User talk:I'm tla/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marlene Engelhorn has been accepted

Marlene Engelhorn, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Lopifalko (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Leyner Palacios has been accepted

Leyner Palacios, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Lopifalko (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

AfD results

I recall you were getting some flak about poor !votes and nominations at AfD. Many of those have come through the queue now, and I thought I'd point out this link for you in case you hadn't found it yet: [1]. You've got very good results, at least by the numbers - 96% matches, a huge chunk of which are nominations. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for telling me about this. Yeah, I was criticized for nominating a lot of AdDs, which makes sense, but people did somewhat overlook the quality of my nominations/concerns. Thanks! TLA (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It happens when anyone nominates a whole lot of articles in one go (there's also a bunch on Azerbaijan topics that have been going through the queue, and the nominating editor has been taking some flak for that), so be mindful of that in the future. But mostly it seems to me it's because you're new, and someone new popping up prolifically in admin-adjacent areas alarms people. Eventually you won't be new anymore, and you'll alarm people less. Hang in there. -- asilvering (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

ah, it was my utterly my bad for the failure to mark as non-Admin. Maybe it wasn't the best idea to do things like that so early either. Hope I'll be able to have the experience to be trusted to do so in the future. Thanks for your support! TLA (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naci Görür (January 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Naci Görür 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm tla! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naci Görür has been accepted

Naci Görür, 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.

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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christopher Slayton (January 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vrxces was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Christopher Slayton 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.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

DanCherek (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Oh Eun-young has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Oh Eun-young. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The Lifeboat Fund

I've just spent 5 hours creating a page about Civil Service Lifeboats, and you just changed the name. Please revert it. Its not about the fund - its about Lifeboats! Ojsyork (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

On the group's website (which you added) it is named The Lifeboat Fund. All the sources also point to that TLA (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It had been live for 4 minutes!

I'm new to this, Give us chance! Ojsyork (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm also new! But I'm really doubtful that an article mainly about Civil Service Lifeboats merits a standalone. There is stuff online that talks about the Lifeboat Fund, but I'm not seeing much about Civil Service Lifeboats specifically. TLA (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm tla,

If an editor, whether new or experienced, is just creating an article, we generally leave them alone to work on the article for a few hours. Do not change the page title of a newly created article or there is likely to be backlash as we see here. Content creators sometimes spend hours crafting articles in their User space or Draft space and editors who work as "patrollers" are advised not to make drastic changes to their work right after it has been created. So, no moving articles, no tagging articles for deletion, no large content removals unless there are problems with advertising, copyright violations or BLP-violating content. The fact is that you could be right and the page title should be changed. But don't swoop in after an article has been created and make major changes, I'm sure you can be empathetic and see how that would feel to an editor who has written that article. There are days and weeks to get an article perfect and most major changes should be suggested on the article talk page.

We need both content creators and page patrollers but try to work together and not step on each other's toes. Thank you very much for your contributions to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liz, understood. I'll keep that in mind for the future. I spend time at NewPagesFeed, so this came up – I didn't think moving the article to a new title would be a huge drastic change, but next time I won't do it until a day or two after, or proposing it. Completely understand that it can be annoying though – apologies to @Ojsyork in that case. Thanks! TLA (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

As a newbie to Wiki creation and editing, I am shocked that so many folk just jump in and change things, only minutes after you have done something.

I get folk changing hyphens, adding or deleting spaces, and that kind of stuff, but nothing actually productive. It seems to me that there is too much emphasis on the presentation, and not enough on the content being correct - although I do have one chap, I think of questionable mental capacity, who seems to delight at changing everything I add.

However, I trust you are now aware of how insulting it is to change someones heading of a new page within 4 minutes of it going live. You can edit all day behind the scenes, but at some point you need to publish to see how it reads. As you will understand, I felt obliged to fight back.

In this case, I got my first paragraph wrong, which headed up as "The Lifeboat Fund", and you grabbed that as my page being wrongly named. I realise this was a mistake on my part, and has been corrected. The page is absolutely about Lifeboats, and really not about the fund.

Also, it's not a standalone page. If you start to search, you will find many many other lifeboats pages, with which this one forms a valuable link. A cross reference about Civil Service Lifeboats and why they are so named - you will find Civil Service Lifeboats mentioned on most if not all of the RNLI Lifeboat fleet pages, but until now, there was no specific reference about them.

