User talk:Praseodymium-141/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hello, Praseodymium-141,
I'd like to know why you did a NAC closure of this deletion discussion three days before it was due to be closed. What prompted you to think this was a good idea? Unless a nominator withdraws a nomination (and there are no editors advocating Delete) or a discussion warrants a SNOW CLOSE, please do not close a deletion discussion this early again. I don't see that you regularly close AFDs so maybe this was an one-off action but if you intend to do more NAC closures, please let them run a full 7 days. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Group 5 element
The article Group 5 element you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Group 5 element and Talk:Group 5 element/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Forbes72 -- Forbes72 (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Request on 20:48:02, 20 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Bernardirfan
- Bernardirfan (talk · contribs)
Dear Praseodymium-141, I am surprised and shocked by you declining my stub article submission called "Choline bitartrate", specifically because of "lacking reliable sourcess"?! I don't understand... How can I fix the article when you didn't provide me a reasonable explanation where exactly in the article is "lacking reliable sourcess"?!
Many similar chemistry articles I created, with even less reliable sources than the "Choline bitartrate" draft, are relatively quickly accepted by many other reviewers after they reviewed my drafts. But you declining my submission means that all my articles could be deleted by you, deleting hours and days of me working on those articles and searching for reliable sources accross the Internet with so much effort, so, there is no point for me to waste my time and effort creating new articles on Wikipedia anymore.
I consider Pubchem, SigmaAldrich and TRC-Canada websites as reliable sources, as many other reviewers who accepted all my article submissions, but I don't understand why you consider them unreliable.
I think that choline bitartrate is an important compound, so, readers should be allowed to freely access the info about that compound online. Knowledge should be free of charge, period!
Moreover, there are so many articles on Wikipedia, writed by other article creators, with much less reliable sources, even with zero references, with incorrect chemical formulas, incorrect chemical names, incorrect chemical reactions, incorrect data and incorrect information, with Wiki code errors, gibberish texts and jargon, and all those articles are accepted, even without the
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. |
tag. Think about that. It's not fair to have double standards toward Wikipedia writers, one standards for writers that are not me, but other standards for me. That is a discrimination, which is unacceptable! I feel discriminated by you declining my submission with several reliable sources, because submissions of many other writers with zero reliable sources are accepted. How come? That makes me so demotivated in creating new articles on Wikipedia.
I know chemistry pretty well, but I wonder are you an expert in chemistry. If you are an expert in chemistry, then I am even more shocked by you declining my submission.
I don't know where in the article you want reliable sources? In the very first paragraph? In the table? In the "Chemistry" paragraph? In the "Production" paragraph? Or, maybe, in the whole article? I am so confused, demotivated and disappointed, I don't understand... I will stop writing new articles on Wikipedia, because I'm affraid of all my articles will be declined and selectively deleted by you. I think you had an option of at least adding the
| This article needs additional citations for verification. |
tag, but who am I to suggest you what options you could chose.
Oh, now I see this message is too long, but I just don't like double standards and to be discriminated, sorry.
Sincerely, Bernardirfan, electric engineer, chemist, developer and programmer
Bernardirfan (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the inconvenience caused. I had reread the message, and have realised that I forgot to include that I was talking about the quantity of sources instead of the quality of the sources. There were unreferenced paragraphs, such as the Chemistry section. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 16:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Request on 21:36:33, 20 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Walter Tau
- Walter Tau (talk · contribs)
My draft article was declined without a meaningful explanation:
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Praseodymium-141 was:
Not the correct format for a Wikipedia article.
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.
I do not see any details of what exactly is "not the correct format". Clarification would be appreciated.
Walter Tau (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Custom rationales in AFC declines
Heya, just wanted to drop a quick note about this decline: you did not really give enough information for the author to understand why their draft was declined. If you are going to use a custom decline rationale (which you should only do in very rare circumstances) please make sure you include links to the relevant guidelines and/or policies that you are basing your decision on so that the submitter knows what to fix going forward. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
A thank you message
Hi! I just want to thank you for moving the article about non-territorial autonomy from draft to the main namespace and rating it as B-class article. It was a pleasant surprise as I was already prepared to wait months for this to be reviewed :) --Külvikord (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Tagging pages for deletion
Hello, Praseodymium-141,
I just deleted a very promotional draft that you tagged for deletion but I'm not happy about how you handled this. First, you moved the page from User space to Draft space without informing the editor, a very new editor who had no way of knowing what happened to their draft. Secondly, you tagged it for deletion as soon as you moved it and, again, didn't inform the content creator that their page had been tagged for deletion. This is not only considered best practices but is a common courtesy we extend to our fellow editors. New editors, especially, should be informed what is going on and you didn't even post a Welcome message on their Talk page, much less tell them what was going on with the page they created.
Please start using Twinkle to tag pages for deletion and set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creators" and then whenever you tag an article or draft with a CSD tag, PROD tag, or AFD tag, then Twinkle will post a notification on the talk page of the page creator so you don't have to. It's a very handy editing tool used by most patrollers and many editors because it makes editing and simple tasks even easier. Once you start exploring it, you'll find it can speed up and make complicated processes very easy. I encourage you to try it out. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 08:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Group 5 element
The article Group 5 element you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Group 5 element for comments about the article, and Talk:Group 5 element/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Forbes72 -- Forbes72 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Philipp Käßbohrer
Hello Praseodymium-141, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Philipp Käßbohrer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, but the article's subject is directly related to the user. Their userpage says that they are paid by "btf GmbH", which the subject of the article founded. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 19:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Zinc acetylacetonate is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |