User talk:Timtrent

Messages for Fiddle Faddle and for Timtrent should be left here. This is the home account for Fiddle Faddle, which is both my nickname and my alternate acocunt. When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. When I leave message on your Talk page, I will watch your page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity. See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. If you want to use {{Talkback}} to alert me about messages elsewhere, please feel free to do so.

It is 11:07 PM where this user lives. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day they may well not be online

I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (0.9 probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there.

Defense Acquisition Program Administration(DAPA)

The article has been successfully created by your review/tagging. I really do appreciate your help. Judeyoungw (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A little weak

I'm in complete agreement with you on the issue at hand, but it's a somewhat weak argument to tell people that if their work was notable someone would have already created an article on it. There's lots of potentially notable stuff we don't have articles on yet. Gigs (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I did mention I was somewhat tetchy Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

References were not up to par

Hi there, thank you so much for looking over my article. I've updated it with more notable and reputable references. Can you please stop by and take a look at them when you have a moment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VT_M%C3%84K Thanks again for your help!

SimSoftRules (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@SimSoftRules: one of the strongest points of the reviewer system is that we try very hard never to review the same article more than once if we can help it. In that way the acceptance of an article is strengthened. May I suggest that, after the significant work you have done, work I appreciate, you resubmit it and see what other reviewers have to say? Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Advice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Murgitroyd_%26_Company The note that you left about the organisation being "somewhat ordinary" I find a little odd. Particularly when, on searching similar organisations on Wikipedia, their pages don't seem to be any more notable than the one I am writing about e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mewburn_Ellis. However, I appreciate everyone is entitled to an opinion. I am very new to this (first article) and I find such flippant and unhelpful comments very off-putting.

You recently declined my article on the basis that the references were not suitable and I would be very grateful of some advice from a seasoned writer and checker of articles on how to rectify this. I have read and re-read the various Wikipedia pages on reliable sources etc and have looked at other pages to see how their references differ but my article is still being declined despite amendments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurgitroydBDGroup (talk • contribs) 14:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@MurgitroydBDGroup: References must be significant coverage in WP:RS. Directories do not achieve this at all, the merely give evidence that a thing exists. We need to see what others have said about the organisation, not what it says about itself. Directory entries tend to be self created by the organisation..

I did not say t was ordinary. I said it was presented as somewhat ordinary. The difference is quite large. One essay that may help you is User:Timtrent/A good article which gives you a serious background on article creation.

Develop a thicker skin. Mine is so thick that I don't give a damn when you describe my review comments as flippant, but you may think yourself lucky that I have even bothered to answer you after that. Note. also, that other poor articles are not a reason to accept a poor one. You seem to be involved in WP:COI editing, and need to stop doing that anyway. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

New article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Ratinoff - can I remove tags if I addressed them?

Thanks for your help in getting my article up and running!

I addressed most of the issues in the tags (still need a better reference for the consulting attorney to the Mexican consulate portion), so is it OK to remove those tags or am I supposed to leave them up for some reason? I removed the header "notable cases" and combined that section with "civil practice", added a link back from Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff and added this to the lawyers category. I will continue to update with more relevant sources as they appear.

Appreciate your help! Taryndejesus (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Taryndejesus: If you are sure you have addressed issues it is always right to remove tags. We are all 100% responsible for our own work, something unusual in life, normal here. It takes a bit of getting used to! Fiddle Faddle 06:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable References

Timtrent:

I am so sorry - I inadvertently submitted the following under someone else's section. I am new to this (not an expert). My sincerest apologies to all. Chschurch2014 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Craig Brown

Dear Timtrent:

Thank you for your review and response regarding the article for submission/creation for Christ Holy Sanctified Church (CHSC). Initially I was somewhat disappointed, but after a few moments, I am basically confused to your comments that the article does not have "reliable" sources.

It is true that a good portion of the information is from the organization's archives; however, there are other sources from reliable third parties such as published books, journals, artifacts housed at the the Center for Urban Black Studies in (Berkeley, California), newspaper articles, etc. that were published without any interest/influence from CHSC. I also reviewed other like (Pentecostal) organizations on Wikipedia and found they too have very few, if any, "reliable" sources. In fact, the organization in which CHSC separated from in the early 1900s has little, if any third party sources and their article has been published/accepted on Wikipedia. Of course, you would know this as you have done your research. I won't start giving you a list of other organizations unless you feel it would be advantageous to your review for comparison.

I feel strongly about having this article published and I will, at the recommendation of Wikipedia, begin a dialogue/chat with the Help Desk. I know that you and the other reviewers have thousands of articles on your plate and your comments and suggestions in helping getting this article approved are very appreciated. However, as I stated earlier, I am confused as to how other organizations have their articles published with fewer or no "reliable" sources.

Thank you and I trust my response is value added in bringing this to a -positive resolve.

Warmest regards, Chschurch2014 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Craig Brown

@Chschurch2014: With the article in this state it will not ever go live. Note that we also deprecate conflicts of interest. Read WP:RS regarding reliable sources, please, and understand it. The positive resolution will be when you tear down the puffery in the article and stick to facts. I do not say this to deprecate nor denigrate the church, nor your work, You just need to understand Wikipedia and what it requires. Your string feelings will achieve your goal, once you work out what the article needs, something you have strong cue for. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Just had lots of dialogue with the folks in chat - interesting. I am creating a new user so as not to confuse anyone on who I am with respect to the organization. I was unaware that the user - chschurch2014 - was not allowed. One of the chat persons said I was "tagged" for submitting the article and that I may have violated copyright rules? I will perform due diligence to make certain all of the third party references are in tact. I was a little deflated today but I am not one to quit. I just needed to know where the lines in the sand are. The article was created as a "jump start" to what was to be a forum for many other contributions and not as self-promoting or biased. As I am half the age of the organization, my intent was (and still is) to make aware the many world-wide contributions the organization has had to neo-Pentecostalism as, not only recorded internally but, recorded, published, and archived by others outside of the organization. I inferred some of the comments made in the chat-room of being (simi) self-promoting or hiding behind a name that was ultimately referencing the organization but all I was inquiring on was how to get the article submitted. Anyway, forward we march.

Thank you, Timtrent. BTW, my new user name is "jdtimberland" - my name is Craig Brown; I am a US Citizen and live in Los Angeles, CA. I am not a terrorist and I pay my taxes (smile - just a little humor).

Chschurch2014 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Craig Edwin Brown, the 8th Presiding Bishop and President of CHSC.

@Chschurch2014: Hi Craig. Looking forward to your editing under your new username. Wikipedia has many rules. Everyone is expcect to know them from the get go. This is, of course, impossible. So we learn as fast as we can and even experienced editors make mistakes. Those who make big errors at the start usually turn into our best editors.

If you read up on WP:COPYRIGHTS you will see that you are, with the permission of the copyright owner, able to use copyright material that has been released to Wikipedia and beyiond. Be aware that this is a major step since it grants a perpetual licence to use the material and for it to be published under WIkipedia;s licencing, licencing which allows onwards usage. But, please be clear, the tone of many organisation's copyright material is not often "Wikipedia suitable" (0.9 probability)

This is not a gentle place. The encyclopaedia anyone can edit is also a very challenging place to work. The hardest part is being able to write about something you are associated with in a neutral manner. It can be done, but it is hard as can be to achieve. Being deflated is upsetting for you and for me. We, I, do our, my, best to review articles to a high standard, but we are short of time and with a woefully huge backlog. A good review will pretty much only contain criticisms and negative aspects that have been found. After all, it is these that require correction. So please take my and other reviewers' comments seriously, but never, not ever, personally

The only thing to take personally on WIkipedia is praise.

That needed a new line, just to say it clearly.

Now, to work. Remove the (potential) copyright violations at once. I have moved the article to the Draft: namespace which will open up the Talk page. There is an automatic redirect, so you will still find it easily from the old title. If you wish, instead of tearing down the copyright violations (the Church website makes no mention of copyright so the wording is, de facto, copyright) follow the process to submit a request to Wikipedia via WP:OTRS and deploy {{OTRS pending}} on the talk page. Do follow 100% of the instructions

When you submit the article again for acceptance/review my hope is that another reviewer still will review it for you. This gives the best advice to you, even if that advice can sometimes be hard to receive. If you ask me to specifically I will review it again, but I often feel I stand too close to review the same article twice and be effective. Did I suggest you read User:Timtrent/A good article? I can't recall, but it is a useful read.

May I offer one piece of advice? It is the hardest to achieve when one is involved with the organisation itself. I challenge you to achieve it. "Less truly is more with articles on WIkipedia." Be ruthless and cut, cut, cut. then cut again. Ot is the only way to achieve WP:NPOV with an article of this nature and with this current content. The people you have been chatting to for help will confirm that (0.9 probability). Good luck and good editing. Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, while I understand that you mention other articles as being lacking in their sources, that is an argument for improving those, not for lowering the quality of yours. It is a strange fact that all Wikipedia articles stand alone on their own merits. No article is allowed to set a precedent for any other. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent - First, please know that I am truly grateful to you for your candor. You are a professional at what you do, as I am at what I do; therefore, you demand the highest standards, regardless of who enters into the arena. Please know, the reason I did not consider the information I submitted as copyright infringement is because, 7, 10, 12 years ago - before I was in the position with the organization I presently am, I wrote/edited the information that I presented for other organization publications/presentations including work on my research projects and thesis on denomination/organization polity for other religious groups. And other articles regarding the organization are compiled from other sources, which I have cited - hopefully correctly for Wikipedia. So, it was somewhat awkward hearing that I was perhaps violating my own essays/thesis.