So I would very much appreciate that the page is left alone, as Civil Service Lifeboats....and it would be appreciated if the discussion thread could be removed too please. Ojsyork (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Presentation is important, yes. The thing is, I strongly believe the title is still wrong. Upon reading https://www.thelifeboatfund.org.uk/about-us, it says "Civil Service Lifeboat Fund", same with a lot of other references. This source probably talks about the lifeboats itself more. Regardless, I think a rename is definitely needed here, or potentially this article could be a "part" of a main article about The Lifeboat Fund, maybe rename to "Civil Service lifeboats".

Indeed, when it was first published, it was confusing as it mentioned half/half about the fund and lifeboats. Please do not find any of this insulting. TLA (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to create a page about The Lifeboat Fund as an organisation, then please feel free. Its not something I have any intentions of creating. If you search for The Lifeboat Fund on the internet, there are plenty of their own pages available. However, there is no other source where there is a complete list of all the past and present Civil Service lifeboats, and that is why the page was created.

If you look at any of the other RNLI Fleet pages, Shannon, Mersey, Arun, Tyne, Trent, Severn RFD PB16, EA16 etc etc ..., you will see it is created in the same format and is already an integral part of the RNLI pages.

I think its time you let this one go please. Ojsyork (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done In light of the fact that it's now clearly about lifeboats, I'll move it to the name other editors said to move it toward: Civil Service lifeboats TLA (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:MOVECLOSE

You aren't supposed to close moves you're involved in per WP:RMCLOSE, as you did at Talk:Civil Service lifeboats#Requested move 11 February 2024 as its proposer. Just a note. DankJae 22:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, I realized that a minute after closing. I wanted to withdraw it and end it asap, as nominator, and considering the consensus. Thanks. TLA (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

IMDb links

Hi TLA. I noticed your recent article A First Farewell and just wanted to point out that there are templates for EL to IMDb: see WP:IMDBTEMPLATE. These are to be preferred to the way you made the link, for reasons explained at WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 79#Masking imdb links as wikilinks. I've made the change. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Didn't know there was a template for that! Thanks for letting me know. TLA (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Myss Keta

If this is the first article that you have 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.

A tag has been placed on Myss Keta requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, I'm questioning your judgement here. In WP:CCOS "Research of reliable sources (method two)" is cited. There's a Vice piece, a New York Times piece (another one is online that I didn't use, and much, much more. I've translated this from the Italian and French Wikipedia as well. Since you're the administrator here, maybe I'm missing something, but at the moment this feels wrong. TLA (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

tag removed by sysop TLA (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Translation requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from one or more pages to Myss Keta. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. For example: Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk pages of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, please add attribution retrospectively for that also, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it, understood. This was my first translated article, so I'll make the adjustments. TLA (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of The Sister

Dear tla: Thank you very much for your welcoming message, and the great gift of a barnstar in relation to my creation of the article on the book The Sister. I see you started the talk page of the article by adding the banner shell, etc. I wonder if you really intended to assess it as a class C. Or if maybe the article might quality for a higher quality grade. Thank you. :-) AlbertBF-WIR (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Well I think it the main concerns were some WP:REFSPAM here and there. But B class is certainly on the verge (I think one day this might become a WP:GA. You can actually change the rating yourself, I have no issues with that! TLA (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Tuko.co.ke close

This was definitely not a clear outcome (even by numbers alone, it's more than 1/3 delete votes). I've only just noticed it, so I think it's a bit late to ask you to revert and leave it to an admin, but reminder that NACs are supposed to be for uncontroversial closures only. -- asilvering (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, it wasn't a clear cut consensus. Though LibStar's comment wasn't too strong and seemed partially resolved ("Looks like a lot of sources but it's refbombed") and Asparagus mentioned "could be notable". But yeah in the future I'll leave more kind of wonky outcomes to admins. Thanks, appreciate more experienced editors like you letting me know when I rush things. TLA (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I've been going by is basically "if you have to think about the consensus, leave it (and maybe vote instead)". If anyone's gotten annoyed at this so far, they haven't told me. -- asilvering (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. Will apply that in the future. TLA (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oh Eun-young has been accepted

Oh Eun-young, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

S0091 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

A promise

I don't want you to feel attacked so I promise I will not make further comments at your current perm requests or in the future, unless an editor/admin specifically asks me something which is highly unlikely or if I am offering support. My advice is to wait at least 90 days for any that are declined before re-requesting, though. S0091 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Mate, don't worry about it. Even though I might not like that it's kind of restricting me from the permissions that I think I'm ready for it's clear that you are a great Wikipedian. And the concerns you raised are my mistakes anyway. Thanks. TLA^tlak 23:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, I'm tla,

