington took the reviewer quite a long time, and resulted in the article not being listed. Please consider getting involved in some article, getting familiar with its problems before nominating it. Such involvement greatly increases the likelihood of a back-and-forth interaction between the reviewer and the involved editors. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the only way I knew how to get the criteria, I'll refrain from doing this now. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Being involved in the article is the key. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood, I'm currently focussing on the Founding Fathers since they had their GA Status revoked :S It's going to be a while before you hear from me lol. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As the Aussies say: "Good on you!"

Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, On'ya mate! Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Images for upload pages.

A few tips that you might find helpful:

• Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions.
• The project's discussion board is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.
• Alternatively you may like to contact one of our experienced members for help. They are: User talk:M.O.X/Archive 1/header

AFC backlog

AFC unreviewed article statistics as of October 14, 2024

drafts are too long

Could the new authors be pointed to something like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/sandbox?action=edit&preload=User:Gryllida/NewArticleBLPv1/preload
User:Gryllida/NewArticleBLPv1/preload, used as a preload template, for example, this

to demonstrate notability before they start a full draft? Maybe it was discussed before I did not have the capacity to check the prior discussions, sorry. Please advise. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 10:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

(I am helping on irc, I have not been formally reviewing for a while, though did that previously) Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 10:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

(If the link does not work for you because you already have a sandbox, try [1] instead) Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 10:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree it would be better we did not get extremely long submissions aimed more about showing notability, but I don't like the limitation to be "one paragraph (80 words maximum)". I would prefer drafts to be up to Start-class rather than Stub-class, I like to see articles 200-1000 words long. However, I agree things like Draft:Tulunid Emirate do tend to sit in the !queue longer probably due to length (16,915 words) and number of sources (140) and do clog up the process. KylieTastic (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"200-300" then? They need to not get carried away to write full page. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 11:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that even if a page is really long, we don't need to necessarily verify the entire draft. For a draft with 140 references, I would probably spot-check maybe 15-20 of them (10%) to see if they're reliable. If they are, then I would check to make sure everything is reasonably supported. If things are more or less supported by more or less all of the references, the page should be accepted. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, yet long draft being written without understanding notability criteria leads to increased author frustration and reduced success rate. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 02:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Every so often I poke away at a userspace essay about how to get through AfC quickly, and "Article is just really heckin' long" is indeed one of the "Common reasons for delay" I list. I think it's worth letting submitting editors know that longer isn't better, but I think setting a hard limit would be obnoxious to some editors and completely prohibitive to others (like the ones DoubleGrazing describes below). -- asilvering (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, a huge draft is a daunting task (and I will admit I have skipped pages like that before) but ideally speaking we should be operating a workflow that allows for reviewing long drafts without too much extra time taken. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, to be clear, I agree with your above comment. Myself, I'd quickly skim the whole list of sources for reliability rather than spot-checking a subset, but I'd skip over the ones that weren't obviously one way or the other unless I found that was an alarming % of the total. In the end I think that works out to the same result: draft is accepted, maybe with some maintenance tags. -- asilvering (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

userspace essay about how to get through AfC quickly. User:Asilvering/AfCguide? Nice start. I like it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll finish it... someday. -- asilvering (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Great essay. When it's ready, this should be required reading for anyone about to embark on drafting their first article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

While I empathise, the problem (well, a problem) with setting a size limit is that it would make it difficult to translate a fully-fledged comprehensive article from another language version, because it would require the translator to first prepare a précis or synopsis of some sort, get that accepted, and only then replace it with the full version. This isn't a hypothetical problem, either: there are at least a couple of editors working on a stipend or similar for a foundation of some sort, who submit very long, and very heavily referenced, translations from de./ru./fr.wikis (from memory). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

PS: Open Knowledge Network, that's the 'foundation' I mentioned. (See the talk page of the author of the Tulunid Emirate draft, linked to by KylieTastic, above.) Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what this is? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"a non-profit organization dedicated to improving Wikipedia and other open platforms." See: https://oka.wiki/ KylieTastic (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

In short, it's a person who has dedicated quite a bit of his time and also money to improving cross-wiki coverage. A rare example of paid editors without COI. They've now created their own wikiproject, which is at WP:WPOKA. They tend to target GA- and FA-level articles, which is why so many of them are absurdly long.

Note to reviewers that, since these are translations from other languages, earwig is useless on these articles if you run it in English. Make sure you run it in the language of the original page. The editors always attribute their translations correctly in edit summaries, so it's easy to find which one they've been working from. I warned them about this a ways back and I don't think I've seen a single copyvio since, but it's always worth a quick check. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

They can translate a part to demonstrate notability, and after approval they can expand it later. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 02:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is a great suggestion; I've expanded on this in the sub-section below. Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Besides, DoubleGrazing and Primefac, I'm not proposing to set a hard limit, only make my linked template above a new option in draft writing wizard, with a note 'for new editors, this will reduce your writing time by a factor of five or ten'. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 02:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Gryllida, I have boldly altered your OP above, in order to fix the link so it points to your preload file located at User:Gryllida/NewArticleBLPv1/preload. This change of mine is technically a TPO violation because no editor should change the comment of another, but I think it is justified in this case because I believe it represents your original intent. The problem with the link you posted, is that you included the term Special:MyPage in it, and that targets different pages depending who is looking at the link. For example, when I clicked it, it went to *my* userspace and tried to bring up a page there, which is surely not what you wanted. Feel free to revert my edit if you feel you need to, but I believe this change will allow other users to see the preload page you intended to link. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That looks intentional as they mentioned the link won't work if user already has a sandbox, and gave alternative link. Looks like user can click it then create a sandbox in their userspace using the template. Indagate (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If you think so, it's fine to revert it. Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, thank you, I've clarified. I've changed link to point to a page which doesn't exist; if sandbox exists, the preload template does nothing, which may be confusing. --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 02:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion befuddling. I have, at times, created really long drafts in the process of making a draft thorough and fully fleshed out before moving it to mainspace. I can't be the only one who does that. BD2412 T 02:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

BD2412, you're not. See War guilt question, rev. 1011491911‎ (141kb at release); Offshoots of Operation Car Wash, rev. 937805602‎ (172kb at release). But don't be befuddled—this is an Afc page, and the discussion is about the burden of long drafts on Afc reviewers, which is a real issue worth discussing. But it doesn't apply to you, because it is not how about long drafts should be in general, or when experienced users working outside the Afc system should release their draft or how big it should be. It's also isn't concerned with when I finally get off my duff and release my two-year old Draft:French historiography (pls ignore the Afc draft header; that is strictly a test and nothing to do with Afc or when it gets released). Hope this has satisfactorily unfuddled you. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The proposed process would be opt-in, designed to reduce burden of working with coi editors. I could go as far as to say that coi editors do not benefit from writing long drafts. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 11:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

As a supplement to this discussion, allow me to suggest WP:Database reports/Long pages/Draft. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This could be done as a supplementary section in draft talk oage, for example:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?preliadtitle=Notability&preload=User:Gryllida/NewArticleBLPv1/preload&section=new&title=Draft%20talk:Media_Press_Group&action=edit&preloadtitle=Notability

Then the translators and others don't need to worry so much. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 10:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Translations: do just a part to establish notability

Regarding translations, Gryllida wrote above:

They can translate a part to demonstrate notability, and after approval they can expand it later.

This is a great idea. It might be hard to establish this as general practice among disparate, independent new editors (we can always try), but among one subset of editors, this is eminently doable. The OKA team of translators are organized, and if there is a consensus at Afc that this would be a good idea, something about this could be added to the OKA translator instructions, thereby reducing the load on Afc reviewers considerably for OKA translations, while simultaneously getting OKA drafts reviewed and released to mainspace faster, in many cases, much faster.

I'd like to brainstorm some suggested verbiage to add to translator instructions and would like to hear from Afc reviewers and other interested parties about this. (Note that for OKA translators there is already a section, § Don't always translate the whole article and that would be the natural place for any new suggestions about this.) Here's my first attempt:

Mathglot's trial #1: suggested translator instructions for rapid Afc review

When preparing a draft translated from another Wikipedia for submission to Afc, especially if the original is long, consider translating the minimum necessary to pass Afc. A shorter draft has a much higher chance of being reviewed quickly, possibly within 24-48 hours. A typical minimum is three solid references to establish WP:Notability, with inline citations to match. A single paragraph, or even two, well-researched, well-cited sentences may be enough. Even very short articles with three solid sources establish WP:Notability are rarely deleted at Afd. Once released to mainspace, you can continue working on it at your leisure. Further tips: see Help:Your first article#Notability, WP:THREE, and avoid the pitfalls listed in Afc reviewer instructions steps 1–3 at WP:AFCRI. Aim to get just the minimum needed (plus a bit of safety margin, go ahead and use *four* great citations), keep it short, and that should speed approval.