But, you have shinned a light in that, there are so many able, qualified individuals that perhaps should write the article from a more "distant" point of view. I would want to know that, however the article is presented, whether I "jump-start" and clean up the "puffery" (is that what I was told - smile?), and that we will not be looking over our shoulders; we don't want to be in the category of those, as you have stated, "Lacking in their sources," or "Lowering the quality." I think I understand how other articles I referenced perhaps made it through Wikipedia in that, once the article was initially approved, other editors (users?) contributed, from their viewpoint, or perhaps they copied from published material, manuals, etc.

Again, thank you for your time and I do feel rejuvenated after reading your responses. Even with your busy schedule, you took the time to walk with me through this. We will make this work according to the standards/polices that are in place and, if anything was done unknowingly to violate those policies, consider them as rookie mistakes. I think you would agree, Wikipedia has a maze of "dos and don'ts" and how to, when to...Personally, I get lost navigating through all of the links and pages. We'll brush ourselves of and get right back on the horse under the new username.

Take care, my friend. We'll check in with you every now and again.

Best regards, Chschurch2014 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Craig Brown (the writer "formerly known as chschurch2014")

@Chschurch2014: I'm glad your spirits are improved. At any time you need help there are editors who monitor the "queue for help" here. All you need to do is to place {{Helpme}} on your talk page, link to the article (if any) you need help with, and ask your precise question. In a surprisingly short time you will receive an answer.

Copyright is interesting. As the writer of words, even the words you have written to me here, you have, at once, de facto, created their copyright status. Pressing 'save page' grants Wikipedia the licence to use them on its own terms. See just above that button: "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." When you wrote words published on the church website their copyright status is yours. It is probable that your spirit of generosity towards the church meant you never entered into an explicit licencing agreement with the body. We do not do that when we work out of altruism. Thus it may be that you have granted an irrevocable licence to the church (while retaining your copyright) or it may be that you have donated your copyright to the church. Your local laws are the arbiter of that.

Wikipedia must assume two things:

1. The site on which the words appear is the copyright owner unless stated differently (words created are always copyright even if never published. A child's private diary is copyright of that child)
2. Because we do not and can not know who you are, that you are 'just anybody' and have no right to licence copyright material to Wikipedia

Thus the OTRS system was created, for folk to be able to donate copyright material, and to prove that it has been done by the (apparent) copyright owner.

There are two hurdles to step over for an article to be accepted into Wikipedia.

• Notability, which must exist, though is sometimes hard to define. Is a church notable? Some are awful, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, but they are notable. I have a friend who has a church in his front parlour, and holds gatherings every Monday. He is a good man. His church is not notable.
• Verifiability, something that is much easier to define, because it is established by the seeing and referencing of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. A very few Primary Sources are allowed to verify matters that can not appear in other sources, but this is still deprecated, because references are intended to demonstrate notability. If a fact cannot have a reference in reliable sources, is it a fact to include?

If your article is about an organisation that meets these two remarkably stringent criteria, not only will it be accepted, it will be likely to survive even being nominated for future deletion. This is why we suggest that new editors opt for the WP:AFC route - to jump those hurdles before someone suggests summary deletion. It is far better to fight the positive battle for acceptance than to need to defend against deletion.

I take time when an editor challenges me and a review. It is important to do so. Others differ in their approach. I'm glad you asked me to clarify things. I hope I have, at least somewhat, achieved that. Fiddle Faddle 08:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent, You are the "master" - I am the student. I have some more research to do on Wikipedia's library of help articles, such as copyright and AFC. I know, without a doubt, that we will meet "verifiability" and "notability" and, as you said, it's best to jump these hurdles now rather than worrying about surviving a summary deletion later on. Honestly, it was rather interesting in the chat because it seemed as if I was a lawyer going before the Supreme Court attempting to defend a case. I didn't feel disrespectfully attacked, but a couple of the editors let me know (in so many words) that I was in "their world". But, I'm a big boy - I enjoyed the dialogue; they weren't as thorough in the explanations are you were. They were a tiny bit, "curt" - but I understand.