You only returned to regular editing last month and I see you now closing AFDs and asking for additional permissions. I think it would be wise to slow down. And I don't think you have the necessary level of participation and experience in deletion discussions to be closing AFDs which usually have some of our most experienced editors participating in them. Start evaluating articles and sources as a regular participant in some AFDs and don't leap to closing or relisting discussions for a few more months. I've seen plenty of overly eager new editors get in over their head in the administrative side of Wikipedia and crash and burn. If you want to be editing here for a long time, please pace yourself. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Sounds fine. I won't close any AfDs for 2 months, thanks. TLA (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

TLA, you are putting a time box on your activity rather than making sure you have the correct knowledge and experience. In 2 months maybe you will or maybe you won't but what I can tell you is if you keep wading into areas for which you not ready, Wikipedia will not be a good experience for you. Not knowing if you are ready is a competence issue so like several other editors, I suggest you slooow....waaay....dooown. S0091 (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yup, you're right about slowing down. I will do so. I'll participate in more AfDs, make sure I look closely and get a 90%+ rate. I'm also aiming to hit 50 articles in total this month. I don't want people basing my knowledge of notability/requirements for an article off the fact that I close AfDs rather early and "review" too quickly. Thus, new page reviewer is probably not the play, as it seems I act too fast on new articles published and thus fail some of the guidelines. Autopatrolled, however, is personal work and solely based on Wikipedia's encyclopedic formatting and notability guidelines. AfC is also much simpler. TLA^tlak 00:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

How do you know AfC is simpler? You haven't done either NPP or AfC. DGG, now gone but was an admin and member of Arbcom thought AfC was more difficult than NPP. Maybe...maybe not. S0091 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Three things are essentially what AfC reviewing is: making sure its encyclopedic, terms, making sure its WP:NPOV, and sources that = notability. Just my opinion.

• Editing/moving new pages too early – that relates to NPP guidelines. Nothing to do with anything about AWB, Autopatrolled, and AfC.
• Closing AfDs too early – that's just working too fast. Nothing to do with anything about AWB, Autopatrolled, and AfC.

TLA^tlak 00:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Just butting in here: I think that's all true, except the AWB bit (you can, and, I think, probably will, have the same problems with AWB as you've been having so far). Your AfD hit rate so far is good, and that's the most important statistic when it comes to being an AfC reviewer. But all the same, I don't think you should try AfC reviewing (yet). A really important part of being an AfC reviewer that can't really be distilled into a statistic is that you need to be the complete opposite of WP:BITEy. Personally, I think your high-octane enthusiasm has the potential to be really, really bitey - and already has in at least some cases, like when you've been patrolling recent edits and acted too early. Of course, I also think you've been bitten quite a lot. (I got bitten quite a bit when I was new, too, so, solidarity. Wikipedia wants competent, committed people to stick around, but has a great distrust of competent newcomers. Welcome!)

My advice, which you can take or leave, is to pull back completely from project-space stuff for a while. Avoid the meta. Don't even read it unless you have to. Stick entirely to creating new articles, and don't try to get autopatrolled. Avoid editing articles that are already in mainspace, for the most part. Do this for months. Then, dip your toe back into the project-space bits one area at a time, and only a little bit at a time at first. Why avoid autopatrolled? Because you'll probably learn from the experience of having NPP drop by and stick tags all over your stuff. (Probably, what you will learn is "god this is really annoying, I feel really bad about having patrolled recent changes so ardently.") Why avoid everything else? Because you've already proven you're perfectly competent at writing new articles, and doing that is a good way to bring a lot of value to the encyclopedia with minimal opportunities for other people to show up and tell you to knock it off or call you an idiot just because you're new and enthusiastic.

If you can handle any more advice after all that (sorry), my suggestion for the first thing to dip your toe back into is GA nominations and reviews. There's a massive backlog there that needs all the enthusiasm it can get. Everyone who has nominated an article there wants someone to come by and have a critical look at it. And it's much more time-consuming than most other stuff (AfC closes, etc), so you're less likely to scare everybody. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That is so fair. I mean, I'm a person who likes to get things done ASAP but obviously that's not always right, especially in a newer place.

