User talk:Egm4313.s12

Welcome!

Hello, Egm4313.s12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Ngoc Bich moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Nguyen Ngoc Bich, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). In addition, right now the structure of this article is a mess. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style, and Help:Your first article. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Hi Onel5969, Thanks. I can now edit the draft in peace, without constant interventions (from a clique of editors who confused personal preferences with official rules, and just turned their personal preferences into their own personal rules on the fly to impose on others). Great idea. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nguyen Ngoc Bich (March 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robertsky was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

mixed referencing format. stick to one, either footnotes or inline citations. for biographies, it is highly encouraged to use inline citations.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Bich and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– robertsky (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Egm4313.s12! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! – robertsky (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: Hi – robertsky, I am not disappointed at all, since now I understand better your process. It was a misunderstanding on my part. I did not understand your process, which was the first time for me. I thought I should submit the draft then continue to edit since I read that the backlog was some 3 months (!) so I had plenty of time to edit. But it should be the other way around, i.e, I should finish the draft into an article form before submitting for review. Thanks. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: Hi – robertsky, I just submitted the Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Bich with all references in Wikipedia style. Please take a look. Thanks. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nguyen Ngoc Bich 1962.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nguyen Ngoc Bich 1962.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nguyen Ngoc Bich (March 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by InterstellarGamer12321 was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The submission currently reads like a WP:ESSAY, and needs to copyedited significantly. The section titles should also be changed.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Bich and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chat

Sorry, misunderstanding. The chat still exists, but you don't necessarily have access to it unless you're using a dedicated IRC client that's set to log everything.

"The chat room" is not the same as "the conversation that we had using the chat room." DS (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: Thank you for letting me know. How do I set up a dedicated IRC client? Fortunately, I took screenshots of the chat transcript before I logged out, since copy and paste did not work. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pick something from here (they're mostly free). We're on Libera.chat. DS (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prusiner

I saw that section you added to the Prusiner article, and that really wasn't appropriate. It was sourced, yes, but it... it was written in such an inappropriate style that it was pretty well unsalvageable.

Should the article on Prusiner mention how controversial his work was at first, absolutely. But not like that. DS (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "inappropriate"? Who decide what is or is not "inappropriate"? You? Explain. Why "unsalvageable"? Absolutely cryptic, unusable (useless), negative, information-less comment, i.e, nothing can be learned from your comment. Clarify yourself. Heresy was not in the article before I added that section and the sources. I am not spending more time with this article. I recently read about Prusiner, and noticed the Wikipedia article on him did not mention a most important controversial aspect of his work before people realized that he was right. I gave the sources; use them to add the information on heresy to make the article better for people who are not familiar with Prusiner (not for those who already know about him). Good luck. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For complete documentation about the above exchange, I added the link Stanley B. Prusiner: Difference between revisions, in which User DS (talk reverted my addition. When I have time, I will cite Prusiner himself in a PNAS article in which he used the word "heresy." Egm4313.s12 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: Here is the 1998 PNAS review article by Prusiner himself on Prions in which he wrote: "The idea that scrapie prions were composed of an amyloidogenic protein was truly heretical when it was introduced." See also the large number of sources that mentioned the "heretic" idea on prions of Prusiner when it first appeared. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Egm4313.s12/Nguyen Ngoc Bich essay

Hello, Egm4313.s12. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Egm4313.s12/Nguyen Ngoc Bich essay, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FireflyBot, The article User:Egm4313.s12/Nguyen Ngoc Bich essay is a subpage under my user space User:Egm4313.s12, not a draft article, which should not be deleted. Please let me know if I misunderstand something. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FireflyBot, Problem solved. I removed the tag that said the subpage User:Egm4313.s12/Nguyen Ngoc Bich essay was a draft; it is not (at least no longer). Egm4313.s12 (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese pronouns

@DHN: If the article Đại từ nhân xưng were more general, and equivalent to the English article Personal pronoun, then the article Vietnamese pronouns would be a particular case of the above two articles. If you were to start a Vietnamese article equivalent to Vietnamese pronouns, what would be the title? "Đại từ nhân xưng tiếng Việt" does not seem right since the article would be already in Vietnamese. Or perhaps "Cách xưng hô của người Việt," "Đại từ nhân xưng của người Việt," etc.

I am looking to explain (in English for later generations) in our family history the meaning of the tile "Cụ" which is used as a polite title to address our ancestors, and found it is mentioned in Vietnamese pronouns, where all pronouns were not capitalized.