Feel free to comment, steal & modify mercilessly, or come up with your own wording. I think this could really reduce Afc's workload wrt OKA editors, while speeding throughput for them. Adding 7804j. Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I dont think this is a good idea, as it introduces even more process for OKA editors, and could in some cases lead to rejections of the draft. Eg, we translated many "History of Xxx" articles, which only deserve their own article if the main content is long enough. These articles would be rejected if they were submitted as stub, as they would be unjustified fork.

(another risk is that some may perceive this as going around the COI policy which requires that all articles from paid editors be created through AfC).

If the main concern is that AfC reviews of long articles is daunting, wouldn't a better solution be to only require from AfC reviewers to check overall notability? I think it would be easier to change the review criteria than what gets submitted 7804j (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

No; Afc procedures have evolved over a long period, and that is pretty much a non-starter, imho. As a corollary, though, consider for example, OKA translation Draft:Viticulture in Stuttgart, which has been pending review for a while. It is 25kb and has 17 citations, most of them in German; in other words, a lot for an Afc reviewer to review. What if I picked the best four sources in English, moved them into the lead (adjusting the lead as needed), and deleted everything else in the draft? That would leave a one-paragraph, seven-sentence, sourced draft with clear notability. My theory is, that in this stub form, the draft would be much more likely to get reviewed quickly, than the draft in its current state. I would be curious what Afc reviewers would think about that. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Shortening could help a lot. I'd just computer-translate a foreign source. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 19:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That reminds me, there is no way that I know of to filter new submissions by language of sources, is there? Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 19:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @7804j it is my understanding that the proposed process is opt in. So if you are confident the "History of" requires a long submission, that's fine, you would be able to keep doing that. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 19:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

For an experienced editor it may be easy enough to look at a lengthy article with lots of sources, pick the bits that establish notability, skip the rest, and still weave it into a coherent draft. But we're seldom dealing with experienced editors, for obvious reasons. Many new editors, meanwhile, struggle to even understand the concept of notability, let alone objectively evaluate sources from that perspective.

All that said, this OKA group may be an exception, so it could be worth running this by them, and if they're amenable, trying this out on a couple of drafts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect this will confuse even the OKA editors more than it helps them. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think both this and the above section are too complicated and too much a departure from our normal workflows. Our normal workflows are to either just write a draft and submit it and get a notability review that way, or to post a list of sources at the WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:AFCHELPDESK for help with source analysis. If we want to make a big push to have folks get source analyses before writing drafts, we should probably put it in our messaging somewhere such as in editnotices and templates. Although in the long run that may be more inefficient/complicated than just submitting a draft. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae:, I think I was unclear, or perhaps I do not understand your objection. I am not proposing anything different at Afc, nor proposing a new process of source analysis to be created somewhere else; so the review process, in my proposal, would remain entirely as it is now. The only difference would be to recommend that OKA users create a draft translation of no more than a few sentences with impeccable sourcing clearly establishing notability, and submit it. Then, the normal Afc processes would take over. With luck, the draft will be reviewed in a few days, and the OKA editor can pick up the article again in main space, and carry on as before, translating the rest of it. Win-win: a much easier review for the Afc reviewer, a slightly smaller backlog for all the other reviewers, and much faster throughput for the OKA editor. I do not see a downside, here. If you do, please elucidate. Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The one I can immediately see is that many of the OKA drafts are getting tagged with various maintenance tags by AfC reviewers and NPPers, and if they get accepted through AfC in an abbreviated form, they'll miss that second look. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The only difference would be to recommend that OKA users create a draft translation of no more than a few sentences with impeccable sourcing clearly establishing notability, and submit it. Ah, I misunderstood. Sure, that sounds fine. Although maybe that idea should be discussed on WT:OKA as they would be the ones to benefit from it and AFC reviewers probably wouldn't need to be directly involved in the change :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

WT:OKA (WikiProject Okanagan) would be confused ;) it would be WT:WPOKA. However, as they are paid editors that must use AfC for new articles. So if this just get a minimal draft through AfC then expand was encouraged, the question would be is the intent of the AfC check on WP:PAY just for nobility or for the editing as a whole? Considering the strong opinions on both paid editing and AfC I can see there been strong views on both sides, so it would probably be best to bring up at WT:COI. KylieTastic (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: One of these moments I wish WP comments supported upvotes--but that's besides the point of this site's ultimate mission. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

AfC-tailored Welcome template

Hey folks - I'm looking to get some feedback on potentially introducing a new welcome template specifically tailored to AfC submitters who have already begun creating draft articles. I created User:Liance/s/afcwelcome around 3-4 months ago after noticing the lack of a welcome message suitable for users who have already gone through the process of creating a draft, but still may need help with getting it suitable for mainspace. I've been reviewing drafts at AfC for several years now and included links to resources which I've found have been most helpful to submitters from experience.

AfC welcome message

Thanks for creating a draft! Hello WELCOMEUSER, welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Liance, and I've been editing here for a while. I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:Sample to WikiProject Articles for Creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia! We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful: The Teahouse - ask Wikipedians for general editing help Articles for Creation Help Desk - ask reviewers for draft article help Creating your first article Referencing for beginners Wikipedia Manual of Style I highly recommend visiting The Teahouse if you are unsure about anything Wiki related. It's a place where experienced editors answer questions and assist newcomers in the editing process. In addition, please do not hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here.

In using this template over the past several months I've seen very good rates of engagement from recipients (far above what I usually get with welcome templates) and users have let me know that the resources have been helpful. I've started leaving the welcome message almost always prior to declining with AFCH in hopes that submitters don't get discouraged.

With encouragement from S0091 I wanted to post the template here to gather any feedback other reviewers might have regarding the template, and am hoping that it could be more widely adopted by AfC reviewers. Eventually I'd also like to see an option added to AFCH to leave the welcome message prior to a decline to soften the blow new editors might get after their hard work is denied. Any feedback or suggestions are appreciated! Best, ~Liance^talk 20:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• I like the template. Can the eventual final template be added to the Twinkle Welcome list, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Another wonderful idea - unfortunately I'm not entirely sure how the process for that works, likely we'd have to contact a Twinkle maintainer? ~Liance^talk 20:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liance Once we have a consensus, that is the route. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

When you're ready to have it added to Twinkle, you can make a ticket on GitHub or post at WT:TWINKLE to start the process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Seconding. -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thirding that looks really friendly and useful. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I like the template also and will prefer that it'd be navigated easily through the AFC accept and decline buttons just as the TeaHouse invitation check box, which can be auto-unchecked if it already exist. It's good especially when we usually have new unwelcomed users submit drafts daily. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking, Safari. Either replace the current 'hook on' that invites the User to the Teahouse or an additional one. One step at a time, though. Thanks for creating it @Liance! S0091 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, also seconding the replace the Teahouse template idea. -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Definitely a +1 from me, this is pretty much what I envisioned as well. If it'd be possible to slip the welcome message in before the draft accept/decline one is left, that would be best. ~Liance^talk 16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I like the template, it's friendly and welcoming, and conveys many important points succinctly. The one thing I would like to see is making it even clearer when to go to the Teahouse vs. the AfC help desk (general editing questions vs. questions specifically about the review process). We don't get so many general questions at the HD (although we do get some occasionally), but I often see questions at the Teahouse which (I think) would be better asked at the HD. And perhaps also make in this context the point that they should ask at either one venue or the other, not that they post the same question in quick succession at both (and then the general help desk, and the reviewer's talk page, and...). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe take out the manual of style link to reduce information overload, or replace it with a link to MoS/Layout, which might be more immediately useful to a new user (to know what the bones and structure of a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's probably more confusing to be directed to a specific part of the MOS than the main MOS page. -- asilvering (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think many Welcome messages use WP:Simplified Manual of Style for a starter. S0091 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That does not look good... it has over 10 links too "read more ..." on the actual MOS that are broken. KylieTastic (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a mess! It looks like at some point the shortcuts used were deleted. And what's worse is according to this edit summary it is also being used in the Growth Help panel. The other option is Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style/1. S0091 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed it. MOS: recently became a namespace, which broke all the MOS:#section links. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Qwerfjkl! I didn't know MOS had not been a namespace. S0091 (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It was a pseudo namespace before, like CAT:. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If you're curious why it was changed, see m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Mooré. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Revised version

I got around to making a revised version of the template (User:Liance/s/afcwelcomerevision2), specifically implementing the suggestions about making it clearer where to ask questions and linking to the simplified MOS. This version also has a named parameter for the linked article to conform to other welcome templates (hopefully making Twinkle implementation easier).

