wrote on my page |
wrote on my own page |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
</br> |
</br> |
||
{{Retired}} |
{{Retired|date=September 30, 2010}} |
||
</br> |
</br> |
||
Note: I am retiring from editing Wikipedia. I am not longer active on the site and do not plan to return. I am never coming back to Wikipedia. Do not attempt to write me any messages or write on my talk page. I will not read them and I will not respond to your messages. -- [[User:Sweet xx|Sweet xx]] ([[User talk:Sweet xx#top|talk]]) 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== September 2009 == |
== September 2009 == |
Revision as of 19:33, 30 September 2010
Note: I am retiring from editing Wikipedia. I am not longer active on the site and do not plan to return. I am never coming back to Wikipedia. Do not attempt to write me any messages or write on my talk page. I will not read them and I will not respond to your messages. -- Sweet xx (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
September 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Rebecca Gayheart. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Terry Evanswood, you will be blocked from editing. CliffC (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wrote on your talk page. Sweetfornow (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Matt the knife
You need to be more careful what you're removing. Citations don't have to contain web links. You removed this citation because it went to the home page[1], yet [2] hpere it is. I'm going to give you a chance to revert the damage you've done to the article, but if you don't, then I'll revert all your edits, as its quite obvious you didn't take the appropriate care in removing those sections.--Crossmr (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wrote on your talk page. Sweetfornow (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the links go to the home page. Wikipedia does not require all citations be readily accessible on the internet. Many things are sourced from books, academic papers, etc which are not available online. You blindly went through and deleted content without even spending 30 seconds to check the site to see if the articles existed there. The names, dates and authors of the articles were provided, that is sufficient to establish the reference. You should not remove referenced content from articles because there is an error in the reference. Take 30 seconds and check them. That is all it took on google to verify the existence of the some of the references you removed.--Crossmr (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wrote on your talk page. Sweetfornow (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Sizism has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Wysprgr2005 (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Prostitution
It will be better if you can please move your comments you gave in the article space of Prostitution to its talk page. Thanks in advance. Rgs Arjuncodename024 18:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--John (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --John (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
What was wrong with my paragraph? Can you give me a specific reason why my paragraph was edited? Did I write anything bad about him? No, I didn't. The paragraph was straight and on the point. I also included sources as well so it's not I violated any Wikipedia rules.
- Seems like a rather poor block to me. I've left a note for the blocking admin. --auburnpilot talk 03:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Irrelevant I suppose, as the block has expired. --auburnpilot talk 04:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry as three admins who I respect have said they disagreed with my block, so I have to accept that it was maybe on the harsh side. However, it is important to err on the side of caution when dealing with matters relating to living people. Please bear this in mind in the future. Discussing in talk is always preferable to edit-warring in any case. Best wishes, --John (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
2010 FIFA World Cup disciplinary record
I've reverted your edits to this page as they broke both the references and the page. I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to do but if you were trying to change the three references into one then this is incorrect as they each point to a different page on FIFA's website even if each page has the same title. Dpmuk (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Plain Jane article
Hello, Sweetfornow. I added this back (but in a different way) because it also fits the definition of a plain jane, stereotype or not. As I'm sure you know, not all people who are called Plain Janes are average-looking...face-wise. If anything, that is the bigger stereotype. There are beautiful women out there who have their beauty downplayed by looking frumpy. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I replied on my talk page. And I thank you for not edit-warring with me. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Status icon
I was wondering on how you get the status icon on top of your page. You have an icon that says "Status:Online/Offline" on top of your user page and talk page. I was wondering how to get that icon on my page. ♥ SweetfornowTalk Contribs 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- The only thing that you need is add {{Statustop|offset=1 (Note: You can change this number)}} and create User:Sweetfornow/Status. On it you can add online, offline, busy, around or sleeping, and automatically your status will be visible. TbhotchTalk C. 17:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Attack pages
Hi. When you get a page like "Maya biring" just now which is a personal attack, there is a better tag to use than {{db-person}}. The thing to do is, first blank the page to get the attack off the screen, then tag it with {{db-attack}} (or {{db-atk}} or {{db-g10}} which come to the same thing). That puts it in a high-priority queue for admin attention, and also generates a suitably fierce warning for you to copy to the attacker's talk page. Keep up the good work on New Page Patrol - it needs all the eyes it can get! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Speculative evolution
I don't believe your {{prod}} on Speculative evolution is valid for two reasons:
- You cite WP:SCI, but that proposed guideline was rejected, so it isn't really a valid citation
- While the topic of speculative evolution hardly qualifies as a science, it does appear to have a fair number of adherents and would qualify under the umbrella of pseudo-science, of which Wikipedia has lots of articles (see Astrology, alchemy, etc). As long as the topic is handled properly, with reliable citations (which might be the biggest problem) there might be something to be made out of this topic. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Guthicass
can u please give me some time to finish it? i'm trying to finish my articles but the speedy deletion is very pressuring.. sorry i'm a new user.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSUBASATSUBAKI (talk • contribs) 10:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
AfC
Hi; thanks for your help in AfC.
