User talk:Cielquiparle/Archive 4

Happy New Year, Cielquiparle!

Happy New Year!

Cielquiparle,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Nonmarital sex

Premarital sex#Definition seems to indicate that non-marital sex (the hyphenated form) is a near-synonym, so why should this term redirect to Human sexuality instead? That other article does not seem to mention the term at all.

For context, the term "nonmarital sex" is used in Media and American adolescent sexuality#Effects of the media on beliefs about sex, and I think Premarital sex is an appropriate target in that case. PleaseStand (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@PleaseStand From what you're saying (and from what those pages say), it's a broad term that could redirect to several different places – it hardly seems automatic that it would only redirect to Premarital sex. (If we were being really picky about it, it could be a set index page!) But sure, go ahead and change it back. At least the #Definition section acknowledges that it's a broad term that overlaps with other definitions. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I changed it back. Maybe, I will see if I can find sources and write an article specifically about the term, if I can find the time to do so. PleaseStand (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Michael Vogt

Hello, Cielquiparle,

Please look more closely at a page history before tagging an article for deletion. This page was an ordinary redirect and an editor blanked the page. So, it was not an "empty article", there was a blanking that should have been reverted. A look at the page history would have made this immediately apparent so I'm not sure how you missed it. I Know your editing from your thoughtful participation in AFD discussions so I hope you bring that care and attentio to page patrolling. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Liz In fact I did see this and I commented on the article Talk page. Should I have sent to AfD or elsewhere instead? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Taiwanese Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area

Hi I see you were working on reviewing this article a while back. I’m looking at articles from 15 October today because today is the last possible day to draftify anything in the NPP queue from that date. I thought this article might be appropriate to send to draft for improvement - what’s your view? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mccapra Draftification is an excellent solution. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Favor?

Am I right in remembering from Nihon Shōgakkō fire that you have some competence in Japanese? If yes, could you confirm that File:Jōhana radium spring in 1931.jpg does in fact mention something about radium? It totally tracks and the period is right but I don't read Japanese and wanted to make sure this image is okay to use on radium fad. Sorry to impose! Thank you for any help you can offer. jengod (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jengod Correct, ラジウム (printed on the card itself as ラジューム) refers to radium. Interesting article. On another note, if/when you have a moment, could you please take a look at Anti-Americanism among African Americans? (It's missing a lot of history.) Cielquiparle (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

1. TY @Cielquiparle! @ForsythiaJo quadrupled what was a 3-sentence stub I threw together after working on some springs articles including Radium Sulphur Springs 2. Of course I'll take a look. I wish I could promise to be able to contribute to its improvement!! jengod (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Come to think of it @Jengod, thanks for your fixes to Clair Cline – I had been hoping that the DYK process would drag on for longer so I would have more time to work on it but I guess the topic was too exciting/novel. To be clear, I haven't touched the Anti-Americanism article yet – I also mean to try to help fix it but am not sure I will find the time. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh very glad to help. It was a v cool story and I'm glad my facility in digging around genealogy DBs was of some use! jengod (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cleo Damianakes

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cleo Damianakes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bruxton -- Bruxton (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cleo Damianakes

The article Cleo Damianakes 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:Cleo Damianakes and Talk:Cleo Damianakes/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bruxton -- Bruxton (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton Thank you for your review. I believe I have responded to addressed all of your comments so far. If some of the points are deal breakers, we can expand the article as needed. We can discuss when you return. Have a good trip. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A peace dove for you

Hi Cielquiparle, I am glad to see your participation after what feels like awhile at AfD, because I consider your contributions thoughtful, well-researched and focused on building the encyclopedia. But I am sorry the recent discussion seems to have become a bit personalized, so I am writing to reiterate my respect and appreciation for your contributions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated @Beccaynr. I would just ask you this: You have eight articles about non-profit organizations listed on your User page. If all those articles were nominated for deletion tomorrow, would you be confident that they would satisfy the extreme standard of WP:ORG that you are advocating? I would argue that they would not. There is almost no information about a nonprofit that doesn't actually originate from the nonprofit itself; most of the coverage tends to quote directors and staff of the nonprofit; and even if nonprofits are promoting specific causes, you could easily have other editors arguing that any articles about a specific cause is about the cause, not the nonprofit itself and thus doesn't count, or that the articles are too promotional, or not in-depth enough about the organization, or that they focus on "routine" events that are not particularly relevant or are too news-driven, or that it's not comprehensive enough to write an entire article (when the policy specifically says the article needs to contain enough information to write more than "a very brief, incomplete stub"). IMO, it's possible to poke holes in any source. It's important to consider the "why" behind the policy and how it actually works in practice, not just enforce dogma. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

