User talk:Dclemens1971

Spaceship House DYK

Hello! Your submission of Spaceship House at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Facinating article, by the way! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hi Dclemens1971.Hope you are doing well. Thanks to you for reviewing my articles Telecom Equipment Manufacturers Association and Ravi Sharma (philanthropist) and sharing your feedback. If you observe my contribution in Wikipedia,you will feel writing and contributing in Wikipedia on notable people,things,events etc from the beginning is of my interest and I work to promote Wikipedia in general interest of world wide public. I request you in future not to demotivate editors on your personal views. I thank you also on suggesting on Conflict of Interest guidelines of Wikipedia. Gardenkur (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gardenkur I do not understand what you are trying to say here; your English is insufficiently clear. It seems that you are concerned that I have reviewed some of your articles. The reason I have nominated some of your articles for deletion is that they do not meet standards of notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. However, even your articles on notable topics struggle with English proficiency. For example, the sentence Borewell Deaths in India as per National Disaster Response Team records between 2009 to 2019 is 40 as many go unrecorded with the country having 27 million borewells on Child borewell deaths in India is not close to standard English prose and could be misinterpreted in multiple ways. On Indian Maritime Day, Indian Maritime Day is commemorated on April 5 as navigation history was created on this day in year 1919, when the first ship of The Scindia Steam Navigation Company Limited, SS Royalty, sailed to United Kingdom which was a significant step in country's shipping history, as Britishers used to control the shipping routs involves non-standard spelling and the confusing phrase "navigation history was created". I could offer more examples, but your many contributions right now require a lot of cleanup. If this is your level of English proficiency, I would suggest two things: (1) Please use Articles for Creation to submit articles. This will allow experienced reviewers to offer pointers and help improve your articles before they enter mainspace. (2) Check to see if a Wikipedia exists in a language where you have fluency (there are so many that one surely does). I hope this feedback helps. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dclemens1971.Thanks for your detailed reply.Iam not concerned about your review but your nomination. I understand that I need to polish some of my statements in these articles as it needs time. However English proficiency and notability are completely different subjects. Notability as articles, yes they have and they are relevant subjects and English proficiency I will polish it days to come. There are so many articles in Wikipedia which does not qualify in both respects and no one to correct them too. I take ownership of all my articles and periodically updating them and polishing them in language too. Kindly wait for sometime.Hope you understand.Gardenkur (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gardenkur they are separate issues. Some are notable, some are not. (I just !voted “keep” on your Suruchi Singh article, for example.) However, using Articles for Creation as i suggested above can help with both the notability and English proficiency issues. I strongly urge you to use your sandbox or drafts if you plan to continue “polishing” before putting them into mainspace. Let the community here help you. Best, Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dclemens1971.Thanks for your reply and vote for article Suruchi Singh. The first step by me always is checking Notability of articles as per Wikipedia standards. However in some cases it gets failed in global platform resulting them in getting removed. In future, I will see that the articles are moved after a reasonable amount of proficiency in English. Earlier in some situations in past, I used the Articles of Creation platform which has following issues-1.Long queues 2.Delay in articles getting reviewed 3.Reviewers impatience in correcting the article etc. Iam thankful for your feedback and will work accordingly. Gardenkur (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your proposal on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Sy Savané, a unique idea that offers a different perspective on an issue. Keep up the good work! Eddie891 Talk Work 08:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Spaceship House

On 28 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Spaceship House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Spaceship House (pictured) was originally built as a 1970s-era bachelor pad? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Spaceship House. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Spaceship House), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 39,446 views (1,643.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me please.

Can you restore the article called Video portal?