You gave a great lesson regarding copyrighted material and, yes, I basically donated my written material to the organization without knowledge. But that's okay. One thing is for sure, I will really review referencing to make certain I have everything properly formatted. I know the basic MLA format but I admit, I may have been a tad bit lazy - I used other articles on Wikipedia (no excuse) versus following the guidelines.

Now Tim, one last thing: why are you so hard on Westboro and your friend's parlor church? I had to pick myself off of the floor you are hilarious.

Be safe

Chschurch2014 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)jdtimberland (Craig Brown/chschurch2014)

@Chschurch2014: I am but a couple of pages ahead of you in the manual, my friend. I call you that because that is how I perceive you. One may never have too many friends. I do not embrace religion, but I respect those who do, with the caveat that they must also be what is generally accepted as a decent person.

As you have seen, quality of referencing is vital. We have all the time in the world for the article to be improved. You need to treat Wikipedia as the least important part of your life, and work gently yet diligently on the article.

Ah, the Phiendish Phelps clan is self evident. To be fair, it is great to know where the bigots live. One would really have to invent them if they did not exist already.They are, at least, true to their misguided principles. I, by contrast, take heart from those who say that their god never makes mistakes. If that is the truth then every human being is as their god intended. I rather wish certain people had not been made they way they were, and that Herr and Frau Hitler had not decided it was a great idea to make a baby, but that is what they did, and many folk died. Who could be hard on a man whose sabbath seems to be on a monday! He is a little on the batshit crazy side of the line, but he's a decent man at the same time. Don't get me started on scientologists, though!

I am pretty sure that your church meets the notability and verifiability criteria. The hurdle you face then is the tone. This is why I suggest a severe pruning as well. Fiddle Faddle 22:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Message from UeharaKaori

Dear Timtrent,

Thank you for reviewing my article and Im new here. Can I just delete all the items that you did not approve and left all the approved information in order to get approved easier? Since I don't know how I can retrieve all the information or where to find it because some of the information might be too old. Please advise.

Take care,

Kaori — Preceding unsigned comment added by UeharaKaori (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent,

Can I send all the newspaper/articles to you to get approval for my article? It is because most of them are in Chinese newspapers but I am not sure you can retrieve those newspapers or not. On the internet, most of them are from YouTube videos. Please advise.

Take care,

UeharaKaori P.S. About the article: Dan Liu — Preceding unsigned comment added by UeharaKaori (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@UeharaKaori: Please send me no references. This is teaching you to fish instead of giving you a fish. Please remove the Youtube references, and please attempt to replace them with WP:RS references. You need to read up on the topic, understand it, and then use that knowledge to improve your referencing

I suggest you read User:Timtrent/A good article to get to grips with some of the things that you need to achieve

I am not the sole arbiter of acceptance we are many. Please ask others. Their opinions and mine will differ, though be similar. Consult widely. If you need help the very best can be foiund by deploying {{Helpme}} on your own talk page, linking to the draft article and asking your question. ANother great place is the Teahouse. WP:Teahouse will get you there. Fiddle Faddle 22:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Timtrent! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UeharaKaori (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Old article

Any thoughts on User_talk:MBisanz#SwissCommunity.org_-_Deletion_Review? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@MBisanz: I came to your talk page, wishing to comment. I imagine you came here because I was involved in some manner in the deletion, but I cannot recall the article at all, nor can I read sufficient German to determine anything from the links that have been provided. MIght I suggest that a pragmatic suggestion might be to suggest the Draft: userspace to the editor, and the AfC submission route? Fiddle Faddle 07:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to do!

Hi I had submitted an afc called National centre For Excellence but for the past 2 consecutive attempts the problem was " Not reliable sources ". I have surfed the net for reliable source for my afc and i have listed all of the ones I got. Help please. link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/National_Centre_For_Excellence Thank you, Sincerely, Rahul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talk • contribs) 10:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rahulmdinesh: The internet is not the only source. However, since this is a current organisation it is likely, if it is notable, that sources of information exist. Please read User:Timtrent/A good article to start to get information about what you need to do. The organisation needs to have had significant independent coverage in WP:RS in order to pass Wikipedia's notability threshold, so you need to research these sources. There is, or ought to be, a find sources link on one of the boxes that declined the article. No sources = no notability

Asking for help at WP:Teahouse is an excellent approach. May I suggest that you do that after you have followed my advice in my previous paragraph. It is always better to ask a question when one understands the things that are required. Another way of getting help, usually for specific technical things, is to deploy {{Helpme}} on your own talk page, link to the article you need help with below the Helpme item and ask the question, the precise question, you would like answered. Surprisingly quickly a knowledgeable editor will answer you. Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

