This is an archive of past discussions with User:CT55555. 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.
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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Need sources about him, not what he says.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daniel Flanders and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Daniel Flanders, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Yeah, fair, this was one of several that I submitted a while back before I understood the rules well. He's probably not notable enough, I think this one is destined for the dust bin. Thanks for reviewing. @User:S0091CT55555 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to work through some of the older drafts (over 500 in the 2 month category...ugh) so I knew it was your earlier work. Hope all is well your way! :) S0091 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HickoryOughtShirt?4 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tahir Amin (lawyer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tahir Amin (lawyer), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, CT55555!
Having an article 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! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curbon7 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Muzna Dureid and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Muzna Dureid, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
I've finished my second pass of the article and have posted my notes at the review page. Please check my notes at the bottom (under general discussion) before diving in. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Madawaska mine
CT, I can see you’re tying yourself in knots here. You’ve replaced well referenced information with unsourced data (MINDAT, a mineralogy enthusiast website, does not provide a source publication for its number). The number you have provided in the article as total life-of-mine production is in fact less than one year’s production.
The annual production data provided by Proulx on page 50 of the reference is detailed and accurate. The author, Michèle Proulx, is not an academic, she works for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Note that below her very detailed mine production table, she gives her sources: Griffiths, J.W., The uranium industry: its history, technology and prospects, Mineral Report #12, DEMR, 1967; Source Material Deposit Record 000247; and EMR Canadian Minerals Yearbooks 1977-1982 I have checked relevant annual Canadian Minerals Yearbooks against Proulx’s production figures and there are no disagreements. In Proulx’s page 50 production table the last column contains annual production of “Pounds U3O8 (Tonnes U metal)”, which might cause some confusion. Total mine production was 9,000,000 pounds of U3O8 or 3,461,538 tonnes of contained uranium metal. If this still bothers you, you could always contact Michèle Proulx directly at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Thunder Bay office
On another matter: It is not possible to calculate yellowcake production from ore tonnes and head grade if you don’t know the mill recovery factor. A modern conventional uranium mill has at best 90% to 95% recovery. This mill, treating low grade ore (1.5-2 lb/t is low grade) over 40 years ago, would not have achieved even that recovery factor. I note that recovered grade for 1977-1979 averaged 0.06% U metal (see page 187 here).
Hi, and thanks for writing. The background on the author of the paper is helpful. I quoted Proulx on another article and someone told me not to use Masters thesis for Wikipedia, which is why I had gone to http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/mdi/data/records/MDI31F04SW00037.html (I used MINDAT to get a second opinion, but was relying on the Ministry numbers) but I did a calculation and now note your comments that it's not correct to do that. Also yes, I think “Pounds U3O8 (Tonnes U metal)” is what threw me off, as it seemed the numbers were incredibly small. I note the ministry source above says 9,492,171 pounds of U3O8 which is quite similar to Proulx, not that I think this is too important, I just didn't want the numbers to be ridiculously off. Sorry for my error, I expected you'd take a look quickly, which is why I made sure to explain my logic in the comments. The other stuff that you removed about Arthur Shore and Father Maloney is from a reliable source. I'll wait for pages about them to get approved before adding it in, but I have solid sources for what I had written about them, so will cite it very clearly when I add it back in presumably in a few weeks. Again, appreciate you starting the talk to explain this. CT55555 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
CT, my mistake to remove anything about Arthur Shore and Father Maloney - there were quite a few edits since the last reliable production data and I overlooked that there were unrelated edits as well when I rolled back. Sorry about that! regards John beta (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
If so, for additional context it was the official email of a government employee, so it's probably not personal data, I don't want to over react here. CT55555 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Mustafa Alio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://carleton.ca/lerrn/people/mustafa-alio/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. Onel5969TT me15:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I contested it as quickly as I could, offering to remove copyright material. I started editing, but an admin deleted it in minutes. I appreciate the urgency, but it seems like it was up for days or weeks and I could have taken action today if I had the chance. Now an article I created it down because someone added info and it seems like I had been given any chance to rectify this, the deletion of an article could have been avoided. CT55555 (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scope creep was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jennifer Evans (activist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jennifer Evans (activist), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Sana Mustafa, 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Unfortunately these appear to be brief mentions and does not meet WP:ANYBIO.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Elizabeth Pfiester and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Elizabeth Pfiester, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hi, @CNMall41 I recognize that some of the articles mention her briefly, but did you take a look at the Salon article? it mentions her 25 times. The New York Times mentions her four times and the Independent article mentions her seven times. CT55555 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Skarmory was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Most of the references are interviews or otherwise closely associated with the subject, or passing mentions, and therefore do not contribute to notability. (It is worth noting that this is my first review, so if I make any egregious procedural errors, let me know.)