Revised ver.

Thanks for creating a draft! Hello Example, welcome to Wikipedia! I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:Example to Articles for creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia. We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful: The Teahouse - ask editors for general help Articles for creation Help Desk - ask AfC reviewers for draft help Creating your first article Referencing for beginners Simplified Manual of Style If you have general editing questions, the Teahouse is where you can seek help from experienced editors. Questions about the draft creation and publishing process should be directed to the Articles for creation Help Desk instead, where you can get assistance directly from reviewers. Don't hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome - I hope you enjoy your time here! ~Liancetalk 17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If we think this is a good starting point I can go ahead and move it to the Template namespace and submit requests for AFCH/Twinkle integration. Thanks all!! ~Liance^talk 17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for creating this! -- asilvering (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Published as Template:Welcome draft and submitted a request at WT:TWINKLE to add it to the welcome menu. @Novem Linguae, apologies for the ping, but I'd like to move forward with getting this added to AFCH (with implementation as proposed above), would appreciate some next steps as I don't have a Github account right now! Thanks, ~Liance^talk 16:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liance. What's the exact change being requested in AFCH here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As suggested by SafariScribe and seconded by some other editors, a checkbox with functionality similar to the Teahouse invite option currently implemented in AFCH that would leave the welcome template above the AfC accept/decline message would be fantastic. Welcome message should only be left if the user has not been welcomed by another editor yet. ~Liance^talk 16:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Tracked in github.com
Issue #386

Should User:Liance/s/afcwelcomerevision2 be moved to template space and use the standard welcome template format, e.g. Template:Welcome-afc or similar? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This was already done – it's now at {{welcome draft}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Do I need AfC review?

I don't usually use the draftspace, but some months ago I started an article there, Draft:Regenerative dentistry, because the topic and sourcing looked a bit complex. Not0nshoree tagged it for AFC, three minutes after I had last edited it, so I left it for a while. I've now edited it a bit more, as it was going to expire, but I'm still unsure about what I ought to do next. Am I required to go through the AfC process before moving it into the mainspace? It's not quite ready yet, but getting there (contribs very welcome). I've been editing for about two decades, though I don't think I've ever actually used AfC before. Should I avoid using the draftspace in the future, to avoid clogging AfC?

I also created a mainspace stub article yesterday, Draft:Confirmat screw, and it was moved into the draftspace and listed for AFC before I'd finished. I got a (template?) notification on my talk page, which I found a bit confusing; I think Dan arndt was challenging the verifiability of some or all of the article text, or challenging the notability of the topic, or both. I'm not saying my uncited stub was brilliant, but I'm not sure it makes sense to add it to AfC. Charmk had already tagged it with Template:Unreferenced, which was entirely appropriate at the time. If an editor who doubted the notability checked, and then either tagged it with Template:Sources exist or nominated it for deletion, it would avoid adding it to the AfC queue.

My understanding is that topics are required to be notable, and statements are required to be verifiable, but policy is that citations are only required for WP:BLPs, unless an editor challenges the verifiability/notability. I drafted a user information template on this topic a while ago, because new editors are far more affected by this than I am.

It's not that I don't appreciate review, but I seem to be adding to the AfC backlog, and I don't want to waste your time. HLHJ (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey HLHJ, short answer no, you don't have to use AfC (in most cases). Sometimes people tag drafts so people can submit to AfC because they don't notice it's an experienced user just using draft to draft. New articles like Draft:Confirmat screw with no sources are likely to be drafted if they still have no sources after an hour of existing, although if still being edited are usually left until they have not been touched for an hour (or more) after the last update. I'm not sure on your third point as you say you realise that articles should be verifiable, (i.e they require sources) but then say "citations are only required for WP:BLPs". The BLP policies require some things to have inline citations, but citations should always be included per Wikipedia:Verifiability that states The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Yes {{Sources exist}} can be used to defend from deletion or draftifying, but it is not meant to encourage creating unsourced articles based on "I have the sources but I've not added them". However I may have just misunderstood your last point and you are just talking about inline citations. Back to your first point, just because a draft has an AfC tag added does not mean you cannot move to main-space yourself in most cases (unless under community enforcement or paid editing etc). If your happy your articles are now notable and verifiable you can move main-space, or if you want a second opinion can can add to the AfC !queue... but it can take a while. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, KylieTastic! Should I use the Articles for Creation helper script? Or just Tools>Move?

I think I've seriously misunderstood Template:AfC submission. It seems it is being added to every draft (it was added to Regenerative dentistry less than ten minutes after the draft was created and while it was still being actively edited). But I understood it to mean "I think something is seriously wrong with your article (like an editor COI), and you shouldn't edit it without independent review before it goes in the mainspace". It tells you what to do to get your draft accepted, and provides a means to submit it for review. The implication is that the draft is not acceptable, nor will it be acceptable without independent review. Could we replace this with something that clearly presents AfC review as an option, not as something mandatory, and presents the alternative of moving it to the mainspace yourself? This could seriously reduce the backlog.

"Verifiable" does not quite mean "cites reliable sources"; it means "reliable sources that could be cited exist". A statement may be verifiable but uncited.

Why uncited content isn't all bad

Historically, creating uncited articles has been both common and widely-accepted (Wikidragons did it all the time), and it is still permitted by policy. Dog, the standard example article, had no cites for over three years.[2] We could of course change policy to make sourcing mandatory. I don't think that would be a good idea, though. I created Draft:Confirmat screw from my own knowledge, and posted it (and then went looking for sources). There is research to show that new editors also often add content from their own knowedge. Typing up your own knowledge is easy. Citing sources is much harder. I just find it slower; new editors often find it difficult. If experienced editors add sources to the new editor's text, or tag it with {{cn}}, then the new editor has made a useful contribution and will probably stick around. Wikipedia also has useful new content. If the new content just disappears, the new editor will be discouraged and go away. It doesn't matter if it was reversibly reverted or draftified; new editors won't know, they often don't realize they have a userpage. See WP:Encourage the newcomers for the evidence base. The rule is, indeed, that the burden of verifiability is on the person who thinks the content should be in the encyclopedia. This is a way of resolving disputes. If someone says that a statement I've added or restored is unverifiable, or removes it as unverifiable, I mayn't just say "Is too verifiable, verify it yourself" and cock a snook. I have to either add a cite or admit it's unverifiable and leave it out of Wikipedia. But, on the other hand, I also may not challenge the verifiability of things I think are verifiable, even if they aren't sourced yet. In this case I'm not even sure if the verifiability of any of my statements were challenged or not!

HLHJ (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@HLHJ, honestly, I don't think anyone should be adding AfC templates to drafts that are not theirs, unless they've moved them to draftspace themselves as part of page patrolling (as happened to your stub article yesterday - that one I would say is fine). @Not0nshoree, this was quite a while ago, so maybe you've stopped doing that, but if you haven't - please don't do this anymore. There's no obligation to use AfC and we shouldn't be implying that there is.

I've resubmitted and accepted your article on the screw. My advice here is a weary "if you can't beat them...", I'm afraid: just make sure every stub you create has at least two footnotes. -- asilvering (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Asilvering, per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 15 my bot does this. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl, this is just for non-confirmed editors though, right? Those editors do need to use AfC, so adding the template there makes perfect sense. -- asilvering (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That's true, I forgot about that. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Should I use the Articles for Creation helper script? When using WP:DRAFTOBJECT, in my opinion, should avoid the helper script and just move it yourself. The helper script is more for when you're acting as an uninvolved reviewer. It gives a draft an official AFC seal of approval. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

As the others have said it is not normal to add that tag and yes I can see that it would confuse people into thinking they must use AfC. If anyone is going to tag to help the draft move onto the next step {{Draft article}} is more appropriate as it gives both routes. As for the other point it is just a terrible idea not to give sources. Using Dog from 2004 is a terrible argument. That was 20 years ago from the very wild-west beginnings of Wikipedia and also it was not actually unsourced it had one reference and 12 external links. Yes some editors are experts in an area and can write from knowledge, but there are way more who think they know facts that are wrong. No one apart from another person with knowledge of the subject can tell facts from misunderstandings, errors, hoaxes and lies which IMHO make any unsourced content of little value. Wikipedia:Verifiability is what makes Wikipedia different to social media. KylieTastic (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone. I was going to suggest creating Template:Draft article, so good to know it already exists. It might be improved by explicitly listing the "move" option, and saying when you should use which option.