Over the past couple days I've tried to help out at AfC drafts by speaking to the creators and what they can improve on either at Teahouse or on their talkpage, as I completely understand being a newcomer (I only really started doing substantial edits in December or something as I'm less busy now).

Thing about AfC is I take a look at it sometimes and I see articles that I think would be fine for Wikipedia stay stuck in the backlog for nearly 2 months. Apart from trying to help out the project, I think all us editors can agree that Wikipedia editing is actually quite fun. And I think AfC reviewing is a great next step for me, as I hope to become a NPP one day in the coming months. Starting out at AfC, I'll probably tackle the easier cases first, and build my way up.

Yes, an NPP reviewer dropped by just a couple days ago (while not really often as I try my best to emulate the formatting of GAs) and told me about a template that would help with IMDb external links in BLPs.

For AfC and autopatrol, I think a temporary probationary trial is most appropriate as I've demonstrated the knowledge needed for those areas, but taking into account that I work too fast sometimes and might gloss over a guideline accidentally.

I appreciate the advice. I'm actually planning to get Looksmaxxing as a good article sometime soon, because it definitely has a lot of potential. I also plan to get 3 articles into B-class this month. Honestly though, I don't think I'm qualified to review GA nominations yet (I think I should probably get maybe 2 of my own GA articles completed before I start). TLA^tlak 02:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Hi I'm tla! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) 00:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Keeping that in mind, thanks. Sometimes it just seems minor, will make sure its just really really minor. TLA^tlak 03:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion

Hello, I'm tla,

I was looking at Draft:RK Films And Media Academy and you tagged this draft for speedy deletion 8 minutes after it was created! You should go to learn how to be a New Page Patroller because this is not how we treat content creators. Unless there is objectionable content, please give an article/draft creator at least an hour after their last edit before you tag a page for deletion. I don't know if you have created many articles but 8 minutes is not enough time to craft an article. Please do not jump on new articles to tag them for deletion unless there is copyright or BLP-violating content. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liz, on a previous message you mentioned So, no moving articles, no tagging articles for deletion, no large content removals unless there are problems with advertising so I'm a little bit confused. It's also quite clear that the draft meets G11. Anyways, sorry. TLA^tlak 05:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with Liz on this one in part because it's a draft the creator had submitted it for review. which to me means they believe it is ready enough to be assessed. Something to consider though TLA is it is draft space, not article space and an AfC submission so there is a little more tolerance for promo language because it can be corrected. Unless it is super blatant probably best to leave it for review. One the purposes of AfC is to give feedback to new editors who have never written an encyclopedia article and as you can see, it has now been declined in part due to promo language so they got that feedback. S0091 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Alas, it's N Deleted. Yeah, I now know better not to even touch new pages until an hour after a recent creation and around 40 mins since a recent edit (unless big issues, of course). I do the same with AfCs drafts as well, unless I see advertising or copyvio. In this case, it was advertising beyond resurrection. TLA^tlak 07:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Add WP:G10 (attack page) and WP:G3 (vandalism/hoax) to your list per WP:NPP#Serious content problems. It does not include WP:G11 but for draft space there are no such rules so a bit of a free-for-all. S0091 (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Noted. TLA^tlak 23:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggested merger of ‘Baldwin’ and ‘Baldwin in France’

Hello, I’m tla.

You proposed that the ‘Baldwin in France’ article be merged into the more general ‘Baldwin’ article. I would normally agree with you, but, when I started working on the subject, I decided to create a separate ‘Baldwin in France’ article because the combined article would not adhere to Wikipedia guidance on article length. The ‘Baldwin in France’ article (which has more than 1800 words) would overload the ‘Baldwin’ article, which is massive at over 11,000 words. Thus, the combined article would be aproximately 12,500 words. That puts it nearly in the zone where WP guidance on Article Length ( see WP:LENGTH) states that such an article ‘almost certainly should be divided or trimmed’. The current ‘Baldwin’ article’s length is already in the zone, described in WP:LENGTH as ‘probably should be divided or trimmed’. Thus, the main article on Baldwin should probably be split up. It was after reading the WP guidance that I decided to write a separate article to begin with.

I intend to remove the merger tag. Is that okay with you? Regards. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I think I'll keep it there for now to see what other editors say, though. As I can see there is currently another support from an editor, and Wikipedia is a collaborative project.