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kevin Donnelly (author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kevin Donnelly (author), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Modussiccandi was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
I agree with the last reviewer. The Toronto Star article contributes to notability, but the rest of the coverage is either non-indpendent (e.g. UofT news) or does not cover the subject in depth.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:James Thuch Madhier and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:James Thuch Madhier, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TJMSmith was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Juliet Donald and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Juliet Donald, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Awarded to CT55555 for creating eight biographies of women on your first day as a member of Women in Red. This is an outstanding achievement.--Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JBW was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
None of the cited sources is substantial independent coverage of Hossam Elsharkawi. There are reports quoting comments from him about particular incidents, brief biographical information about him on the websites of organisations to which he is connected, material by him, not about him, and one which as far as I can see doesn't mention him at all.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hossam Elsharkawi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hossam Elsharkawi, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Any idea what 88.236.85.135 (talk·contribs), who geolocates to Turkey, was up to? Removed numerous categories about drugs. Most seem to be supported in the article. Many of them seemed related to Turkey. Then added a number paragraphs to Kurdish articles about them being on "Turkey's Red List of most wanted". Seems like POV editing to me. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The pattern I am seeing is mentioning Turkish bounties on Kurdish people, and removing tags about crime in articles about crime, the patterns seem concerning to me, but I'm not an expert in the policy here, so I share concern, but don't know what to do about it. I would agree there appears to be a POV issue, also maybe this is a single purpose account or something like that, well, actually, I guess there is no account, which adds to my concern. CT55555 (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Separate point, Magnolia677 but same article, you've added words like "his family claimed" preceding the details that are not disputed, such as him being a child soldier. I have not seen you add "the police claimed" before any of their claims. I wonder if you are accidentally applying a double standard to the parties in this article. When the facts are in dispute, I recognize why "XXX claimed..." is helpful to the reader. But for details that are not disputed, and reported on, I ask you to consider if you are accidentally hinting to readers that there is some ambiguity around these details. CT55555 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
In the section "Events of February 19, 2022", the first three words are "Calgary police reported..." The text I add is well sourced, and it would look awkward if each statement said "according to the CBC" and "according to the Calgary Herald". In the "Reactions and response" sections, the text I added began "Calgary's Police Chief Mark Neufeld...".
Any claims that he was a child soldier or suffered mental illness or anything else about his life are just claims made by the family, which need to be attributed as such, lest readers assume these claims have been confirmed. In other words, this is an encyclopedia, and just because some person says something doesn't make it true. The source of the claim must be attributed. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
March editathons
Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat King (Canadian activist) 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.
Thanks for the notification, I did notice the AfD already and replied to it. Obviously we are in disagreement here, but I acknowledge you are acting in good faith, even if I disagree. CT55555 (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
You're it! – I already declared "Not it" on doing the research and writing up the article [1], so thank you for making the effort. If the article passes AfD, and I really don't see why it shouldn't, I'm prepared to do a pass over it to do copyediting. The Guild of Copy Editors has piqued my interest here as I finish up the pandemic re-binge-watching the entire series of my favourite shows. Since I would rather do the copyediting after you feel you've filled it in and structured it to your satisfaction, will you leave me a note to encourage me to go ahead and do that? Cheers. signed, Willondon (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Ha, thanks for this note and the officer. Ironically there is an overwhelming volume of content on PK online to the point where I think this article might be a constant work in progress. I'm hoping others jump in and add to it. I deliberately put it up in a far-from-perfect state hoping it would become a community effort. I've dodged most of the content about him due to the unproven criminal allegations, and that will clearly be a huge part once the court case(s?) conclude. So I'll come back to it once I've slept, but it might never be finished. That said, it does clearly need work, it reads a bit like a timeline for now and I'll need to at least get it into better prose. CT55555 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, I'll spend a bit of time shaping the article, too, as it develops. It does look a bit thin now, of course, but you've at least brought it to the point where others would feel confident that it's destined to become a decent article, and will pitch in to build on it. signed, Willondon (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
When I saw the AfD title come up on my watchlist I thought "oh man, is there some other poor guy named Pat King out there, sharing a name with a notorious alt-right dude?" I'm amazed to find that not only did yes-that-Pat-King not already have an article until just now, but also that someone would try to AfD it. Kudos to the both of you for taking this one on. -- asilvering (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
My starting point in this was to try and find the article on PK and when I couldn't find it, I was also quite surprised. Thanks for your comment. CT55555 (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Could be. As Blanche DuBois would say, 'I have always been blessed with the kindness of strangers.'