I think this article need to be expanded without just being a duplicate article. And there are IPs keeping the article in the AFD. Don't get me wrong, that this article lacks sources, but if you do a research, then there is an opportunity to find something what on there than just original research. For example, if you use Wayback Machine, you will find sources that are relevant to video portal. And to include this, this page is expanded in mid-2020s with new information. But if you restore this article, are you planning to include new information on this article or just leave it a stub? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@205.155.225.249 There was a consensus at AfD to redirect the article, and the IP !votes were not based on our policies and guidelines. Are you suggesting that I interpreted the consensus incorrectly? Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that you interpreted the consensus incorrectly. If you take a look at this article, you will see that its contains one source. This article has been updated recently, based on new information. And having this article contain external link too. You did not even bother using the Wayback Machine for backup sourcing. How could IP !votes were not based on our policies and guidelines? Can you check the page history of this Video Portal? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@205.155.225.249 It is not the job of the closer to go look for sourcing on the Wayback Machine. It's the job of the closer to assess consensus, and this one was pretty cut and dry. The three IP addresses that advocated "keep" (with the generous assumption they are three separate editors; two of the three geolocate to the same place) made How about instead, we expand the article and Just expand the article (WP:MUSTBESOURCES) or Being a stub does not make it a bad article (no one else was arguing that it did). There was no engagement by these IP addresses with the policies and guidelines that discussions are based on. If you still disagree, you may take it up at deletion review. Cheers, Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 Did you still check the article history? Did you proofread and examine the text of the article?

Here it is: [1] 205.155.225.249 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It is not the job the closer to proofread the article or to examine its text. The discussion participants do that, and their views were clear. As I said above, this is a matter for WP:DRV. Please take it up there if you have concerns. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I might review the edit history then. 205.155.225.249 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 "three IP addresses that advocated "keep" with the generous assumption they are three separate editors"

If I just want to say something, this is correct, the three IP address that participated in the same discussion are not only just separate editors, they are separate people in terms of wiki information. And each of the IP address have very different edits, based on what type of contribution they made. I also assume that the IP editors have different IP address they are assigned in, and in regard to this, made different contributions on different projects, such as one of them participated in April Fools nominations and one of them asked a question on another user's talk page. Like these accounts having unique username, IPs have different numbers, in a way that you need to refer them as anonymous editors or IP editors in general. Since IPs are shared by multiple people and the IP range is the primarily the main one, there is a way that IP address having edits from this range, have the chance to be operated by multiple different individuals, who work and edit on a project.

Do you still have any questions or inquiries on AFD on video portal? If not, this would be answered for now. 205.155.225.249 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Minor Correction Request for Onix Renewable Ltd. Article

Hi there! I noticed that on the Onix Renewable article, the sentence says "headquartered in Rajkot" — could you please correct it to "Headquarter in Rajkot" for consistency? Thank you so much for your help and time!

Best regards, 117.250.172.137 (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@117.250.172.137 since that change would be to non-standard English, I am not going to do that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

A reply

Hello there, I made a reply again on this link about this quote, "three IP addresses that advocated "keep" with the generous assumption they are three separate editors": [2] 205.155.225.249 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I saw that. It is extremely reasonable to consider the possibility that dynamic IP addresses from the same geography may be the same person, particularly if they are making the same points. I don't think there's any point in replying further; you've made your point, I've made mine, and WP:DRV is there if you disagree with my close. Have a good day. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Cridge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edward Cridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Warriorglance -- Warriorglance (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Howdy Neighbour!

Thank you for the acknowledgment, I appreciate it! Bgrus22 (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bgrus22 Thanks for the great work! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Theres a page I wanted to make, but for some reason Wiki wont let me make a sandbox page to start about it. Any chance you have an idea about how to proceed about it? I sent a message to some higher ups but they never responded. Thank you for all your work! Bgrus22 (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bgrus22 Maybe I can help? What's the page? Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I cant use his name in a reply on here for some reason. I just got warned that using his name could violate biographies of living people based on an automated filter. Any thoughts? Bgrus22 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You can use the email link on the left to send me an email, but if there are BLP violation issues I'm not sure I can help. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Cridge

The article Edward Cridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edward Cridge for comments about the article, and Talk:Edward Cridge/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Warriorglance -- Warriorglance (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Your notability query re: United Methodist Church, Berkeley Road, Bristol

Hi, I'm querying your flagging of an article I created for United Methodist Church, Berkeley Road, Bristol. You have suggested this is insufficiently notable as a topic to merit a Wikipedia page. I'm not sure I understand your logic. It was a substantial Methodist church that lasted for 85 years and which is still physically extant. The evidential base for it's first fifty years is good - a published church history now on the Internet Archive - supported by contemporary newspaper articles, which verify the account.

There seem to be quite a few Wikipedia pages for churches / religious buildings in Bristol at least, including some that no longer function as such. This one was not a major institution. However, its history does speak to the rise and decline of Methodism (in its various forms) in the city, while the contemporary discussion about what should be done with this former religious building reflects common concerns - while also demonstrating public / media interest in this particular church. Meanwhile, the number of visits the page has had (not all me!) suggest that it has attracted more interest than many Wikipedia pages. Even in the longer term I doubt the page will get more than 50 views per month. However, I'd have thought that would be enough to justify its existence.

Anyway, I'm quite happy to see this issue opened out to wider review. If there is a more general consensus that this page falls below the threshold for notability, I would accept that. But I would like to see the reasons articulated more clearly.

Yours faithfully Evan T Jones (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Evan T Jones. I tagged the article because an cursory review left it questionable whether your main source for the article does not meet the test of independence for a source that supports the general notability guideline. The published church history was written by a longtime member of and leader in the church and appears to have been published (not printed) by the church. It may be a useful source, but under WP:GNG it cannot be used to establish notability. Then, a cursory review of the other sources reveal a series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this building or congregation, or more WP:PRIMARYSOURCES ([3]). However, these articles ([4], [5]) constitute WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so I'll remove the tag. It would be great if you could find more independent sourcing than just the Bowland book for the bulk of the claims in the article though. I also have some concerns about WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH; be sure not to synthesize multiple sources to come up with claims not in the individual sources. (For example, your paragraph beginning Following the Methodist Union of 1932... appears not to have any source talking about those facts applied to this congregation, which means the claims are OR.) Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

UK - Vehicle insurance page

The deleted text was sourced from the, parent, Vehicle insurance page, back on 5 Aug 2024.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_insurance&oldid=1237813765#United_Kingdom

With much of the text being added, back in Sep-Oct 2012, in several edits, by: User:Markdarrly eg.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_insurance&oldid=516538155

Who's claiming authorship?

A.j.roberts (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The attribution stays with the page history, but an editor who breaks out a section of text to create a new page takes responsibility for ensuring that text is compliant with Wikipedia's policies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Question

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kovalam_Football_Club

similar to recent articles you deleted, i tried to clear after local users and it looked ok. real malabar for example had no chance?! tnx in advance 93.140.16.151 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here but this page has been reviewed and I don't see a need to re-review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The manual of style is extensive

Hello. You added a "needs cleanup: manual of style" to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brigitte_Miriam_Bedos-Rezak&oldid=1290051350 Can you give me a hint which bits are setting off your bad-style detector? Styling of book titles? Some aspect of the prose?

Thanks in advance. - Vonfraginoff (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vonfraginoff. Several issues:

• The use and format of the quote about the subject in the lead
• The odd capitalization of "History" in the lead sentence.
• The first sentence should be more encyclopedic (ie not her affiliation, but who she is). The second sentence can introduce more about here. A la "Brigitte Miriam Bedos-Rezak is a French historian who specializes in the Middle Ages. Since 2002 she has been a professor of history at New York University."
• "Ms. Bedos-Rezak" (we don't use honorifics that way)
• Title case instead of sentence case in subheads
• The fellowships and awards section can be rendered in prose instead of bullets.
• Move the publications section down to the end, just above references.
• The non-chronological structure is less helpful for a biography (a biography should start with early life and education to the extent known, then professional life; this reads more like a resume, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTRESUME).

Hope this helps! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

gr8 thx Vonfraginoff (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)