MFD The Patriach (etc)

User Louise Goueffic/ Hello TimTrent, This is the message sent by AlexYiefling "Delete - The article is unsalvageable. This is for four reasons: (1) It's self-promotion of an idea whose sole notability is due to the author's own publication. (2) It's not written in anything resembling encyclopedic style, and the author's many, many edits to it show no sign of getting it any closer. (3) It's not about any actual thing external to the author's own esoteric conception of feminism. (4) Much of it is positively disprovable, especially the bits about etymology. I am insufficient of an expert to rebut other parts of it, but the author appears excessively fond of word games of the kind that would recast 'history' as 'herstory', in apparent ignorance of the fact that the 'histor-' stem long predates 'his' as a possessive pronoun. I endorse the opinion given recently on Twitter - I forget by whom, alas - that such tricksy language games are deeply colonialist, treating the entire world as though it speaks, and has always spoken, modern English. The author in this case is so afraid of the word 'woman' that she uses the neologism 'fem' instead throughout. This just isn't the way anyone - even other feminist authors - uses the English language. I'm all for critiques of patriarchy, but (A) this one is just dreadful and (B) this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a publishing house. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)"

1, I fail to see the "self-promotion" I don't "sell" books. I am an educator. I have a profound passion for facts. 2, I write in as neutral a voice as possible and try to write in the encyclopedic style. 3, This is not even a "feminist" article, let alone esoteric. It is about names - all external. 4, Disprovable: much of it is self-evident, much of it is about logic, much is about 'what's right' etc. It is not a "word game" ALL, 100% of the names discussed are in dictionaries. 5, He isolated 'history' to make a nonsensical comment - the accusation of colonialism! 6, I show, not tell, that (wo) man is a false name 7, I show, not tell, that "fem" was a name before long before woman was coined, it is not a neologism Woman is the "neologism"! In fact, all symbols started off as "neologisms" He shows me that he has no knowledge of what 'language' really is. There is so much bad attitude towards what is in my article that I suspect his motives. This is not a comment or critique, it is an attack because he does not like what is being discussed. I always accept any and all good criticism. LouiseGouefficLouise Goueffic (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Louise Goueffic: Now the article is listed for deletion discussion it is very important that you comment there, ay the deletion discussion. Commenting to me is interesting, but not relevant to the draft's success of failure to be retained. When you comment there you need to treat it with complete focus. Focus on the areas where the nomination and the comments state that the article lacks things. Comment by comparing what you have done to procedures, policies and guidelines. Above all, do not attack other editors. His motives are his motives Your motives are your motives, my motives are my motives, but criticising them is not ever going to achieve a positive result for you.

Now, allow me to address your numbered points before, I hope, you recreate the same discussion in the MFD discussion and get shot down:

1, I fail to see the "self-promotion" I don't "sell" books. I am an educator. I have a profound passion for facts.
>You have a huge conflict of interest It is thus self promotion. You are selling yourself as educator.

2, I write in as neutral a voice as possible and try to write in the encyclopedic style.
>Perhaps, but it is still not appropriate for Wikipedia

3, This is not even a "feminist" article, let alone esoteric. It is about names - all external.
> No-one cares. We care about WP:N. This appears to have none

4, Disprovable: much of it is self-evident, much of it is about logic, much is about 'what's right' etc. It is not a "word game" ALL, 100% of the names discussed are in dictionaries.
> I have no idea what you are talking about. However, your article is so off course as to be unsalvageable

5, He isolated 'history' to make a nonsensical comment - the accusation of colonialism!
> So what? You even misunderstand mothering and fathering.

6, I show, not tell, that (wo) man is a false name
> It is not for you to show, nor to tell. Wikipedia does not care

7, I show, not tell, that "fem" was a name before long before woman was coined, it is not a neologism Woman is the "neologism"! In fact, all symbols started off as "neologisms"
> See my answer to 6, above.

You are using Wikipedia incorrectly in my view and in other people's view, and you do not take input on board (evidence is your continuing to plough your lone furrow despite advaice). Please desist.

Please do not blast a comment at the head of my talk page. When you need to make a new section please make a new section.

Now, please visit and contribute to the deletion discussion. My talk page is not the place becaiuse it will have no effect at all. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it ok now?

Hi Timtrent,

I have resubmitted my

Afc 'National centre for excellence'. Please do check it and i have tried putting all the Times of India articles in the sources main.

Thank you, Sincerely, Rahul