In English, titles such as Mr., Mrs., etc. are capitalized. See, e.g., Title and Capitalization where it is written "Most English honorifics and titles of persons, e.g. Sir, Dr Watson, Mrs Jones, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. This does not apply where the words are not titles; e.g. Watson is a doctor, Philip is a duke."

I noticed in Vietnamese, many times, titles like "Cụ", "Ông", "Bà", etc. were not capitalized, e.g., "ông Carter" ("mr. Carter") instead of "Ông Carter" ("Mr. Carter"). Is there a definitive rule of capitalizing titles in Vietnamese? Or is it up to the writer to capitalize to express respect, politeness, etc.?

Consider this 2008 proceedings of a meeting of Vietnamese historians. In the Opening Remarks by Vuong Van Kiet, p.9, it was written "Chúa Nguyễn" ("Lord Nguyen") with title capitalized, but in the first article by the well-known Vietnamese historian Phan Huy Le, p.12, it was written "chúa Nguyễn" ("lord Nguyen") with lowercase title.

Historian Trần Trọng Kim in his well-known 1920 book Việt Nam Sử Lược also did not capitalize titles, e.g., "vua Nhân Tông và vua Anh Tông" ("king Nhan Tong and king Anh Tong").

An ancestor of ours passed the triennial exam "Huong" in the 35th regnal year "Canh Hung" under "King Le Hien Tong." The Vietnamese article Giai thoại kỳ thú về niên hiệu Cảnh Hưng của vua Hậu Lê did not capitalize the title "King" ("Vua") but wrote "vua Lê Hiển Tông," so are Wikipedia articles such as vi:Lê_Hiển_Tông.

In current Vietnamese literature, such as Tài năng và nhân cách lớn của nhà chí sĩ yêu nước Nguyễn Văn Tố Internet archived 2021.06.14, it seems that "regular" titles such as "cụ" ("senior"), "ông" ("mr = mister"), "bà" ("mrs = mistress"),... are not capitalized, except for titles connected to a profession or to the government such as "Bác sĩ" ("Doctor"), "Thiếu tướng" ("Major General"), "Chủ tịch" ("Chairman"),... where only the 1st word is capitalized.

The Vietnamese article vi:Chức_danh, which was linked to the article Title as its "equivalent," is still in a poor state, and is not exactly the equivalent. Capitalization rule for "titles" in Vietnamese was not mentioned.

Egm4313.s12 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Egm4313.s12 "Đại từ nhân xưng tiếng Việt" is fine. For example, vi.wiki already has vi:Thành ngữ gốc Hán trong tiếng Việt, vi:Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt, vi:Âm vị học tiếng Việt, vi:Chính tả tiếng Việt, etc.

For capitalization, the rules aren't consistent. This article mentions some standardization rules, but they only apply to specific official documents. The relevant rules are V-3 (titles are capitalized if they accompany a specific person's name) and V-8 (names of historic events and dynasties are capitalized). DHN (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DHN: Why don't you create a stub for the Vietnamese article "Đại từ nhân xưng tiếng Việt" with an initial translation of the Introduction in Vietnamese pronouns to begin, link to Vietnamese pronouns, and put a tag at the top to ask people to contribute?

It would help readers to emphasize in the Introduction of Vietnamese pronouns that this article is a particular case of Personal pronoun with the Vietnamese equivalent Đại từ nhân xưng, as such distinction is not clear as of today version 19:51, 24 December 2023 by user:DHN.

It is still unsettling and inconsistent to write "Chu tich Nguyen Van Ba," with capitalized "Chu tich," but then write "vua Le Hien Tong," without using the capitalized "Vua," even though both "Chu tich" and "Vua" are titles for specific government positions. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DHN: It still bothers me that if you could not create the Vietnamese article "Đại từ nhân xưng tiếng Việt" that could stand by itself (without being deleted by admins), and is different from the article Đại từ nhân xưng in substance, then it is fine to link the article Vietnamese pronouns to the article Đại từ nhân xưng, which also describes the many pronouns listed in Vietnamese pronouns and their use, unless you can articulate clear differences, which appear rather fuzzy.

It is rather odd that the article Vietnamese pronouns has no equivalent in Vietnamese.

