User talk:Clearfrienda/Archives/2023/April

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Harutyun Zatikian

Hi, I have a question; who is "Harutyun Zatikian" and why do you think he/she/it developed "Spider-Man: Web of Fire" when many sources on the internet say it was developed by BlueSky Software? I typed "Harutyun Zatikian" on the internet and the only things I got from it are the Wikipedia article "List of video games featuring Spider-Man" and a person named Harut Zatikian. ArthurRead1976 (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I just addressed this edit in a revert. "Harutyun Zatikian" is from a vandalism edit made in August 2008 that was never fixed.[1] NJZombie (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed your edits to List of video games featuring Spider-Man, and yes, you're right. Turns out it was an old vandalism edit from August 2008 that had gone unnoticed and was never undone. That's my fault. (however, you should still always remember to cite your sources when adding new information). Sorry about that!

Happy editing, Clear friend a ^💬 03:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey, with information that's been there that long, even if incorrect and from a vandalism attempt, it's easy to question its sudden removal. No harm done! NJZombie (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2023 (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:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Courcelles (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Barnstars

As promised at the rewards board, I hereby award Clearfrienda the following four barnstars for improving the page Easter with citations:

		The Citation Barnstar
		BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Clearfrienda. After reviewing your request, I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 2023-05-26. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Clearfrienda. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Jagadish_Palanisamy

Thank you, for looking at the article- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jagadish_Palanisamy

While drafting this article I primarily looked at other wikipedia pages of people originating from the same region.

Below are a few Wikipedia pages that are currently live who are much less notable in the industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashmita_Karnani

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayathri_Reddy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Antony

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauri_Karnik

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavana_Bhatt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jai_Quehaeni Fun fact, i originally put up this page in 2010

I am not suggesting these pages be taken down or edited in anyway, im only trying to understand how editors who are not familiar with the region or the subject decide notability.

Currently google trends shows more people are googling the person and including Wikipedia as a keyword https://postimg.cc/cKTVx4Gc

If this page goes live in some form, other wikipedia editors can contribute to it too.

Given the new information please let me know how to proceed.

Thank you for your time! Syler.mi4 (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Syler.mi4: Hi – I hope you're doing alright. I declined your article because it doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability policy on filmakers or the general notability guidelines on people. In my opinion, the subject is notable enough (I've seen quite a few articles on him), but that doesn't matter unless it's proven in the article. I think it'll probably get accepted after the next submission if you add a few more sources. Either way, the notability guidelines for "creative professionals" (which includes filmmakers) are the following:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or

The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Now, I think, based on some searches, the subject would probably qualify for being "regarded as an important figure" in section one, but that can't be proven without reliable, in-depth sources about the subject in the article. At the moment, you do have some in-depth sources, but they mostly are either primary (i.e., written by the subject or someone close to the subject) or not reliable; while the reliable, secondary sources only have passing mentions of the subject (i.e., not in-depth coverage). In order for your article to be considered "notable," you must have enough reliable, secondary, in-depth references to be able to accurately verify all information. At the moment, I just don't think there's enough evidence of that.

Regarding your other comments, I'm not responsible for other articles. Just because some other articles aren't notable does not mean that I should accept more that also don't meet the guidelines. Think about it this way: If someone else robs a bank, it doesn't mean you should rob a bank as well. We decide notability by looking at your references in the article. If the references don't appear to be reliable (this is based on several factors: community-built lists, research, fact-checking, reputability, frequency, etc.), or don't cover the subject in depth, then they won't help with establishing notability. For example, a lot of the articles you have linked have in-depth articles about the subject from The Times of India, which is usually considered to be a reliable, secondary source (which would help with notability). Obviously, coverage alone does not equal notability, but a general rule of thumb is three reliable, secondary, in-depth sources. Again, it doesn't matter how apparently popular the subject appears, it's making sure that all information can be accurately verified (i.e., by using a reliable source). If an article is not "notable," it probably won't have enough coverage to accurately verify its claims.

You're right that editors can contribute if the page is live and in the mainspace, but they can also contribute on the draft page. I can't accept a draft pre-maturely. You have to ensure it's ready for publishing before moving it to the mainspace.

Again, I recommend adding some more reliable, secondary sources with in-depth coverage on the subject to help prove notability. I believe it'll most likely get accepted after that, as I can't see any other notable issues.

Happy editing! Clear friend a ^💬 21:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey ClearFrienda Yes! im doing well. Thank you for the detailed response and suggestions. Loved the bank reference. I agree with you, i had only pointed out those pages in reference to the notability factor and nothing else.

Thank you for the detailed suggestions, will definitely try to look for more sources before submitting the article again for review

Have an epic week!

Thanks again Syler.mi4 (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem! Let me know if you have any more questions. Clear friend a ^💬 16:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Cayo Hueso (Encrucijada)

Hi, on Draft:Cayo Hueso (Encrucijada) you said it was a politican, when it’s a community/Populated places/UBPC. CubanoBoi (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@CubanoBoi: Sorry about that! I don't know what happened, but I clearly was not thinking straight. Per WP:PLACE:

Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.

Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.

Based on some research and what you've written so far, I assume it has to meet the second section because it's a subdivision. However, I'm not sure. If it's officially recognized (legally), they are "presumed" to be notable, even if there is little to no coverage in reliable sources. On the other hand, if it's "unofficial" (and has to meet section 2), it requires in-depth coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources. I'll rereview it if you can clarify which one it most likely has to meet, or you can leave it for another reviewer. Again, sorry about that!

Happy editing, Clear friend a ^💬 16:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

All UBPC are legally recognized, and one of the references is the official website of Villa Clara.CubanoBoi (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've accepted it. It should be good to go. Clear friend a ^💬 20:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Pucca Qila Massacre

Hi, in your review of Draft:Pucca Qila Massacre you rejected the draft on basis of citations not proving Wikipedia:Notability. You mentioned newspaper articles can be used to fix that, but newspapers in Pakistan were fully state-controlled in that era and no international newspaper really showed much interest in this massacre as it did not happen in a major city. I have found several journal articles on JSTOR can they be used to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability because of these circumstances? FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Flamealpha123: My original problem with your article was that per the notability guidelines on events, most events (regardless of their historical significance), must have in-depth coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Draft:Pucca Qila Massacre is certainly a historically-significant event, but most of your references only had passing mentions of the subjects (e.g., only one or two quick sentences about the subject -- the reference wasn't about the subject), which could possibly raise notability and referencing issues in the future. However, I've now seen all the new sources you've added, and along with some already in-depth sources (notably this one and this one), it's probably good to go. I'd recommend continuing to build on it, but if you submit it for review now, it will probably be accepted. Per Articles for Creation guidelines, I shouldn't review an article I've already reviewed -- someone else should instead. If you have any questions, just let me know! Happy editing, Clear friend a ^💬 13:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

#invoke:cite web

I noticed a problem at 2022 deaths in the United States (January–June) that can be seen by searching for "Error" on that page. It was caused by this edit. Normally {{cite web}} would be used but presumably that broke a template limit so each template call was replaced with #invoke which calls the module directly, without the template. Doing that requires that the first parameter specify the name of the function in the module which should be used. In this case, the name of that function is given as an empty parameter so it should look like {{#invoke:cite web||...}}. I could just fix that but you might like to bear that in mind next time and I left it for you to fix so you can more easily see the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't know that was how it worked. I've now fixed it and will keep it in mind when editing future reference-heavy articles. Thanks for letting me know! Clear friend a ^💬 13:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)