When you decline/hold articles, there's no need to add a new template, which keeps it in the pending submissions category if the old one is still there: see you edit and mine (and please leave the "other parameters" intact, not use the words "other parameters". You might want to try a script, User:Tim Song/afchelper4.js. Thanks! —fetch·comms 21:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
I saw your message on this, and I'm wondering if you can help me.
There are numerous articles from Business Line, PR Newswire, Network Magazine, and some awards given from PC Magazine, Network Computing Magazine, etc, but I thought they might add extraneous noise to this article. I tried to pick the most relevant information, that being the link to the US Department of Defense accreditation site, as well as the historical link to Infoworld. That represents two 3rd party citations, but as noted, I could come up with more.
What do you think would be the most helpful in this case?
Thanks for your help
Cgoudie cw (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Redneck Shop
Hey, i was wondering if the Redneck Shop would be considered a "white supremacist group in the United States", i don't think it would be because it is a store. Chainsawfan1 (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I was also thinking of the same thing for Resistance Records, as it is not a group, but a record label. Chainsawfan1 (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
But besides those two (Redneck Shop and Resistance Records), the groups mentioned in "white supremacist groups in the United States" all fit as racist white groups in the US, though i'm on the fence about Project Megiddo, as it was a FBI project on radical groups in the US, not just white racist groups. What's your take on the subject? Chainsawfan1 (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Problem has been resolved, thanks. Chainsawfan1 (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
My Mommy Manual ineligible for proposed deletion
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from My Mommy Manual, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to BDC
Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Userpage Barnstar
The Excellent User Page Award | ||
Awesome userpage- bright, fun, and organized! Bhockey10 (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
Birthday greeting
Hi Sweetxx! Thank you for your Happy birthday wish! As I saw you've got a Userpage barnstar, I think you must be able to review my userpage. I'll be grateful. Again, re-thanks!!! --Sainsf<^> (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
hello
Why did you not list the so called copyright violation from pinhole camera for deletion??? If you didn't notice it's largely the same as http://www.vistaview360.com/photography/pinhole_camera.htm195.18.216.204 (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I copied the text from the article pinhole camera. If you believe that the article pinhole camera is a copyright violation, which it is if the text that you deleted is a copyright violation, then you need to list pinhole camera for deletion. 195.18.216.204 (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
fyi
I undid your edit here. Inforelay didn't take the original decline off the top, but the resub was not a copyvio. She's been in correspondence with me about fixing the article, so I though I'd just let you know why I undid your edit. Cheers, sonia♫ 03:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sweet xx,
There was a page created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Emirati_Association
This page is for a Not-for-Profit Organization committed to improving the relationship between two countries.. it is most certainly not spam. It is not selling or promoting any products.
Furthermore the page template is based on several other near identical organizations including
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Industry_Group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowy_Institute_for_International_Policy
However, an editor has marked the page as spam and marked it for speedy deletion... wondering if you could help us with editing it to Wikipedia's guidelines to avoid deletion?
Many thanks for your help!
Uaeinteraction (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Nigahiga
Hello, I saw your edit to Nigahiga's page. It seems you changed everything in the reference except the URL. May you please add that so it actually links to the Yahoo! Finance article? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 20:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind; I found the link and fixed it. Airplaneman ✈ 03:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Resubmission List of Punjabi nobel laureates.