The best way to test is for you to create the Vietnamese article "Đại từ nhân xưng tiếng Việt" and see what others think about it. Some may think that "Đại từ nhân xưng tiếng Việt" is a duplication of, or has extensive overlaps with, Đại từ nhân xưng. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Chi Minh, Leclerc, Sainteny image

@Monopoly31121993(2):

I just noticed that you posted on 2023 Nov 7 the image c:File:1946_Ho_Chi_Minh_Leclerc_Sainteny_2.png that I uploaded on 2023 Jun 15 in the articles Jean Sainteny (Revision diff) and Ho–Sainteny_agreement (Revision diff), and wondered how you found out about this image. Perhaps there is a search method I did not know, and can learn from. Thank you. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Egm4313.s12, I don't remember when or how I first saw the images but they're important historical documents and I really doubt if there was any copyright issue with this. If you are able to upload other images about 1945/1946 that would be very useful on Wikipedia because there really aren't many images documenting this period. Also, when you upload images be sure to add tags and good descriptions so other editors can easily find them and use them on Wikipedia. Thanks for your efforts. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Plaine des Joncs

Hello, Egm4313.s12. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Plaine des Joncs, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Draft:Karl S. Pister. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thanks for your note. I just checked my draft version 00:30, 11 April 2024 (before you added the references): The attributions are there at the bottom of each section. Did you see that I was the author of the Introduction? I am the editor of this special issue honoring Karl Pister, and the Co-Editor-in-Chief of the CMES journal. Both the special issue as the CMES journal are linked in the draft. The reference section is not completed yet (thanks for adding the references in my draft version 20:30, 12 April 2024). Egm4313.s12 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC) = Prof. Loc Vu-Quoc, vuquocloc@yahoo.com, Publications, Google Scholar.[reply]

@Diannaa: It is an overkill to have a note to refer to the same reference at the end of each paragraph in the same section, as you did in my draft version 20:30, 12 April 2024. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am talking about is the fact that you did not indicate that the content you added to Wikipedia was copied unaltered from the source documents. Adding citations is not enough; indicating that the material has been copied is also required. That's the "attribution" part of the CC BY 4.0 Deed Attribution 4.0 International license. Attribution can be added via a template, like I did here. (I also added links to the source articles by providing citations). The reason I added a citation for each paragraph is to make it clear exactly which content was copied. — Diannaa (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it differently, using a framebox for quotation. The version 00:30, 11 April 2024 was a DRAFT ! not a final version. And the attribution was to the authors, cited at the end of each section before your modification. I don't like to use <ref></ref>, and will use {{efn}} and {{sfn}} instead. On the other hand, you helped to show the use of some new parameters related to CC documents in the citation "cite web". Thanks. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) = Prof. Loc Vu-Quoc, vuquocloc@yahoo.com, Publications, Google Scholar.[reply]

Adherence to the rules and policies about copyright and proper attrubution of licensed material is required everywhere on Wikipedia, even in sandboxes and drafts. — Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am far completing this work !!! Where is that rule? Can you give the link and a direct quotation of the rule? Drafts are not indexed by Google. This rule, if it exists, makes no common sense, and should be changed. ONE MORE TIME: The authors were cited at the end of each section. It does not seem that you read what I wrote above. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC) = Prof. Loc Vu-Quoc, vuquocloc@yahoo.com, Publications, Google Scholar.[reply]

I did read what you wrote, but what you said is not quite correct. "Attribution" and "citing your sources" are not the same thing. Regarding the status of drafts, if you click on the "Edit" button or tab for any page on Wikipedia (including a draft), you get a message that states: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Here is a link to the copyright policy, an official Wikipedia policy with legal implications: WP:Copyrights. For copying compatibly licensed content, the section to look at is WP:COPYOTHERS. You could also have a look at the information at Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources which gives explanations of how the rules are applied. — Diannaa (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I moved the draft to Citizendium Karl S. Pister, where anonymous users cannot edit, on 17:44, 14 April 2024 (see history), and where I can work in peace. ~~You violated the CC-BY-4.0 copyright by not citing the names of the authors in the references;~~ see Karl S. Pister, version 12:02, 20 April 2024 in Citizendium where the names of the authors appear in the references. As I wrote in my first reply to you: "The reference section is not completed yet" at 21:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC), and again "I am far completing this work !!!" at 18:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC), as I had not completed my work, and would eventually do the references. Again, you showed some good way to cite the CC licenses. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Correction: {{cite web}} did not cite the names of the authors in Citizendium as in the transferred version 12:44, 14 April 2024, but did in Wikipedia as in your version 20:30, 12 April 2024. In Citizendium, I changed {{cite web}} to {{citation}} to show the names of the authors; see Karl S. Pister. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Just to illustrate the point made above, I just copied the first paragraph from the source again without reference as shown in Karl S. Pister version 18:43, 20 April 2024 to test the use of {{Cquote}}. Now you would come in to put in the reference. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karl S. Pister (May 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Ldm1954 were:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

