en User talk:CSMention269 Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:CSMention269. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ashok Singh (Gwalior politician) has been accepted

Ashok Singh (Gwalior politician), 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

Crisco 1492

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ritabrata Banerjee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft M&G

Hello, yesterday I went on the chat for getting help to publish this draft and I’ve understood that the sources can’t only be linked to the organization’s website. I have changed the sources to some news so that they are secondary and indipendent from the subject. Because it still isn’t good can you tell me how the sources has to be? Because more indipendent than this I don’t know how much I can find ErGregghe (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me tell you simple words for your understanding @ErGregghe. Here we need three things in sources while keeping in mind. No. 1 is reliable, which means you need to get the sources verified/trusted (like reputed news or verified organisations). Don't go for those sources where possible user-generated inputs are there like blogs. Next, out of these sources which are reliable, are they independent or not is more important (no. 2). It matters for neutral point of view. And third thing is significant coverage, meaning a detail info about the subject.

In this case, the subject is volleyball school and you need to cover these three things in putting references. Find those sources where the subject is notable enough. News are prominent for this case. Those editors who have good understanding on this method makes their article enough for publishing into mainspace and I hope you will. And remember don't go to those topics where the specific subject mentioned (school) is detailed too less to considered for unless major events are covered. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Top AfC Editor

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
		In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Request on 12:45:00, 23 December 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Pr.nutrition

Pr.nutrition (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Vladimir Dadali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please tell me more specifically what i need to change in my article? I have been trying to get it approved for 6 months already. I have already deleted all the content that didnt have references.Which sentences should I change?

Pr.nutrition (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(Refixed the message in correct place.)--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)}

@Pr.nutrition: Read WP:CITE and WP:REFBEGIN and fix the citations issue. Next verify those sources which are reliable sources, with significant coverage and neutral of views. Reputed news organization or famous books published with WP:NBOOK might qualify WP:GNG for the article. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And kindly look on the other reviewers' comments, trying to explain on corrections. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Samuel Kratzok

@CSMention269If you get a minute, please review my latest submission for Samuel Kratzok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samuel_Kratzok Silverdrake2008 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Silverdrake2008, it's useless to ask me, as I see you didn't made the necessary changes the reviewers said. For more info you can get take a look on User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of attorneys for more clarity. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@CSMention269I have implemented changes suggested by reviewers, please review to see if it is sufficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samuel_Kratzok Silverdrake2008 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I will leave it up-to another reviewer to see the necessary changes. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm a beginner and I can't understand everything correctly.

what exactly should I fix so that the article is published correctly,

I can remove some elements if this helps Gyzouka (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The thing you need to do is done, and I see you changed with alternate sources. However due to his historical references, I might not be able to distinguish whether it is appropriate to qualify for publishing. An American editor might be helpful. Try to contact them for more information on additional citations/other issues. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Not for @Gyzouka: on the above message. I thought that @Silverdrake2008: asked for it. Responding to the former user's talk page.

--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Your comment on WePlanet Draft

this Comment about too many of these references being from the Guardian I find really difficult to understand: would you seem to this imply that The Guardian would not really be an independent and valid secondary source, or that WePlanet would have paid for these articles??

And there are references from the Wall Steet Journal, The Observer, The conversation, The star, all entirely valid as secondary sources

I have been trying to get this article published since more than 6 months, and I was hoping it could at last be evaluated in a fair way, not by moving the goalposts each time I make additional changes . This is really discouraging : I never faced such difficulties in previous articles I wrote for wikipedia , and many, if not most existing articles would probably be rejected if the requirements applied to this article by the reviewers were applied to them Steyncham (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your frustration on this, but read the comment carefully in the draft: "...I recommend you find those same sources with different news agencies or alternate sources; replace them with unqualified WP:GNG Guardian citations while keeping a few that qualify here".

My statement is solely based on the significant coverage, which you need to find out and keep that in your draft. For routine events, find similar sources other than Guardian. Other sources have no objection. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

User talk:CSMention269/Archive 10