Punjabi ethnic group is from Pakistan and India.Punjabi is 13th most speaking language.(In canada it is 4th)Punjabis are scattered world over.Article List of Punjabi Nobel laureates has its importance as it describe achievement of Punjabi ethnic group.Sweet xx you should visit wiki article like Punjabi people,Punjab.I hope it will help you to understand importance of topic.If anything wrong regarding grammar and layout Please improve! Shemaroo (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Signing edits
Hey, I've been trying to find the answer to this in the help file but I can't find anything. Would you happen to know how I can go back and sign previous edits I've made for Wolfblade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfblade)? And do I sign it in the actual 'what I've edited' box or up on the page? Angela.kelsey (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
About Article"list of Punjabi nobel laureates"
Sweet xx,why you are prejudiced about article,if u say article should not be on ethnic group why do not you DO SOMETHING FOR ARTICLE LIKE"LIST OF BLACK NOBEL LAUREATES"do not take Punjabi as narrow meaning these are people scattered in indian subcontinent like Tamils,Bengalis.Shemaroo (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Before He Cheats
Sweet xx, I simply edited the structure of the information. I wasn't deleting anything; I was simply moving it to a different category on the page. There is a category titled "Charts" and "Chart Performance" which is the exact same thing. The given information under the "Chart Performance" category can be put into the "Charts" tab, and it will collectively become a single category, rather than having two categories of the same use. No need to block my editing when I'm not doing anything wrong. I wasn't deleting anything. I was merging related information together. Undrwood9098 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome
Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Images for upload pages.
A few tips that you might find helpful:
- Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions.
- The project's discussion board is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.
- Alternatively you may like to contact one of our experienced members for help. They are: User talk:Sweet xx/header
Articles for creation User‑class | |||||||
|
Edit request
In the section Creating an article, please make the following change:
− | If not, there is a very good chance that the topic is not notable and will | + | If not, there is a very good chance that the topic is not notable and will not be accepted as an article. |
An article might be notable in the future, so I don't think it is appropriate to say that it will never be accepted. OzzyOlly (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
How long does it take to review?
I was interested in that question, and so I designed a user script for it. The results so far can be seen here. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Backlog drives
Is another backlog drive being planned? I missed the last two so I'm not sure if there was a set schedule put into place or if they occur whenever. Status has been on 3+ months for a while. C F A 💬 20:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Usually ad-hoc, and usually when we get towards 5mo. I honestly think that unless we start tickling 4mo we're in a good place, as long as the numbers don't keep creeping up to quickly. Mildly related, it's interesting how we can have 2-4 new reviewers added per week and yet the backlog increase rate never seems to drop... Primefac (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am guessing the amount of reviewers added are equal to the amount of editors who quit/take a wikibreak reviewing, like I did for few months. I like AfC reviewing since it brings articles to mainspace, but it is hard to keep a motivation in this largely thank-less task. Ca talk to me! 13:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Another student assignment?
I've seen in the past few hours three drafts on AI, each one a copyvio from the same source. First I thought it was the same user editing under two accounts, but perhaps it's another student assignment instead? (Although in that case their institution's anti-plagiarism measures must be pretty rubbish, if the students feel they could get away with blatant copypasting!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Make a list of users and post it at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard - someone might know something. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Roger wilco. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Persistent, all the symptoms of a maladministered student project. I added one to the noticeboard 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thanks for posting on their UTPs as well.
- If it is a student project, I do kinda feel for these kids. Their lecturer sets an impossible task, their attempts keep getting declined, speedied, their accounts blocked, etc., panic sets in as the assignment deadline looms... All this, when they should be in the student union bar drinking jägerbombs and playing silly buggers like nature intended. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have added If this is an education project please ask your tutor to contact the Wiki Education Foundation for guidance to each known editor's talk page 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have created User:Timtrent/Eduproject if anyone feels it to be helpful. I appear not to have the skill to turn it into a template that is automagically SUBSTed nor signed. More than happy for anyone to fiddle with it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Timtrent how about this expanded text?
- Hello, <User>. Your recent edits <on Article name> indicate that you may be engaged in an education project that may not be known to other editors. This may have an indirect impact on how your contributions are being assessed by your tutor. If this is an education project please ask your tutor to contact the Wiki Education Foundation for guidance.
- Wikicode: {{{icon|[[File:information.svg|25px|alt=]]}}} Hello, {{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}. Your recent edits {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|on "[[{{{1}}}]]"|}} indicate that you may be engaged in an education project that may not be known to other editors. This may have an indirect impact on how your contributions are being assessed by your tutor. If this is an education project '''please ask your tutor''' to contact the [[meta:Wiki Education Foundation|Wiki Education Foundation]] for guidance.