For nonprofit organizations, the WP:NONPROFIT section of the guideline applies, and please note I do not think it will be productive to debate each of those articles on your user talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beccaynr "Usually notable" is not the same as "notable". Cielquiparle (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Irma Tam Soong.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Irma Tam Soong.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) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TV's Naughtiest Blunders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Record.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For adding references to over 100 articles in a two-week period, for diligently tying up even the non-citation-related loose ends in Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2008, and for recognising and encouraging the work of others on the WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog. Turtlecrown (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Turtlecrown, likewise for all your thoughtful citations and edits, and for making category-elimination exciting in the Unreferenced articles context. (September 2008 is calling.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Well done! Nice work indeed. BorgQueen (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Cielquiparle,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Draftify

Hey Cielquiparle. When you move articles to draftspace, you should notify the creator on their talk page and request speedy deletion of the redirect. See WP:DRAFTNOTIFY. Also, avoid draftifying within an hour after a user has been working on the article, per WP:NPPHOUR. I recommend using the User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft script, which will automate the first two steps and remind you if the article has been edited in that past hour, among other things. SilverLocust 💬 20:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@SilverLocust Will do. Thank you for pointing me to the script and instructions. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Found this at NPP The Blue Angels (2024)

A film about Blue Angels. I am going to get it 5x- already started. I wondered if you want to collaborate on getting this article spiffed up. I have many qpqs and we will both get credit for the nomination. It might also inspire the new user who started the article because they will get credit. The Blue Angels (2024). Bruxton (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton Well done. Article looks good! Not sure it needs much spiffing...? Cielquiparle (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, please do see what you can do. I think the article still needs more perhaps WP:MINEing also. Bruxton (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton Deserves a better hook. Thinking about it. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I am stuck! Maybe see what you can do with that nomination, the reviewer is asking for better hooks. I will add you to the nom. By the way I have missed you at DYK, but even my own activity there has gone down. Bruxton (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton Not sure what to do now. We have a reviewer who is very literal. This is partly why I got out of the hook-writing business. I had a well-meaning editor with barely any DYK experience spoil the Alfred Cowles hook at the last minute with no discussion, so it ran with a super boring version of the hook. Happens. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I was called away for a few days, but I just responded there. Bruxton (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

nachos revert

Hi Cielquiparle,

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Nachos, and while I do reflect that I should've discussed the addition on the talk page, I just wanted to let you know that I did not intend to vandalize the page, just a newbie forgetting a simple rule :|.

^Pingy/_Pongy 02:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining @DingDongPingPong. Take a look at the edits made by the IP before you who was clearly vandalizing the page. It made sense to revert to the version of the article before. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.

But on the Nachos article, does there not seem to be multiple under-referenced sections, especially Nachos#Ingredients? Does that not then call for the under-referenced banner?

^Pingy/_Pongy 02:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@DingDongPingPong You were using the wrong tag and unintentionally tagged the entire article as "Unreferenced". You should have only tagged the specific section, which requires a different tag. See WP:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Mistagged articles cleanup for more information. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yet another newbie mistake :). Thanks for pointing that out! ^Pingy/_Pongy 02:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this an agreeable revision or could it still do with some work? ^Pingy/_Pongy 02:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@DingDongPingPong Sure. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Command information newspaper

Hello! Your submission of Command information newspaper at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Z1720 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Opinion

Hey @Cielquiparle, hope you're well. I wondered if I could use your wiki-experience for a sec. I made a list today named List of things claimed to possess 365 of something, and just wondering if you could think of ways to improve it, or improve the title, or if the idea even warrants a page at all. I thought it might be an interesting addition to Wikipedia. Regards, Ridiculopathy (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ridiculopathy. My advice is to have a look at WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRITERIA as the list likely will get challenged by the list police at some point. (The thing to look for now is a reliable source that talks about "things that come in sets of 365" as a category (or equivalent) to help make the case that it's not original research or an arbitrary collection of things.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cielquiparle, thanks for the feedback. I wasn't aware it had to come from a reliable source that already pre-grouped such ideas. Hypothetically if I were to find a source that linked such ideas as this article is trying to achieve (a list of lakes that are all reputed to have 365 islands, etc), where does one reference such a source in the wiki page - is it to each of the individual items in the article, or just once at the beginning or ending? I just thought up the idea for this page the other day as an interesting concept for a wiki article, but maybe it's too "original research"-esque to qualify for a standalone list, which is fair enough. Thanks for the advice. Ridiculopathy (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ridiculopathy Just once at the top is enough (depending on what it says) and remember, that source doesn't have to list every item on your list page – it just has to back up the overall concept as a "thing". Cielquiparle (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what you mean. Every day's a day at school on Wikipedia! Ridiculopathy (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

unref parameter on talk page templates

If you do not like that |unref=yes is used in talk templates, could you discuss that on the talk page for the templates, and not just remove the flags when they are present. Also, could you explain to me how the category is unmaintained? awkwafaba (📥) 20:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba Will do. Seems like a big issue. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba For background (before I submit a ticket): Could you explain why you are using the "unref=yes" parameter? What does the tag enable you to do? Can you point me to the bot or search page where you are tracking all the articles marked "unref=yes"? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Where are you submitting a ticket? That sounds like you are going to Phabricator for a bug. This is more of a request for discussion where you would need to build consensus first, I would think.

The main reason is that I personally use that is that I can quickly tag articles with Rater. In the case of the WP Cities talk template, it populates Category:Articles lacking sources as stated on the template's page. As you can see from the category page, there are subcategories that other WPs use. For example, you can see on the page for Category:Unreferenced Germany articles, that one is populated by the WP Germany talk page template. Many projects and editors use these parameters and categories. awkwafaba (📥) 18:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba Thanks for the info, will look into it. I wonder why you need to manually tag articles with Rater on as "unreferenced", if the article itself is already tagged as "unreferenced"? Shouldn't tagging the article once be enough, rather than requiring a duplicative manual step? Also, it seems that a lot of those "unref=yes" tags get orphaned, so it still requires a human or bot to go back and change manually to "unref=no" (which doesn't happen often enough, judging from all the Talk pages with "unref=yes" for appropriately sourced articles). Seems like a massive inefficiency; there should be an automated way to achieve what you're looking for. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Prods

Saying "seems" was a figure of speech to be polite... I'm sure they don't meet the guidelines in question. Shows me to try to be nice I guess. Here2rewrite (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Here2rewrite Knowing what you don't know – and being precise about uncertainty – is an admirable quality. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Unreferenced/references

Re: your edits here. The references template performs the exact same function as the Unreferenced template, being a redirect to it. It's not broken or defective. Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I now see you're using the "Unreferenced section", not "Unreferenced|section". I wasn't aware the "section" parameter on the that template wasn't functioning correctly. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit I'm sure it's a bug that is easily fixed. Just wasn't sure whether to submit to Phabricator or somewhere else? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Jacob Job Elie

Hey! Thanks for the tidying and clean-up on Jacob Job Elie's page. I'm not the most experienced Wiki contributor (this is my first created page) but I'm looking for books to cite at the moment and will be adding them asap. I've found a handful that will likely come in handy, summarising his military career and mentioning him in the storming of the Bastille, so it shouldn't take me too long! Beologi (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your 30,000th edit @Cielquiparle! Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Aydoh8 for the rapid recognition. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Chinese Fables and Folk Stories, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 Thanks for reading and for the invitation. I will keep an eye out for what the taskforce is up to. These days I am mainly interested in music albums, association football, military history, villages in India, geography of Germany, and railway stations. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries Kowal2701 (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Who are The Editors?

There's an interesting book launch at Newspeak House today and I plan to attend to see if liberties have been taken with our circle. Hope to see you there. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson Interesting. Any good? Feels like he should be comp'ing the book to any real-life "Editors". Cielquiparle (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

He gave complementary copies to the folk who showed. We got a spare so I'll bring that to the next Wikimeet to pass around. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to cite WP:BASIC, please understand it

At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maria_Antònia_Mínguez you wrote that my reference to WP:SPORTBASIC was arbitrarily applying present-day sports criteria to a historical sports biography. Regardless, WP:BASIC can trump the sport-specific criteria.

My reference to SPORTBASIC was about the use of the subject as a primary source. You'll be pleased to know that BASIC has exactly the same guidance as SPORTBASIC on this. Hopefully you read BASIC before citing it, but I'm inclined to think you didn't, or you would have known that the second bullet point there says Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

FYI, Mínguez nowhere near meets BASIC, so applying SPORTBASIC instead is actually the generous move. (There is no sport-specific criteria for women's football, SPORTBASIC is just BASIC with some extra notes on routine match results and database sources.) Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. If a journalist interviews someone and interprets what they said, that's a secondary source. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 2

Hello, Cielquiparle,

I should let you know that I mentioned your name in this deletion review. I didn't give you a ping because I didn't want to involve you in this discussion but after a few hours have passed, I realized that I should let you know that your name came up. You don't have to participate in the review but I thought you should receive a notification. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Liz for all you do. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

To respond

Feel free to archive this, too, but since you didn't give me a chance to respond. Media interpreting a person's words on a topic that person is speaking about, can be considered a secondary source for the topic, but effectively only to report on what has been said about the topic. It is not a secondary source to establish the notability of the person speaking. Or, an analogy, Book B referring to things written in Book A is not about (and certainly does not establish notability for) the author of Book A.

I think you do understand this difference, of course, because even your own edit to the article was the hedging level of just saying "she was interviewed" (which, again, the interview is a primary source for and does not establish its own notability). Kingsif (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. You are overthinking this. If the person wasn't notable, they wouldn't be interviewed and the article would not include a notability argument. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t want to be rude, but with the amount of times we can see denied AfCs with a rookie editor saying “they’re mentioned in X, which is an RS” having to be told that this alone doesn’t make someone notable, the notability is dependent on the content in the RS - I’d hope an experienced editor wouldn’t be trying that argument. As said, Mínguez is not even interviewed about herself or her career, but effectively as an expert on women’s football in Barcelona in 1970. The sources would be useful as secondary sources for that topic (if there weren’t already tertiary sources exploring it), but using an RS interviewing a person about something else as a primary source to say the person was interviewed by an RS, does not establish notability. Again, I don’t believe you don’t already understand that. Kingsif (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. You know that AfD is about building consensus, right? You aren't going to get very far if you get so wound up and are so hostile to everyone who doesn't agree with you. Move on, let it go. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources for Election interference article

Thank you for adding the first refs to this article today, but I notice that both are paywalled so it's not clear to the WP:READER how the inaccessible references support the in-article information. Is it possible to cite sources that aren't paywalled? BBQboffin^{grill me} 04:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@BBQboffin It's called Wikipedia Library and it is PRICELESS. Log on to Wikipedia Library NOW. You are ELIGIBLE, you are so LUCKY. It will unlock NEW WORLDS. It is the greatest gift in return for volunteering on Wikipedia. GO GO GO! (And once you log on you will be able to read all those articles and find even more. There is plenty.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Larry Rivers (basketball)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Larry Rivers (basketball) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kimikel -- Kimikel (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Larry Rivers (basketball), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Citing

Hi there,

Thanks for your note about my article James Morris Whiton. Been editing for about 4 years now, but citing formatting is a little beyond my expertise except for using the auto-cite function which works out most of the time. Any help you could provide would be great. Thanks! Jjazz76 (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jjazz76 and thanks for creating and updating the article. My main reason for tagging was just to point out that you shouldn't ever link directly to external links inside of the article body. But you could always cite those same articles and link to them within the references (or in an External links section), if that makes sense. I guess you've been using the auto-cite function but in truth the "manual" citation function in visual editor is quite straightforward; it's form-driven and the output is much tidier looking than what most people do the hard way in wiki markup. ;) I just added a citation as an example to the article, if you see what I mean. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle - yep - got it. thanks so much. Working through cites is def an area I can improve. Cites in academia are nothing compared to the rigor and nice formatting of Wikipedia citations. I'll def try out the manual function. Usually what happens with the author renders nicely 2/3 of the time, and then the other 1/3 it leaves obvious errors but I can't seem to find a way to fix them. Any tutorial or youtube vid on that you might know of would be awesome. But maybe manual citing is the key! Jjazz76 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jjazz76 The main error I noticed was that after auto-converting, you still have to change any occurrence of "year-month" (e.g. "1961-10") to say "October 1961" because otherwise it really wants a number for "day". Cielquiparle (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Cielquiparle. Thank you for your work on Mamica Kastrioti. Another editor, Kingsmasher678, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kingsmasher678}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kingsmasher678 Did you notify the actual person who created the article? I'm only listed as the starter because I moved the article to Draft a while ago. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably not, the review tool sends them and it ended up here. I'll try to track them down.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kingsmasher678 The review tool usually gives you the option to notify multiple editors...and you can tell by the number of edits displayed who is likely the most important contributor. (Since you would generally want to thank the creator...it's easy to get used to skipping over that when it pops up.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I just spotted it. However, when I looked back through the article I also decided I wanted someone to take another look at it, so added it back to the list.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patrice Duhamel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Les Echos.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)