This reminds me of the Donald Trump article where there are multiple separate articles. In Trump's article, though, each one talks about a specific career portion/family/wealth topic, I don't know if "in France" really makes sense here. Do you know of an example I could look at? TLA^tlak 21:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Let’s leave it for the time being. Not sure what you mean about an example of “in France” that you could look at. As you can see from the references, Baldwin’s expatriation was a critical influence on his work. Maybe we could change the title to ‘James Baldwin’s expatriation’. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

One additional point. The “support from another editor” refers to the merger being “logical”. We can all agree on that. The problem is that the main article is already so long (at 11,000 words) that the combined article would be excessively long. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lapse (social network)

Hello! Your submission of Lapse (social network) 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) 02:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! TLA^tlak 07:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all the content you've written. I'm glad to see you learned from your earlier mistakes. Mach61 17:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! TLA^tlak 20:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Saidullah Karimi

Hello I'm tla, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Saidullah Karimi, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saidullah Karimi.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Gyat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gyat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mach61 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Gyat

I do not think there has been enough secondary, in-depth coverage of this word for a standalone article to be viable. Would you mind if I redirected the article to List of Generation Z slang? Cheers, Mach61 01:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mach, I'd disagree, here's a few more that is full coverage of Gyat

• Today.com
• Business Insider
• Lifehacker]

and there's more online. In addition, the article attracts ~1.5K visitors a day, so there's a clear need for it in my opinion. If you want to nominate it for AfD, go ahead, I don't own the article. TLA^tlak 20:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Pageviews or usefulness are not generally not a valid arguments (see WP:USEFUL and WP:POPULARPAGE, an essay but often used in AfDs). However, if I were reviewing it at AfC I would have accepted it. If you have time, I suggest expanding it some using what experts say. The Today article has some expert commentary and the others might as well. See also my comments at AfD. S0091 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Jynxzi has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jynxzi. Thanks! She was ^afairy 07:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You are doing a fantastic job with those source assessment tables in your AfD votes. It's really helpful. Keep up the great work! – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!! TLA^tlak 13:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tharshan Selvarajah has been accepted

Tharshan Selvarajah, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Zari Kovo

Actually, my real concern is that these are sockpuppets of the nominator who has meanwhile been blocked. One of the two supporting identities is already accumulating warnings. gidonb (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Me too – I put in an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tapal2024. We can't really tag the users as anything else without confirmation, I think. Any experienced closer will probably take notice anyway and disregard those votes. But I believe it's worth getting Oaktree b to double-check their vote, so I will ping them their to clarify the consensus after the three sources. TLA^tlak 14:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed image sizes

Please do not use fixed width (|123x123px) on images per MOS:IMGSIZE. If you wish to increase or reduce the size of an image, please use the "upright" parameter. Thanks, Queen of Hearts ^she/_they^talk/_stalk 00:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

👍 TLA^tlak 01:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Ways to improve Tharshan Selvarajah

Hello, I'm tla,

Thank you for creating Tharshan Selvarajah.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please de orphan it soon.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|The Herald}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done TLA^tlak 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Narc Cuban" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Narc Cuban has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 22 § Narc Cuban until a consensus is reached. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Mewing (facial restructuring technique) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mewing (facial restructuring technique) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mewing (facial restructuring technique) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Polargrizbear (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vinnie Hacker has been accepted

Vinnie Hacker, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

TLA^tlak 11:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the review TLA! TLA^tlak 11:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

While accepting one's own drafts is not prohibited, for someone who has been an AfC reviewer for less than an month. was granted the pseudo-perm on a probationary basis, restricted to only 5 reviews a day due to various concerns and told to come to WT:AFC in a month to have the restriction removed, not a the best idea to be honest. S0091 (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

My only intention was to move this from draft to mainspace. Well, okay, thanks. TLA^tlak 15:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lapse (social network)

Hello! Your submission of Lapse (social network) 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Peter Nguyen Van Hung

See Protecting Immigrant Rights—Father Peter Nguyen Van Hung. --Chunghwa1010 (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, what is this about? TLA^tlak 15:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

More Gyat (if I can say that without offending anyone)

You've obviously convinced me of the merit of the Gyat article which is lingering on AfD. All good there. May I suggest another addition that might strengthen the argument for keeping it? If there were a few examples of known people (preferably WP:N and covered in this encyclopaedia) actually using the word (i.e., direct quotes); and/or more examples of serious people like John McWhorter discussing it, this might help achieve consensus. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cl3phact0, thanks for some ideas. Honestly basically all of the serious quotes I used came from the article in TODAY, I'll hunt for more. It's a bit tough. TLA^tlak 15:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)