- – robertsky (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Robertsky That looks excellent. Well above my paygrade. How do I/we deploy it, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Ctrl+C
Ctrl+V
. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)- @Primefac You have the Tao of snark! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Robertsky That looks excellent. Well above my paygrade. How do I/we deploy it, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have created User:Timtrent/Eduproject if anyone feels it to be helpful. I appear not to have the skill to turn it into a template that is automagically SUBSTed nor signed. More than happy for anyone to fiddle with it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have added If this is an education project please ask your tutor to contact the Wiki Education Foundation for guidance to each known editor's talk page 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Persistent, all the symptoms of a maladministered student project. I added one to the noticeboard 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Roger wilco. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Another possible student project re Denmark
Drafts so far:
- Draft:Denmark's Maritime Security Policy in Greenland
- Draft:Denmark's Maritime Security Strategi in the Arctic (sic)
I have asked both editors if this is an education project. Both appeared within a very short gap of each other, and in Useer space 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Posted at WP:EDUN. Reviewers spotting more, please add commentary there (as well as here) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I converted the notice discussed above into a template. You can use it by substituting {{subst:Education project}} and it will automatically populate and sign itself. May be useful for future education project bursts like this. C F A 💬 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Clearfrienda Thank you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Clearfrienda Is there any chance you might add a level 2 heading as well, please 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to do it myself, but I can never think of a good header name (Timtrent, you can also do it yourself...). Primefac (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll give it a go! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac I have given it a title I believe to be appropriate. I am not wedded to it. If folk wish to change it, that is fine, but please keep it as relevant as you can. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll give it a go! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to do it myself, but I can never think of a good header name (Timtrent, you can also do it yourself...). Primefac (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Clearfrienda Is there any chance you might add a level 2 heading as well, please 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Clearfrienda Thank you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
'Procedural decline' question
Draft:Disney Emoji Blitz was recently submitted by a user with no previous involvement with the draft. They turned out to be a sock of someone with a habit of going around submitting other users' drafts. I was going to decline it purely on that basis, but then thought does it matter who submits the draft, if the draft is good enough to be published (and I say that hypothetically, as I've not evaluated this draft in any way). What's the best practice here? Or in the absence of that, at least a not-terrible practice? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the only thing the sock did is submit, then I suppose it's fine to review as normal if it would have been accepted otherwise. If the draft would be declined, then I would just revert the submission (i.e. not declining). Primefac (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- That (reverting the submission) was my first thought, too. But there were a couple of subsequent edits, so I would have had to do it manually. And lazy as I am... well, I came here instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Free masterclasses!
If anyone wants to know what Wikipedia's notability guidelines really mean and how to interpret them (as opposed to what you may have thought they mean), look no further than Draft talk:El Paso Chamber (with some additional content here). I have been comprehensively schooled, and can wholeheartedly recommend the experience. Now, where do I collect my diploma...? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Rate limit issue
I just ran into a software issue while submitting a draft for review. The issue stems from having to perform the Submit action twice, first without the captcha security check, then with. The problem is that a rate limit starts a timer during the first action, that triggers an error during the second action; and because of the latter, the first action must be repeated before the second is available. As a result, the only way to actually submit for review is to first Submit without captcha, then wait a minute or so before finally submitting with the captcha. This is extremely counter-intuitive. Either the rate limit should allow at least two actions in quick succession, or the captcha step should prevent editors from submitting before the timer ends (e.g. using software or warning text). --Talky Muser (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thoughts, SD0001? Primefac (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The rate limit is 8 edits per minute for unconfirmed accounts, although unfortunately an edit gets counted as 2 if a captcha was required for it (and as 3 if captcha was once entered wrong, and so on). You shouldn't be getting rate limited unless you did 7 edit submits in the minute before opening the form.In any case, once your account becomes autoconfirmed (4 days from creation), the rate limit is 90 per minute so you wouldn't be running into the problem at all.To clarify, WP:AFCSW does not impose any rate limits of its own. The limits are MediaWiki's, and are applicable even when submitting manually by placing
{{subst:submit}}