Uncited but verifiable content can be really valuable

I entirely support the idea that sources make articles better, but there is excellent unsourced content on the wiki, even today (Dog was an example of historical practice; I showed the diff in which it gained its first citation). Even wild-west early Wikipedia was not much like modern social media. It worked. People fixed stuff that was wrong (more than they do now); the ancient uncited "dog" article was actually pretty reliable, with the single really dodgy statement being the one cited to an inline link. Lots of readers do have knowledge of subjects they read about, and many start with Wikipedia and then learn about a topic in detail, coming back to fix any errors. Unsourced content was and is really valuable as a starting point for sourced content. Even incorrect content is useful, because it tells us we need correct content on that topic, and motivates the creation of such content. The social context matters. For example, anyone who has used confirmat screws must know some basic facts about them, and I can't imagine very many people would make up stories about confirmat screws anyway, and any misinformation about a screw isn't exactly slander, and will probably get fixed soon because the people reading this article will be people who use these screws, even if I don't fix it myself in a few minutes' time once I've read some sources. The ratio of misinformed to informed editors varies by subject, but even if the misinformed ones are a noisy majority, the statement will get challenged and corrected and cited. And making it easier for newcomers to productively contribute is really valuable, because more editors means more factcheckers. Deleting solid but uncited content in practice means rejecting new editors ("Wait, it vanished! I put a lot of effort into that, and it still isn't good enough? I give up."); citing it, improving it or promptly tagging it with "cn" actually encourages new editors ("I made a useful edit! Someone noticed and wants to make it even better! Yay, I am editing Wikipedia! I'll copy what they did! And I'll click on the tag and find out how to add a citation.").

HLHJ (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There are some cases where this philosophy works, but in a lot of situations it is better to be safe rather than sorry. I don't write anything in an article if a source doesn't back it up - if it's not verifiable, it doesn't belong on wikipedia, that's just how the site works and how a whole lot of other guidelines get built up like "righting great wrongs". Reconrabbit 02:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Unreferenced is not the same thing as unverifiable. The "way the site works" (and please remember that you're replying to somebody who has been here for 17 years) is that all content must be verifiable (as in, it must be possible with a reasonable amount of effort to find a source that backs it up). It doesn't have to be referenced (as in, have a little clicky number next to it), apart from in a narrow range of circumstances. That is all HLHJ is saying; the philosophy described above is just Wikipedia policy. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

{{Draft article}} does explicitly list the move option. – Joe (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Then again, for pages covered under the BLP policy, uncited material naturally (and if I'm not mistaken, officially) goes against its very strict expectations/criteria. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I created Draft:Confirmat screw from my own knowledge, and posted it (and then went looking for sources). There is research to show that new editors also often add content from their own know[l]edge. Typing up your own knowledge is easy. That's writing something WP:BACKWARDS and is really not encouraged. Cremastra (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that I've asked Not0nshoree not to do this again on their talk page. I think this is a good example of why AfC is optional. Perhaps we should do a better job of communicating that. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If I recall, I was under the impression that "articles for creation" was the process assisting with creating articles in draftspace, and that the template simply gave information on drafts and added shortcuts. I had in my mind that all drafts should have had that template. I guess thought this because I had seen a bot, @Qwerfjkl (bot), automatically put up that template on some newly created draftspace articles. I assumed that the draft article created by OP did not have it because the bot had made an error, and so I put one in myself. If that was a mistake on my part, then I take responsibility. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 13:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Not0nshoree, articles for creation is an optional process for almost everyone, so most draft articles don't need the template. The bot handles most of the drafts that do need it, so there's rarely any reason to add the template manually. -- asilvering (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the bot has specific rules for which pages to add it to, based on things like the age of the draft, user account, and other things. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Onshore. I mean you had a very minor misunderstanding, and you made a small mistake, but it really wasn't an important one, and my own misunderstandings contributed. I never doubted that the template had been added in good faith, and no harm was done; in fact I think it was helpful, since it's improved some templates, making future misunderstandings less likely. Your actions didn't upset me, and I wouldn't have bothered mentioning the matter on a talk page at all if it weren't that I thought the error might be being made commonly, with wider effects, which is what this discussion is about. I'm sorry for embarrassing you by having the discussion in relation to one of your edits; my only defense is that the discussion would eventually be had in relation to someone's edits (and you've actually taken it really well, and behaved admirably). TL;DR: Really, don't worry about it. HLHJ (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Fix Draftification with a new template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Fix Draftification with a new template. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

This page is semi-protected for some reason. I cannot request a redirect from Kasibelinuridae to Kasibelinurus because of this. FortanEvirwoods (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The page was temporarily semi-protected due to sock puppetry, according to logs. The protection expires today, so unless it's urgent it would be easier to wait it out and make the request yourself later. Liu1126 (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:The Bear season 3

I have a question about how to proceed with this draft. It appears to be up to the standards of the two previous season articles. However, the issue is that The Bear (TV series) has summary lists of episodes for season 1 and season 2, while it has detailed descriptions of episodes for season 3, that appear to be the same as in the draft. I can decline the draft or accept the draft. If I decline the draft as duplicating what is in the series article, I will be avoiding duplication, but persisting an inconsistency. If I accept the draft, I will be introducing duplication. I don't want to do the work of cutting down the detailed list of episodes to a summary list. Should I accept the draft, but tag the series article for cleanup consisting of cutting down its list of detailed episodes to a summary list? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I suggest leaving an AFC comment describing your dilemma, then accepting and copying comments to the talk age, and flagging it for the cleanup you suggest. That way you have covered all bases and are letting the community do what it does best

See also my suggestion below (which will doubtless be archived above, and on a different archive page - such is life) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Hi, creator of the draft here to explain how the episodes list work. The season article includes the episodes list with the detailed descriptions. This creates a unique template (titled :series season x). The series article then transcludes the template created from the season article into the series article, and thus doesn't show the descriptions. You can see what I mean by looking through the articles for the other seasons. Once the article is accepted, I will clean up the series article. Hope this helps. Mjks28 (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

(TL;DR: if you accept the draft, there will be no duplication) Mjks28 (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mjks28: You're an experienced editor, you really don't have to use AfC. – Joe (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I like to use AfC to have the drafts peer-reviewed (I don't trust myself to review them without bias), and I also don't know how to move them into the mainspace when there is already a redirect with the same name. Mjks28 (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You can add {{db-move|Draft:name of draft}} to the redirect and an admin will delete it. Or, you can just start the page directly in mainspace by editing the redirect.

I respect the desire for a peer review, but AfC is quite backlogged and really oriented towards newbies. Reviewers also can't be expected to be familiar with conventions in every area of the project, like the TV series tranclusions you mention above. If you create the page directly in mainspace or move it there, it will still be reviewed by a new page patroller. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I was not aware of that. I will be doing this in the future. Cheers. Mjks28 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Also if you want feedback on TV related articles you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television as they are quite an active project. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that the former draft is now in article space. That is good, and is what I was saying should be done. However, I have a procedural comment. Once a draft has been submitted to AFC for review, if it is moved from draft space to article space by a simple Move, the draft is left in a state where it requires cleanup. I see that the cleanup was done. Once a draft has been submitted to AFC for review, it is expected that it will be moved by an AFC accept rather than by a simple Move. So in the future, it might be simpler to request the peer review at WikiProject Television without using any of the AFC constructs. Anyway, it is now in article space, which was the objective. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I think I woudl change 'expected' to 'anticipated', primarily because I have no expectations of those who make simple moves of drafts to mainspace.

I have a hope, one which I often ask the mover, which is that they will clean up after themselves next time they make this move, and remove the AFC artefacts left behind. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

From now on, I will follow Joe's above suggestion and use {{db-move|Draft:name of draft}} on the redirect I want to move the draft to and do the clean up myself. Thank you everyone for your advice and help. Mjks28 (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Potential AFCH enhancement

Tracked in github.com
Issue #385

I like the opportunity to copy comments to the talk page on acceptance. I use it often but not always. When the comment has expired it is nt really worth copying it.

I would like to have the opportunity to leave an "Acceptance comment" from time to time when I accept (eg) a borderline draft.

I know I can leave a comment first and then accept, while copying that to the talk page.

I think this is worth a discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, if it's relatively easy for the developers to implement this I wouldn't be opposed to it. However, since your goal will be accomplished much the same way by just leaving a talk page comment the usual way, I don't think this is something that needs implementation if it would require more time and effort. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that I/we can do it either before or after acceptance with an additional edit. I also agree that a disproportionate amount of effort spent on a 'nice to have' feature would be wasteful, though waste rarely deters a programmer from elegance!

So I guess I'll just say "Please will our AFCH gurus consider the request, especially if it's a quick thing?" and follow it with "Pretty please?" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Lu Ting and Eastern name order

This question is about Draft:Lu Ting, and also about drafts that appear to be inconsistent as to whether they use Eastern name order or Western name order. In this draft, the subject's name is given as Ting Lu. I am not about to accept this draft, and so am not asking what name to accept it under, but I would like some general advice about Asian names in drafts. First, it isn't clear to me which name is the family name and which is the given name. I assume that I should ask the author to indicate which is the given name and which is the family name. I also think that I understand that the name is shown in Western name order if the subject currently resides in the Western world, and in Eastern name order if the subject currently resides in a country that uses Eastern name order. Is that correct? Is a hatnote used in both cases to indicate which name order is used, so that the reader knows which is the family name and which is the given name? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Family name is Ting, given name is Lu. My understanding is that the article title is dependent on how sources are referring the subject generally, and most scientific papers would style as <given name> <family name>, assuming that <given name> is the <first name>. A {{family name hatnote}} is sufficient to let the readers know which is the family name. – robertsky (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Television Episodes

This question is sort of about Draft:Iron Marge, but it is really about television episode drafts in general. In reviewing a television episode draft, if there are existing articles about many of the episodes in a series, are there any rules or guidelines that I should follow in accepting another episode? I have asked a similar question on the WikiProject talk page, WikiProject The Simpsons, but the project is characterized is semi-active, so I expect to get an answer sometime, but not until I have accepted or declined the draft. I know that I should check the parent article for the link to the episode article if I accept it. Is there any other general guidance for reviewers about television episodes? Is there a general rule to accept a draft if the series has many episode articles and the draft is sourced and otherwise satisfactory? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Try asking WikiProject Television, maybe? They're quite active. – Joe (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sourced and AFC/R

Is indicating the target page where the redirect term directly appears in the page and has a reference attached not a proper "source" to support the redirect?

If that term within the target page is also footnoted with its own reference, do we need to copy that reference into the AFCR request?

-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

For me, request title being mentioned (and preferably sourced) at target is almost always enough. I don't find it necessary to copy an exact reference. NotAGenious (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Authentication is now required for search engine checks on Earwig's Copyvio Tool

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Authentication is now required for search engine checks on Earwig's Copyvio Tool. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Student projects

I've just reviewed three drafts (Draft:Dependence of Thermal and Hydrodynamic Boundary Layers on Prandtl Number, Draft:Scale Analysis of Air and Water Interaction in Urban Drainage Systems, and User:Vinny0001/sandbox), all written as research papers. Two of them gave the names of the editors, in both cases a group of students from IIT (BHU) Varanasi; I assume the third was likewise.

I rejected all as OR. Anyone have contrary views? And should I do something about these? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Another few: Draft:Scale Analysis on Phase Change Process., User:Im chirag18/sandbox, User:CognifyEdits/sandbox; again, all are from teams at IIT Varanasi. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Same with four of my recent declines: Draft:Dependence of Boundary Layer on Rayleigh Number, Draft:Scale analysis for Couette Flow and between one fixed and one moving plate, User:Sahilsingh0/sandbox and Draft:Scale Analysis of Viscous Rotational Flow. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I've brought this discussion to the attention of Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added a few {{subst:Welcome student}} templates to user talk pages. Will see if I get any response. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There are a few more of these, if you search drafts for "article prepared by". Wikishovel (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Scale analysis of natural convection in tall enclosures

Draft:Scale Analysis of External Natural Convection

Draft:Scale Analysis of Flow Through a Woven Mesh

User:Mk21134018/sandbox

-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Are these actually presenting new ideas that have never been previously published? If not, then it's not OR. OR==no source has ever published that before. In my experience, that is very uncommon for undergraduates to come up with completely novel ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYN is a form of original research, though.

I've just rejected User:Transport phenomenon 45/sandbox and User:AnjaliChaudhary2/sandbox. --bonadea contributions talk 18:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think what I'm going to do is ping them all at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#IIT Varanasi and see if one of them will explain what they're doing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer Please add User:Aditya gupta456/sandbox to your list 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Council

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is a group that talks about how to organize and support WikiProjects. If you are interested in helping WikiProjects, please put that page on your watchlist and join the discussions there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Wizard puts banners outside the banner shell

Tracked in github.com
Issue #1

I've noticed quite a few edits like this where the AfC wizard is putting project banners outside the banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

SD0001, I think you'll be best to troubleshoot this, since you wrote it originally (also noting this is the submission wizard and not AFCH). Primefac (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

AfC wizard always puts banners outside the shell (issue #1). The fix for it is rather complicated. – SD0001 (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It is problematic if a script is editing outside of expected norms. It should really be fixed or withdrawn — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a minor format issue, on talk pages, in draft space that would be fixed if accepted via AFCH. Also if I remember correctly a bot will get around to fixing any issues. If you junked the wizard you get more problems including more people putting what they want on the talk page which is very unlikely to follow your "expected norms". Hopefully someone will fix, but as far as I can see it has almost zero affect on main-space articles and then only on talk pages, so to suggest it should be withdrawn and remove the benefits of the wizard for the sake of a rare, temporary issue only in draft makes no sense. KylieTastic (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It should not be possible for an IP or a newly-created account to make a drive-by submission of a draft that they have never worked on.

I have seen this happen on several occasions, almost always with drafts that are clearly not ready (sometimes my own drafts in progress), and it is irritating. When new accounts do this, it often seems from their later edits that they are here to do paid editing and just getting a little artificial credibility under their belts by submitting drafts, as if they have some authority to do so. It is also irritating to me that as the creator of a draft, I get no notification when such a submission takes place, as I would for the deletion of the draft. BD2412 T 15:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

So revert it when you see it? There's nothing that says submitted drafts must be reviewed or that pointy draft submissions cannot be un-submitted. As far as notifications go, put the page on your watchlist? Primefac (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

My drafts are on my watchlist—but so are 8,000 other pages. A talk page notice would have provided a nice and immediate yellow flag. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I quite agree. This hardly ever happens bona fide, so it's usually a red flag for something dodgy going on. In fact, some sock farms routinely do it (eg. Isuzu.tf), so I guess on a positive note it helps to identify them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately a lot of these I've seen do not use the wizard to submit but add the template themselves, so it would need a friendly bot operator to look for these and revert. However I also see that those that defend the anyone can edit mantra would strongly disagree. If a bot operator wanted to see if they could get approval why not give it a go. A backup option is reverting such submissions is to unpalatable for some would maybe to post an alert on the creators talk page that it had happened pointing out they can just revert if they are still working on it and disagree. KylieTastic (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Submitting involves changing template values, so would need to be detected with a bot, which is a little complicated. Also the consequences of submitting something early is pretty much zero, since the worst that happens is it gets declined and can be resubmitted again when ready. Seems like something that is annoying but might be a lot of effort to "fix". –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Nominating Drafts for MFD

I would like to verify that we, the AFC reviewers, are aware that drafts should only be nominated for deletion at MFD when there is tendentious resubmission or other conduct issues. Drafts are sometimes nominated for deletion at MFD for lack of notability. They are usually Kept, and the regular editors at MFD cite drafts are not reviewed for notability. I sometimes wonder who is looking at drafts and nominating them for deletion, because AFC reviewers should know that nominating the draft for MFD should only be done for reasons of conduct. Within the past 48 hours, a draft was nominated for deletion at MFD by an AFC reviewer. The nomination was then withdrawn as a mistake by the reviewer, but I would like to verify that the instructions for AFC reviewers are clear that drafts should only be nominated for deletion under rare circumstances, not including a lack of notability.