He is notable, but the article needs a complete rewrite to meet the standards. Please read carefully others, don't invent a format.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Karl S. Pister and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Thanks for your note. Could you please take a look at my new version of the Draft:Karl S. Pister to see whether it now meets the "standards," which are hard to pinpoint from the many links provided in your review. If the draft does not meet the "standards," please point out specifically which standards to help me address these points. Thanks again. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Either the current Draft:Karl_S._Pister or the Karl S. Pister, version at 21:59, 2 May 2024, before review, has much more extensive content than a VERY large number of existing stub biographies, such as Nguyễn_Văn_Tố, version 20:54, 22 April 2024 (very poor since 2013), Matt_Keeling, version 21:02, 15 November 2023 (egregiously poor since 2020), Edmund_F._Robertson, version 07:48, 2 January 2024 (very poor since 2008), Carl_Naibo, version 04:33, 26 January 2024 (very poor since 2007), etc. to cite a few. See a HUGE number of all stubs in w:Category:Stubs. The application of the "standards" has thus been highly uneven and unfair. Would you move all these stub articles back to "DRAFT" status? Updated Egm4313.s12 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC) ◉ Egm4313.s12 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: I kept this box below here for future references.

Notes on this revised version

To be specific, the current version of Draft:Karl_S._Pister addressed the following "standards":

NOT an essay, version 23:54, 3 May 2024: There are NO personal opinions of this article writer (Egm4313.s12), just FACTS with based on authoritative references. Quotations from authoritative sourses are NOT personal opinions (of this article writer), as seen in Karl S. Pister, version at 21:59, 2 May 2024, before review, which was thus NOT an essay, version 23:54, 3 May 2024.
Style, version 00:00, 20 April 2024: This article uses the Chronological Summary Style.
Tone, version 00:00, 20 April 2024: "formal, impersonal, and dispassionate."
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, version 17:47, 3 May 2024: The article just stated the facts based on official references.
Puffery, version 20:17, 21 April 2024 (Peacock terms): No puffery, no peacock terms (e.g., "legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal, prominent, ...").

NOTE: To remove "puffery,"

◉ I changed "Throughout these many roles, he is well known and respected for leading by example, and his passionate commitment to promoting social justice" (see Karl S. Pister, version at 21:59, 2 May 2024, before review) TO "Pister was committed to promote social justice."

◉ I changed the sentence, "the Lamme Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the society, for his contributions to engineering education" (see Karl S. Pister, version at 21:59, 2 May 2024, before review) TO simply state the FACT as follows: the ASEE Lamme Medal (from the American Society of Engineering Education), which is "bestowed upon a distinguished engineering educator for contributions to the art of teaching, contributions to research and technical literature and achievements that contribute to the advancement of the profession of engineering college administration." See example of quoting FACTS on Bob Dylan in Section Puffery, version 20:17, 21 April 2024. (Actually, the FACT on the ASEE Lamme Medal has more "puffery" than the original sentence!)

◉ NO change in "The Berkeley Medal was established in 1981 as UC Berkeley’s top honor ... direct service to Berkeley" since that is a direct quotation of FACT from the Berkeley Medal website. See example of quoting FACTS on Bob Dylan in Section Puffery, version 20:17, 21 April 2024.

Bob-Dylan puffery-in-quotations standard: It is clear from Section Puffery, version 20:17, 21 April 2024, that quotations are NOT pufferies, even though they may contain more pufferies than the re-written version, as demonstrated above. That's the accepted irony per Section Puffery, version 20:17, 21 April 2024, and can be called the Bob-Dylan puffery-in-quotations standard, which is already satisfied by Karl S. Pister, version at 21:59, 2 May 2024, before review, since it contained only quotations!
Either the current Draft:Karl_S._Pister or the Karl S. Pister, version at 21:59, 2 May 2024, before review, has much more extensive content than a VERY large number of existing stub biographies, such as Nguyễn_Văn_Tố, version 20:54, 22 April 2024 (very poor since 2013), Matt_Keeling, version 21:02, 15 November 2023 (egregiously poor since 2020), Edmund_F._Robertson, version 07:48, 2 January 2024 (very poor since 2008), Carl_Naibo, version 04:33, 26 January 2024 (very poor since 2007), etc. to cite a few. See a HUGE number of all stubs in w:Category:Stubs. The application of the "standards" has thus been highly uneven and unfair. Would you move all these stub articles back to "DRAFT" status?
Before a reviewer talks about "standards," they must learn about the existence of a HUGE cache of sub-standard articles, for without such knowledge, they just display their own ignorance. If they did know about the existence of such HUGE cache of sub-standard articles, and still talks about "standards," they were utterly hypocritical and unfair.
Format: There is NO standard format mentioned in Section Style and format, version 23:54, 3 May 2024. In fact, the HUGE cache of sub-standard articles contains a large number of format variants, in particular biographical formats. There is a difference between a "standard" and the reviewer personal preference. See also Section Official rule or personal preference? on Wiki Commons.

NOTE: The fixed versions above were those that I looked at at the time of this writing.

To the reviewer: Please be very specific on which remaining "standards" to address with specific examples/quotations from this article, as I did above in this box. (A bunch of links to general articles on "standards" such as "essay" is not helpful.) Thank you.

Updated Egm4313.s12 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC) ◉ Started Egm4313.s12 (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karl S. Pister has been accepted

Karl S. Pister, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spiralwidget (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Draft:Plaine des Joncs

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Plaine des Joncs, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a test page, but a draft of an article that I have not had time to work on. But it's ok to delete it, since I have been focusing on other articles, particularly Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Bich. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion does not apply to Draft, which no one can see. It is not yet an article, which requires approval by a reviewer. Why waste time deleting a Draft? Egm4313.s12 (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I requested the undeletion of this draft so I can add content to it. See Draft:Plaine des Joncs. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I have the content of the Draft:Plaine des Joncs (French for "Plain of Reeds") in my sandbox, and may write an article for the French Wikipedia (when I have some time), as there is already the article Plain of reeds in the English Wikipedia. Please delete this draft. Thank you. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nguyen Ngoc Bich (October 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Significa liberdade was:

This article appears to have issues related to focus and potential coatracking (i.e., writing substantially about tangential topics). For example, it's unclear to me at a glance how the section discussing Franklin D. Roosevelt is relevant to Nguyen Ngoc Bich's biography.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Bich and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade:

Notes on this revised version

The connection between Roosevelt and Bich is explained in the first paragraph on FDR, as shown below:

If Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) had lived beyond 1945 Apr 12, when he died, he "would have tried to keep France from forcibly reclaiming control of Indochina, and might well have succeeded, thereby changing the flow of history,":710 meaning the First Indochina War with more than half a million deaths,N.fwc and the Second Indochina War with more than three million deaths,N.awc would be avoided; then Bich would not join the Viet Minh to fight the French colonialists.

FDR would help avoid the war, had he not died in 1945. His death was a reason for the war, the large casualties, and a reason for Bich to join the Viet Minh. The information is relevant.

The references include a well-known history book with the names of FDR, Ho Chi Minh, de Gaulle: Tønnesson, Stein (1991), The Vietnamese Revolution of 1945: Roosevelt, Ho Chi Minh and de Gaulle in a world at war, SAGE Publications, London. All three men were main actors regarding the First Indochna War, in which Bich fought. Hence FDR was relevant to Bich.

In any case, I have shortened this section.

So you let this poor article stand Matt_Keeling, version 21:02, 15 November 2023 while declining a carefully written Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Bich.

This is absolutely unfair. Another reviewer would have a different opinion, and it goes on forever, for already one year and a half or so since I started this article version 15:52, 18 February 2023.

Next time, I will not do a draft, as advised by Spiralwidget above.

See also Comments to readers and reviewers in the talk page.

Egm4313.s12 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nguyen Ngoc Bich has been accepted

Nguyen Ngoc Bich, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: From the page Portal:Architecture/New_article_announcements (which I just found by looking at the list of pages that have a link to Nguyen Ngoc Bich, and then User:Dogears, which has the above link), please explain how this article Jorge_Camberos_Garibi, which does not have as much information content as the article Nguyen Ngoc Bich, but had a score of 75, whereas the article Nguyen Ngoc Bich had a score of 31. Clearly, I did not understand how the scoring was done. Such info could be helpful to improve the score of an article. Thanks. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That just tells you how many people are watching the page it has nothing to do with the content or quality. Theroadislong (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]