on the draft page. – SD0001 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) - I was unable to reproduce this using an alternative account subject to the same rate limits. However, I question the necessity of adding extra links to bing.com and google.com (the toolforge links are exempt) every time someone submits a draft. If those links are useful, they should be in the original template that was added when the page was created, no? I'll admit I have no idea how any of these template work. But requiring yet one more CAPTCHA just to submit a draft seems annoying. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The links comes from the transclusion of {{find sources}} in {{AfC submission/helptools}}. I agree if we can remove them, that would be a singnificant improvement to the submit workflow. Metrics collected from the wizard suggest that over 10% of all submit attempts fail due to rate limiting (54 out of 496 per day, averaged over the last 2 weeks). – SD0001 (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{find sources}} is already shown in the editnotice while editing any draft page. So I have done the bold thing and removed it from the submit template. – SD0001 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Still getting a CAPTCHA, from the same links, see Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1782527261. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think those links are actually coming from {{AfC submission/tools}}. Though the removal of the links from {{AFC submission/helptools}} does mean I no longer get a CAPTCHA when creating a draft, which is still an improvement. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah well, the links were coming from both places. I'm less sure about removing it from /tools as this feels like a part of the template that would be getting used (by reviewers). Perhaps we can tweak the AFC helper script to hack in the links instead of having the template generate them. – SD0001 (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- A more drastic solution: According to mw:Extension:ConfirmEdit#Configuration it's possible to exclude an entire namespace with the
$wgCaptchaTriggersOnNamespace
setting. Might be worth a trial? After all, people are supposed to be adding references. If draftspace is overrun by spambots, we can always go back. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)- Or why don't we add the search engines to MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist? Links to search results can't improve SEO and I can't imagine what other spam potential they hold. It seems like a less drastic interim solution. – SD0001 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Edit request raised at MediaWiki talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#Protected edit request on 8 June 2024. – SD0001 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Or why don't we add the search engines to MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist? Links to search results can't improve SEO and I can't imagine what other spam potential they hold. It seems like a less drastic interim solution. – SD0001 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{find sources}} is already shown in the editnotice while editing any draft page. So I have done the bold thing and removed it from the submit template. – SD0001 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The links comes from the transclusion of {{find sources}} in {{AfC submission/helptools}}. I agree if we can remove them, that would be a singnificant improvement to the submit workflow. Metrics collected from the wizard suggest that over 10% of all submit attempts fail due to rate limiting (54 out of 496 per day, averaged over the last 2 weeks). – SD0001 (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Indian military
Do we (at AfC, that is) need to agree some sort of coordinated approach to this ongoing flood of drafts on Indian military units? (In the unlikely event that anyone hasn't yet come across these, see eg. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Indian_army_usernames.) So far I've not seen a single one that was even close to acceptable standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Would these two users 171FieldRegt (talk · contribs) and Behtereen (talk · contribs) also be part of that wave of Indian army editors? -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing Adding a few more:
- User:Rahulsingh278
- User:Topguntwoatethree
- User:Sarvatra15
- User:831 palali
- User:Basantarbull
- User:Piyushkb95
- User:85josh
- User:Braveheart0505
- User:Sam4272
- User:Vijaykiore
- User:Garuda35
- User:Manlikeut
- User:Govindsingh2494
- User:171 FD REGT
- User:Valiants216
- User:Freeindiandemocracy
- User:Srushtivv
- User:Sarthak Dhavan
- User:Vaibhav Kr Singh
- User:Abhi892
- User:Abhi1830
- User:Yugsky
- User:Veerhunkar
- Could you add these to the sock investigation pages? Qcne (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Don't these fail 100% into WP:PAID? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- More:
- @DoubleGrazing Adding a few more:
Qcne (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to warn them for UPE and see what happens 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
AFC/R pending changes?
I didn't notice a discussion about that here. There's pending changes attached to WP:AFC/R right now.
-- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Protection was requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2024/06#04_June_2024, which was based on a discussion at WP:EF/R Mach61 11:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
AFC/C pending changes
I just noticed that this is also activated at WP:AFC/C; though not at WP:FFU ; the reasoning at RFP provided was same as AFC/R, but there hasn't really been much persistent activity of non-process requests there... -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Can we change the wording for v - Submission is improperly sourced?
Hi folks,
I wonder if the text on v - Submission is improperly sourced is a little misleading.
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This fail criteria is often used fairly generically, where the sources may also not be independent or provide significant coverage or be multiple or not-published. We get quite a few queries on the help desk where people argue the sources they provide are reliable not realising they fail the other requirements.