Having just reread the AFC Reviewing Instructions, I see that they do not mention nominating the draft for deletion, which is all right, but maybe they should list the extraordinary circumstances in which a reviewer should either nominate the draft for deletion or consult with other reviewers about nominating it for deletion. I also see that the reviewing instructions do not refer to rejection. Perhaps that was not included in the reviewing instructions when the option to reject was added. Maybe it should be added. Reviewers should know, and most of them do, that rejection is available but should only be used in rare circumstances, and that nomination for deletion should only be used in even rarer circumstances. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a small note before I head out for the night: rejection is mentioned at the bottom of the page (see here). I do agree it might be worth adding a sentence, pointer, or brief mention (with section link) in the "Workflow" section to increase the chances of it being read. Probably worth mentioning MfD in there somewhere as well. Primefac (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

AFCH tags

Tracked in github.com
Issue #320

How much work would it be to make AFCH use tags instead of just appending "(AFCH)" to the edit summary? I recently came across this where a sock used a fake edit summary imitating AFCH's when moving a draft to mainspace. It might be more obvious when this happens if tags are used. Or maybe an edit filter could prevent this altogether? C F A 💬 01:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You beat me to it, I was going to suggest the same thing. I thought we had tried this before, good to see I wasn't going crazy. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Rolling sleeves up. I was wondering about it too, but it wasnt urgent... – robertsky (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I cross-posted to Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § New tag for WP:AFCH as I was hitting a wall (and had to, you know, do some real-life work). Primefac (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Blacklisted or Salted Titles

In re-reviewing the AFC Reviewing Instructions, there are two paragraphs in a collapsed section with which I disagree. They are almost correct, but they omit an important detail, and so are problematic. Most of Step 4, on Accepting a Submission, is collapsed. It includes a section on If you cannot publish the draft. The case of a blocking redirect is correctly described, in that the reviewer should tag the blocking redirect with {{db-afc-move}}, which is a specialized G6. Yes.

However, the other two cases listed are where the title is on the Title blacklist, or if the title is fully protected (salted) against re-creation. It says, in the first case, to request a Technical Move, and, in the second case, to request Page Unprotection. No. Those are sometimes the right next steps, but the reviewer should first research the history of the title, and determine why it has been either blacklisted or salted. If the reviewer is not sure of the reasons or the history, the reviewer should consult with other reviewers, here, at this AFC talk page, and ask why the title is blacklisted or salted. It is true that the admin who is reviewing the page move request or the unprotection request should also research the history, but it is best not to waste their time, and possibly annoy them if the reviewing admin is one who expects requesters to have done the research. If, after research or consultation, you are reasonably sure that the draft has addressed the issues that resulted in the blacklisting or salting, then you should request a technical move or an unprotection.

The reviewing instructions should say to research the reasons why the title was salted or blacklisted, and only request action if you have reason to think that the draft addresses the previous issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Article submissions that need reviewing can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is also a useful list which is maintained by a bot.
• You might wish to add {{AFC status}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
• Several of our members monitor an IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect, and you are most welcome to join in.

Once again, welcome to the project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

• UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups

• News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative

• In the news: Foundation plans, David Barton, dangerous occasional glitches

• Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc.

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel

Did you read that article before accepting it? It's not even close to neutral. I sincerely hope you planned to copyedit or rewrite that after accepting. —fetch·comms 00:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I am aware of the lack of neutrality. Thanks for prodding me though fetch! Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No you're right it's horrible... what was I thinking feel free to trout me. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for ally our help on ym userpage and for being a friendly talk page stalker! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

D Thanks I added the Barnstar to my Barnstars page, no worries glad to be of service! Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 02:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

Firstly, welcome to the Wikiproject! A couple of your reviews have popped up on my watchlist, so I'll just give you a little info. You do realize that there is a set of parameters for that template, right? They produce very well-written messages for the submitters. So, my using h|spam there produced a message that was a lot more informative than h|spam/advertising, which you changed it to. If there is more than one reason why the submission is held or declined, use the most important parameter (usually h|v I find), and leave the rest of the information (with links to relevant guidelines!) in an {{afc comment|your comment here}} underneath the template. Also, things like formatting and headings and fixing URLs into {{cite web}} are done by the reviewer, and should not be the main reason for declining or holding something.

All that said, it's great that you're joining us- we desperately do need more reviewers now. Just do keep referring back to the instructions until you're confident of what you're doing. (Also: I made an AFC topicon for myself, you can mod it for your own use if you like.) Cheers, sonia^♫♪ 23:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, will do. I'm still learning the ropes on this WikiProject so please don't be afraid to trout me when necesary. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Sorry if I came across a bit harsh. If you ever need another pair of eyes to look at a submission, my talk page is always open. Regards, sonia^♫♪ 00:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposterous, you were just putting me on the right path :) Thanks Sonia. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One of you just flashed up on Igloo so I thought I'd stick my nose in! There's an excellent script to assist in AfC reviewing (dig it out of my [HJ Mitchell] monobook.js). You can also pinch the template on the top of my talk page that gives yu the status and the number of submissions. :) Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I stole it :P Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That script doesn't work for me... :( But I made myself a non-admin dashboard which I check back to, and added a little script to my JS that gives me a direct link to my dashboard next to the logout link, and it works well for me :) sonia^♫♪ 00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have that script, but mine takes me to the admin dashboard to all the joyous backlogs that need mopping up! Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)LOL, yeah now that you mention it Sonia I can't use the script either... Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Phew, so it's not just me. (Are you getting tired of the orange bar yet? Here on enwiki I don't tend to, but I'm sure HJ does.) @HJ: This is kinda crazy, but sometimes I wish there were backlogs for me to clear. Over on simple IPs can create articles, and yet no test page lasts more than a minute before it's deleted. Most of the time by the time you hit edit to speedy it, it's already gone. It's a little bit annoying at times, actually, because the admins edit-conflict in deleting pages. Quite unlike here. :P sonia^♫♪ 00:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It takes more than an orange bar to annoy me :) Haha sounds fun at Simple Wiki. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhm... Delirium Tremens (band) wasn't ready to get accepted. It has the submitter's signature at the bottom, and would you look at the references! Some are to myspace or Wikipedia, and that's not acceptable. The external links needs to be cleaned up as well. Please, be careful when accepting submissions- they should be of a suitable standard. sonia^♫♪ 09:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

O.o I didn't see them there... I'm REALLLYYYY sorry Sonia :( I can't believe missed obvious mistakes >.> Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 09:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to pile it on, but here's another few that you seem to have made errors on:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jon Bon Jovi Soul Foundation – you identified this as a copyright violation, but did not indicate the source of the material.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SEED INITIATIVE – and again here.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Underwater predation – you declined this as lacking reliable sources. It would appear to have two very good ones.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel – I see that you realised your error in accepting the submission, but you then moved it back to the wrong location. You then missed that it was a clear copyright violation. EarwigBot's report is in the edit history, but even without that (I hadn't noticed it until afterwards) a simple Google search turns up a copy of the original material.

I see that you have really been going to town on the AFC backlog, and I commend your enthusiasm, but please slow down and take a little more care, especially as (by your own acknowledgement) you are still learning the ropes. I've not checked all of your work over the past few hours, but I would highly recommend that you yourself have another look at the articles you've reviewed. If you are unsure if you made a correct decision, reopen the submission or place it on hold and leave a comment for other reviewers. Cheers, AJCham 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Got caught being an idiot again >.> Sorry, I didn't know that cvs had to be reported. I did do the other reviews right though at least. My enthusiasm and big mouth will be the death of me... Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 12:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually forgot to mention the one that most concerned me – Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Early Life. You declined as lacking reliable sources, which fair enough was true, but worse than that the page was a clear BLP violation, something that is taken very seriously; now more than ever.