I think a better message might be:
The sources in this submission fail to meet one of Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability. Sources should be reliable and published, and to prove notability should be independent of the subject and provide significant coverage. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Happy to get any feedback or thoughts. Qcne (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Qcne Isn't this redundant with the "nn" decline? Mach61 11:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- in particular, there is nothing wrong with using sources that don't establish notability in line with WP:PRIMARY or WP:ABOUTSELF. We don't want people removing those, we want them to add sources showing notability Mach61 11:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think "V" is fine as it is - I agree its a broad brush to cover unsourced or not reliably sourced articles, but the new proposed wording can also be achieved by combining the NN and V options but keep the finer grained option as well. This might be an issue of reviewers using the wrong reason (or the one that's quicker/easier to find!), but I don't think it's an issue with the criteria itself. Mdann52 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to be another case (like
ilc
) where it comes down to using the decline properly. As mentioned above, it isn't necessarily for a lack of independent sources, but a lack of reliable sources. If the only things in the draft are primary sources (think GARAGEBAND) then something in thenn
family should be used. If there are huge swathes of unsourced content,v
should be used. If it's a combination of the two, then both should be used. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect Message from AFCH Script
Will someone, maybe User:Novem Linguae, please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alpharomeo12&oldid=1227618442? The message says that they have made at least ten edits over four days, and so can create articles directly. Maybe the script is counting their Commons and Simple edits, but I don't think that those edits count toward the autoconfirmed privilege in English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- The message says for you that they have made ten edits, while they see it as "once you made made 10 edits..." (i.e. it's a user status switch statement). See Template talk:AfC accept § User talk:Yam.Ing.Wa.Ng for a longer explanation. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it has HTML class "autoconfirmed-show", so will show for anybody viewing it that has autoconfirmed. Counter-intuitive, but was probably the easiest way to code it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. The messages that my templates leave either on a user talk page or on a draft really say what they seem to say, but that is because I have the template set so that a bot substitutes it automagically. That template is transcluded, and shows whatever the transclusion shows, so it might be telling me that I, User:Robert McClenon, have made at least ten edits. Interesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but it will also show User:Joe Bloggs, who has all of 2 edits, that he still needs to hit 10 first. Here's the pseudocode of what gets subst'd onto the page:
- If user is IP:
You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
- If user is autoconfirmed:
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 neither of the above:
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 user is IP:
- As Novem said, this is basically the best way to have a subst'able template actually show the right message to the right types of users. We've got these (and sysop-level hiding) all over the place. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but it will also show User:Joe Bloggs, who has all of 2 edits, that he still needs to hit 10 first. Here's the pseudocode of what gets subst'd onto the page:
- Okay. The messages that my templates leave either on a user talk page or on a draft really say what they seem to say, but that is because I have the template set so that a bot substitutes it automagically. That template is transcluded, and shows whatever the transclusion shows, so it might be telling me that I, User:Robert McClenon, have made at least ten edits. Interesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it has HTML class "autoconfirmed-show", so will show for anybody viewing it that has autoconfirmed. Counter-intuitive, but was probably the easiest way to code it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
National Academy of Medical Sciences
I have started reviewing Draft:Trivadi Sundaram Ganesan (my first review). I found some copied material, which I have removed, and declined on that basis.
Now that this material is removed, there seems little for the author to do other than resubmit so I am considering the article against other criteria. Considering it against WP:NPROF#C3 , the subject is a fellow of the National Academy of Medical Sciences. My initial thought is that this sounds less prestigious than a national academy of science (i.e. restricted to medical science), but the fellowship does seem to be only just over 1000 people, so it's quite selective. I have found it mentioned three times at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunkara Balaparameswara Rao, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. N. Sharma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahdi Hasan), each time leading to a keep result but never on its own.