I'd also be curious to know a couple of things: First, an explanation of the decline reason you gave for Underwater predation as mentioned above. Second, how are you so sure that you reviewed all the others correctly? Your response to me came within 5 minutes – are you saying you double-checked all your contributions from the last several hours in that time? I've only looked over a handful of your reviews and found these 5, so I would reiterate my suggestion that you have another look at them. AJCham 12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes some of the had lack of reputable sources. For example Brilliant Stars was submitted 18 hours or so ago in the mainspace, I moved it then I realisedthe sources used were the school's own website. Underwater predation, not in proper format, lack of reputable sources... oh wait it didn't even have hold time. You know what if I've made more mistakes please feel free to whale or trout me... Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No seriously, I'm asking for an explanation, not a restatement of the decline reason. Why did you feel that the sources for Underwater predation were unreliable? I genuinely would like to know – I'm not an expert on the subject so maybe you know something I don't.

And just so you know (re: this), it didn't even occur to me that you may be making mistakes on purpose – I had no doubts that your intentions were pure, but I fear over-exuberance may have gotten the better of you. Just try to take things a little more slowly for now, and pick up the pace as and when you get used to things. AJCham 12:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it just wasn't sourced properly and it was lacking in information, Yeah you're right, hey I was wondering about my request, think you could teach me or help me improve my user page? Indeed, I should read thngs over more carefully, I do take into consideration what you say but most of the time, if it has no proper sources etc. or lacks information then I just decline if it has been on hold. Or if it is really bad no hold period at all. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 12:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well goodnight, I'll respond to your queries etc tomorrow. Oh and if you could, do you mind signing my Guestbook thanks, Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 12:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from reminding you that you're free to copy any elements from my userpage that you'd like to use, I can't really devote any time to helping you with yours. I would also recommend searching the web for CSS tutorials, as that should be a great help – and of course the Help pages here for advanced wiki-syntax. AJCham 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, it is not necessary to notify me every time you reply. Now that we've engaged in ongoing discussion I am watching your talk page so I'm already aware of any responses. AJCham 12:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, just in case. Righto then thanks! Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Talky

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at Amorymeltzer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at Amorymeltzer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 13:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Delirium Tremens (band)

Why did you 'accept' this, make it live, and then move it back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Delirium Tremens (band)?

It has no header now, so it would not be reviewed again. Chzz  ►  14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sonia told me I had made a mistake, when I made it live I removed the afc tag, it's back now. I'll refrain from stupid mistakes for the moment. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SteelPath

I have provided some cleanup here- could you please re-review and let me know whether you think it is ready for the mainspace? J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Alternate.
Message added 00:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your requests for rights at flaggedrevs and liquidthreads

We give out the admin bit pretty liberally at both wikis, but the fact that you've requested 'crat as well gives me pause. Why would you need crat rights on a test wiki? Rights are given out to people who need them, not just because you can have them. I have given you (somewhat tentatively) administrator rights on both wikis. We've had a few people desysopped for just playing around, so do remember that both wikis are for testing of their functions, not for trying out admin buttons (especially not the block button). Cheers, sonia^♫♪ 04:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to test out the interface differences between MediaWiki and Wikidot, since MediaWiki in my opinion is superior. But hey if you feel sysop is enough by all means. :D Cheers Sonia, Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

How will being a crat help you do that? If you have a reason that will help with testing of LQT, by all means I'll flag you. Let me know. sonia^♫♪ 04:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well interface primarily, I'll do what I will as admin, scratch that request. I'll request when I have good reason for it rather than just the interface differences. Anyway cheers again, Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 05:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Abuse_response/Nominate.
Message added 12:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TechEssentials

Hey, thanks for your message, just to let you know I replied here. Mlpearc powwow 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Hey there. I saw a request for protection of your user pages on WP:RFPP, but it wasn't signed. I tried to see if it was you that requested the protection, but since my laptop is, well, not the best, I couldn't track it down. Let me know if you still would like the semi protection of your user page. Jmlk17 20:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia

Hi Fridae,

I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. I hope that you continue to maintain your positive and willing attitude in helping improve WP. Regarding your Abuse Reponse project nomination, we have unfortunately had to decline your nomination. This is not because the quality of your contributions are lacking; on the contrary, you are an excellent contributor thus far. Investigating IP address is a very technically intensive task and I would suggest gaining more experience in this area, then re-apply. Thanks again.   Thorncrag  23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mandy Gonzalez

I've spent loads of time fixing AFC things, so forgive me ranting - I know others have complained above.

Another one just occurred, where a new user entered the help channel asking why Mandy Gonzalez was declined.

It should not have been; it had sources to NY Times, Playbill, Broadway.com and BroadwayWorld.com.

Please check over the other AFCs you may have done.

I appreciate your acceptance of the feedback above, but please - save me more time - and check over them. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

...and another. Another user complaining about how their submission was declined. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bloginity Networks - "nothing was interesting" is not constructive feedback to new users.  Chzz  ►  15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The article wasn't very informative. I didn't screw up all of them, I'm doing better the only problem was that a lot of the bloody articles used blogspot as a source. HOW ON EARTH is Blogspot verifiable and notable? Five articles were copyvios which I checked and I had subsequently reported the userbbs. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

• News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia

• In the news: Wikimania, Former Wikimedia employee looks back, Editing controversial articles

• Vandalism: Vandalism edits fool media and a government, become object of bets

• WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

KwikMed Page

Greetings,

Thanks so much for reviewing my page. I see there is a hold due to the references section but I am not sure how to correct the problem. How should I correct the problem?

Thanks so much!

JenSmith27 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)JenSmith27

Hi again,

If anyone is reading this and might be able to give me some feedback on my page so that it can be approved I would be very grateful. Not sure where Fridae's Doom is but I noticed it says I have 24 hours to make changes and I am quickly approaching that without a response. It says something about the references section and the page being jumbled but I have so far had no feed back that suggests how I may fix this.. Thanks!!! :)

JenSmith27(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC).

Ahem

Your work at AFC has been less than helpful (from viewing the threads on your talk page above related to it). Especially here. No one quite really cares if you've heard of a subject. You might familiarize yourself with the reviewing instructions before you continue your work there. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Your enthusiasm is commendable! But I think it would be appropriate to be a little more conservative with the "decline" button. Many of the articles you've declined look like reasonable article stubs and should probably not be rejected out of hand. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Village Siswala is not very notable, I mean an electrical engineer and a management student do not make it a notable place. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, hold. And remember that this isn't about us, it's about them- new contributors to Wikipedia in many cases. We have the responsibility to give them an acceptable and detailed reason why their article can't be accepted, and to work with them to improve it if it can at all be salvaged. Please remember that and tread carefully. sonia^♫♪ 01:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was only following the article policies :/ perhaps I was being a bit too harsh. Village Siswala however definitely WAS NOT notable. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 01:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Siswala may not be notable, but it's not relevant whether you personally have heard of the village or anybody from it. That comment is a source of concern in the context of AfC.

There are other declined articles for "lack of sources" that appear to be well sourced:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Al Agnew American naturalist painter - declined for lack of sources despite what appear to be several reliable independent sources
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Megan Rye - ditto
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Fiske Whitney

Tim Pierce (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Some were changed after I declined them, in fact there were some articles that other reviewers declined that the authors had replaced the Pending AfC Tags on. I admit my mistakes but at least it wasn't as big a screw up as last time. They had sources like blogspot. About 80% of my decisions were correct at the time. So please also check the history log. But yes thanks all for telling me my mistakes. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

C Ebner

Hello,

I'm trying to complete this post and have my article accepted, but obviously having problems with doing it correctly. I don't know if I am just inept at this, or if I'm not looking in the right places for help. The person I am submitting about is a well known author and journalist. I'm confused, can you help me with edits? Or is that not something you do? I would really like to get this published on Wikipedia ASAP, as I have been trying to get it done for quite some time.

Thank you C Ebner (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)C Ebner

I am new to Wiki - just submitted my first article Megan Rye - which was defined as sub quality. Being new to this process - I thought I had carefully done a lot of research.

I am hard pressed to find anything that I wrote that wasn't verified in the independent press - on several occasions more than once.

The only thing that might be "contentious" is the sentences talking about future exhibitions. If I remove this - I think everything else is extremely well sourced.

Please let me know if I am overlooking anything else??

Thank you,

rachelgregor2010@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelgregor (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello...

Hi,

Sorry to keep bugging you, I would just really like to get my article going and since you have put it on hold I have been trying to reach you to see what I can do to remedy the situation.

I also have made revisions and still have not heard anything...

Done. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much FD :) Only one question, I looked over the rating system and noticed that for C class one of the main issues is unreliable sources, I have cited the Wall Street Journal, several .gov sites with official documents, USA today,a published study straight from the mayo clinic. I thought these were all pretty credible sources. Please let me know your thought on this as I would love to improve this as much as possible.

Replied. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

New tool: ACH

You might be interested in a tool that I am making - WP:ACH. As of now, I'm still making it, but let me know if you want to test it. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 08:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at A930913's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hastings

See your DYK nom on Hastings. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Megan Rye article

Hello - I wrote you a few days ago on your talk page. I am not trying to be difficult - rather this is the first wiki article I have written.

Please specifically let me know which items were not verified by a third party source. I think ALL of my article has been sourced by reputable media. With the exception of two sentences regarding future exhibits. I asked you a few days ago - if these sentences regarding future exhibits are removed - will it then be acceptable?

Again, I just need more feedback.

Thank you, Rachelgregor (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello - I see your comments on my talk page. I am not sure why forumgallery.com isn't a reliable source.

I was following the example of Wiki entry Marc Handelman - another artist, and the top external link for his entry is similarly the NYC gallery that represents his work.

It would be easy to delete Guernicamag as a link.

And in the body of my entry - Marya Hornbacher - has been a wiki entry for a long time - is this considered an internal link?

Thank you, Rachelgregor (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted because the button was closest by and was most fitting. Your actions here, IMO, were highly objectional. The article looks fine and should have been brought to AFD with your concerns. Formatting is not a criterion in AFC publication. Sincerely, Blurpeace 23:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You've clearly had some trouble with article reviewing at AFC before (just based on the scroll up). Maybe you'd like to join us on IRC? Ping me (Blurpeace) if I'm online when you get on. Blurpeace 23:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't get on IRC, yes but I don't see how Guernica Magazine and Forum Gallery were good sources. I'm being too harsh and too ignorant... often at the same time. IRC is blocked on my laptop by the NSW DET so I can only use it Friday-Sunday. Thank you all for dealing with me so long and for giving me an elongated first chance :) I appreciate it. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DirectHit

You declined an "Article for creation" for DirectHit because you said it was "unsourced or contains only unreliable sources" - in fact, it had many excellent sources, such as The Lancet and many other scholarly publications; just because the author has not formatted things quite correctly is not a good decline reason. Please could you check other submissions that you declined; if we can salvage these articles - ie if they are not 'speedy deletion' type material - then it is worth trying to fix them, or at least asking the originator to fix them, rather than declining. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  13:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Right gotcha, well in most cases the starter of the articles hadn't had activity beyond creation of the articles, in a few instances I had to report one to UAA because they made an article about themselves in AfC which I failed to catch when I put it on hold. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the UAA, but I did not understand that either; you reported Ranjani Shettar (talk · contribs), who does not exist - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ranjani Shettar was written by Talwar108 (talk · contribs).  Chzz  ►  03:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Erh.... this isn't the first time I made a mistake like this... I need better glasses, I miss this and that and then this goes missing that gets moved augh I'll refrain from AfCs until I can get this all sorted out. Remember if you need to click the trout at the top. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 03:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of DirectHit at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Pgallert (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fridae'sDoom, thanks for improving this article. There are further comments from me and others that need to be addressed, see Did You Know nominations page. On a personal note, such a large and importunate "stop" sign for people editing your talk page might give the impression that you do not want to communicate. --Pgallert (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please sign... LOL then I wouldn't have this many messages. Ok. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 00:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fridae'sDoom, I see you have replaced the scientific hocus-pocus with a statement that is easier readable. Unfortunately that's now not a reliable source and will be rejected at DYK -- press releases are generally not well received.

My "Requesting second opinion" has unfortunately been ignored at DYK. Could you maybe put both sources (the gibberish and the press release) to the DYK hook statement and ask at WP:MEDICINE if someone would be willing to check the hook? --Pgallert (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok done. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WW2History.com

A decline reason needs to give the new user feedback, on the problems with their article and either a) how they can fix it, or b) why it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

In this one, for example, you put "Per hold >24 hours" - the new user has only made one edit, and probably has not been back yet, so far; when they get back, that message would be no use to them.

I changed that one to 'web'.  Chzz  ►  19:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/US Universities Debating Championships is similar, see this edit.  Chzz  ►  19:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aberdeen Student Show

In the hold reason, you put "Same source used three times".

Please, look at any (probably every) featured article, where the same sources are used many, many times. Chzz  ►  19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DirectHit

I've moved this into a DYK prep queue, but before it goes on the main page you need to properly format those first 5 refs, which are currently bare URLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

See response on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent thoughts

Hello Fridae'sDoom, You have been the subject of criticism based upon some of your recent actions. While I agree it is warranted, I preface any comments with the pronouncement that it is offered with the earnest hope that it will allow you to improve your-own efforts on Wikipedia. Much of what I might have said has already been said by others, whereas it is just as valid having been said by them. What is left for me to say is I think your intentions are completely honorable. If anything your zeal, which is otherwise a good attribute, is bordering upon over zealousness. From that perspective, a good intention can produce an unintended result. The first thing you should ensure is that you are accurate in your own counsel. These new users are depending on the information you provide, and when you assume the roll of an adviser, it is incumbent on you to have learned that which you intend to teach. One of the best ways to progress is to ask questions. If you think perhaps a source is unreliable, ask a member of the community for an opinion. By doing this you will become more proficient yourself and be that much less likely to con-volute a policy or guideline. For example you speak of "notable sources". Notability is a criteria the subject of an article must meet. Sources need only be reputable and free from editorial influence by the subject. Some facts are perfectly permissible coming from a primary source as well. So, I imagine we can move forward with that, and I look forward to seeing your future interactions. Happy editing. My76Strat 23:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood, in regards to my over zealousness I've stopped that, I'll give them websites to use but in doing that I shouldn't put articles on hold or decline them if they don't have very reliable, verifiable and notable third-party sources. I check the sources I put the first paragraph into Google search, if it returns as a copyvio (if the text is mostly bolded) I'll blank the article. I'm not doing anything wrong per se, just being too harsh in not giving the new guys some help. Right, not too zealous or harsh... but being overly nice is just flamboyant and pretentious. Right, thanks. If I can I'll join your IRC channel so that I can get help. Thanks again. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for J. Woodland Hastings

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for DirectHit

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

IP Block at my School

All righty. I inferred from your last message that you're up and running again. If it turns out I've misunderstood, please just give me a ring (or post an unblock request if necessary!). If I hear nothing further, I'll assume all's well. Best of luck! - Vianello (Talk) 04:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. - Vianello (Talk) 04:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cardiff School of Art & Design

You declined this [3] despite the fact that the user had added reliable sources (as requested) with this edit.

It seems fine as a start-off article, to me, and I accepted it.  Chzz  ►  13:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, sorry about that I really need to join your IRC channel. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

• News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news

• In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade

• WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Hi Fridae'sDoom, I noticed that your signature (eg. here) links to a User:FD, even though you're logged in as User:Fridae'sDoom. While redirects of course work, I think it would be less misleading if you'd change it to point here directly. After all, it's not obvious that the two accounts are the same before one actually clicks on the link. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's to shorten my signature length in case I want to add more markup. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And here you go!

My motto to live by on Wikipedia...Don't shut the door too quickly.

---

Today's motto: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

---

October 4's motto of the day: () Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 4, 2024

Thanks :D Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I've got about 6 tabs open in FF to try to help. My question is. What do you want done on the userpage? What is it that you need help with? I'm gone from 20:00 UTC today to August 15 about the same time. I can help out until about 18:00 today. Mr. R00t ^Talk 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

GAN

I have reviewed Shanghai here; I note you have no proper experience writing the page, and the same with George Washington. While that isn't required for a nomination, it is helpful to have some idea at the content, and for that matter to look at the good article criteria. The article on Shanghai is completely not up to spec, and shouldn't be allowed near DYK let alone GAN. Could you make sure to ensure that a) you can competently fix any problems that come up and b) that the article isn't a bombsite before nominating articles in future? Ironholds (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, in line with your failure to even respond to my message (let alone actually correct the article you wasted my time on by nominating) I'm going to quickfail it in the next 24 hours. Do let me know if you decide to actually follow up on the responsibilities you voluntarily took over. Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I unfortunately have limited access to the net right now since my dad is switching our landlines so I can only use my brother's net, I apologise if I wasted your time since that was unintentional, I should have requested peer review and so I take full responsibility for stupidity on my part. Apologies again. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)