The draft certainly needs better citations, as whole sections are currently unreferenced, but before I wanted to have a clear idea about notability before moving on to that. So I'd value any opinions whether to count fellowship of National Academy of Medical Sciences is sufficient for WP:NPROF#C3. Thanks Mgp28 (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Accepting a draft after personal additions
I made some significant additions to Draft:2-Phenylbenzofuran, a previously declined draft, as it's within my area of interest (filling out the catalogue of chemical compounds). After these edits, I feel like the article's reached a point of acceptable quality, but I'm unsure if my edits are clouding my judgment - is it appropriate for me to accept the draft at this point, or should I wait for another reviewer to look at it? I'm asking here as this is something I anticipate happening in the future and (unless I missed it) the reviewer instructions don't provide specific guidance on acceptance of drafts that have more than minor fixes done by reviewers. Reconrabbit 15:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Don't have time to look at it right this second, but if you've improved a draft to the point where you feel it is acceptable, then by all means feel free to move it to the Article space. If you've significantly edited the page it's probably best to just move it manually and then cleanup manually, but if it's something like "I added a paragraph and fixed up the references" then feel free to use the scripts. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that contributions such as the ones you made to the article don't disqualify you from accepting it. If you move it manually the bot still comes and tags you as accepting it on the talk page, so it really doesn't make much of a difference! I've accepted the above article regardless, clearly demonstrates it meets WP:NCHEM. Mdann52 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've improved and accepted many times. If a reviewer could have written the article and that would be fine or they would have been trusted to accept as a draft, then doing a combination of the two should be no issue. If you are really unsure just improve and leave to another; if you're just a bit unsure just accept and leave to NPP (or if you are a patroller yourself you can unmark as patrolled). Also I still use the tool as it's just easier doing all the extra bits, but if I've ended up doing most the content I will remove the AfC template from the talk page. In the end we are here to help as many submission as we can into main-space, so I view improving and accepting as a part of that goal and a positive thing for any reviewer to do. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to accept drafts that you've edited or added content to. I think the line is at accepting drafts that you've created. In that case, I would recommend moving them instead of accepting them. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Declined article appearing in Mainspace
If an article gets declined at AfC but then is immediately created in Mainspace (and has problems), per Caroline Leon, what is the process? Can it be automatically re-sent back to Draft/AfC or does it have to go to AfD? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- If it was moved from draft, then move it back if you think it has a chance of being improved. Or you can improve it yourself. If no chance of becoming an article, then use speedy delete nominations, or AFD as appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) See WP:ATD-I. I would argue that that article doesn't meet the criteria though as it's been widely edited - and there is a claim to notability in there. It's certainly not a clear delete !vote to me at AfD, so I think it's best to either send it there or work on improving it. I'm not a fan of moving articles back from articlespace once they've been moved there anyway as it gets messy quickly. Mdann52 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- it was draftified once before. Conservatively, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, it shouldn't be draftified again, unless it is a UPE editor. However, what I could determine is there is a conflict of interest at the most. So either AfD or improve the article. – robertsky (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks all. It is a problem in the WPClimbing project of BLPs that have no notability as climbers (they never appear in any climbing media) but because they paid $50k to climb Everest (or Seven Summits etc.), they get some local non-climbing coverage, and then a UPE article appears in WP as PROMO for their public speaking / business coaching activities (although. I think the AfC reviewer made the correct call, but obviously the editor know that they can just by-pass it. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- If necessary request a {{histmerge}}. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Uw-paid
I constantly find that new editors misunderstand the paid-editing warning, esp. when they're writing about their employer rather than a client. I raised this on the template's talk page a few months ago, didn't get anywhere, so have opened an edit request at Template_talk:Uw-paid1#Edit_request_7_June_2024. Feel free to add your views there. (Sorry, should have mentioned this earlier but clean forgot.) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Article submissions that need reviewing can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is also a useful list which is maintained by a bot.
- You might wish to add {{AFC status}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
- Several of our members monitor the #wikipedia-en-help connect IRC channel, and you are welcome to join in.
Once again, welcome to the project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Rollback
I have just added rollback to your account. I hope this will be useful in your vandalism patrols, but please read the link before using! Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia User pages.
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia User pages, even if you intend to fix them later. TruckCard (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi
What happens if a user vandalizes his own talk page? Here's the link:[3] Thanks, JeremyMcClean (Talk) 02:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Was this edit intentional? In future – and except in the case of repairing obvious vandalism – I ask that you please take care not to undo other editors' edits without an edit summary. (Are you using some sort of automated tool to follow the recent changes feed? If so, please be careful.) Particularly where experienced editors (and admins) make an edit accompanied by a clear, explanatory edit summary, it's not a good idea to 'undo' without comment or discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Physical attractiveness article
Hello, Sweet xx. How is John Wiley & Sons (interscience.wiley.com) an unreliable source? You removed them from the Skin tone section talking about physical attractiveness in women. I added them back. They are used throughout Wikipedia as a reliable source for a number of topics. Further, your redesign of that section made it too POV toward lighter skin being more desired, when before...it had a pretty nice balance talking about how tanned skin is often preferred by Americans. I balanced that section back out, and will add additional sources later talking about tanned skinned being more desirable. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)