It's a very big encyclopedia and project; I find new (to me) well meaning and productive editors all the time. IMO, Wikipedia should focus more on strokes than pokes. But that is not our emphasis. Barnstars are retained like they cost a lot or are hard to confer.
Thanks. I agree. I have had a few interactions that almost made me abandon editing since I started my new hobby. Online forums are bad for kindness and too easy for unkindness. I appreciate this. I'm off to eat my cake. CT55555 (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
E.g., especially in something like WP:AFD nominations, which are cast as a personal competition and zero sum game — they aren't. You would think that encyclopedia improvement should be a shared goal and a win win situation. So some things just are what they are.
The AfD process is brutal. People reject stuff about clearly notable people, with multiple secondary, in depth, reliable sources with the absolute briefest justification that so often suggests they did not check the sources. I have sympathy, I see many articles trying to get through AfD that are junk, but it seems that had created a situation where the good ones get rejected too. CT55555 (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Over the years I have helped rescue many articles (See WP:ARS), improved them, and then gotten them on the main page at WP:DYK. Doing that gets some folks very reactive. Oh well! 7&6=thirteen (☎)15:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
I am seeing mentions and quotes but nothing in-depth.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stephen Watt (refugee sponsor) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stephen Watt (refugee sponsor), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Yeah, that did surprise me, but I trusted your edit based on the comments attached. I did get an edit clash with you, but kept your editing out of the names and kept my edits to the memorial section. I hope you the rest of my edits were helpful. CT55555 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
They look fine. If you wondering why the exception for the cockpit crew, its that they are always named in accident reports and pilots part in any crash....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?22:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
ColdHubs, 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.
Arthur H. Shore, 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.
per WP:BLP1E: only notable by Wikipedia standards for participation in the Freedom Convoy; what little relevant material there is can be included in that article. Being a podcaster, promoting cryptocurrency, just having religious views, and speaking at right-wing events are all things which do not establish notability.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi User:Ivanvector I did consider the BLP 1 event thing before starting this one, my assessment is that it does not apply, he's been in the next for years for his politics at the Conservatives and also for his speech at the PPC conference, so he's notable independent of the convoy things. Suggest we discuss on the talk page of the article if this doesn't convince you. CT55555 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to discuss the matter, but AfD is specifically for that exact sort of discussion, so I have nominated the article for deletion (see the notice below). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BJ Dichter 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tania Joya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harrow. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Thanks for uploading File:ColdHubs logo.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).
Orphaned non-free image File:The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights logo.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).
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 331dot was:
Sources seem to be interviews, brief mentions, or mere documentation of the organization's activities, no in depth coverage.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:NeedsList and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:NeedsList, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bloordale Beach (film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bloordale Beach (film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nearlyevil665 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Looks like WP:TOOSOON. Needs more SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources, most likely to be notable somewhere down the line. Looks early right.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mmhmm and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mmhmm, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Noahfgodard was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Peter BenHur Nyeko and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Peter BenHur Nyeko, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Thanks, CT55555, for the women's biographies you have created since the beginning of April, including all those on Gender studies. Your constant help with AfD, etc., is also appreciated. Keep up the good work. You are really helping us along.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! In my hopes for better gender balance on Wikipedia, creating articles seemed like the obvious step. But I'm seeing now that a lot of badly written stubs get deleted despite some WP:BEFORE work on Google Books and Google Scholar being enough to verify notability, so I'm making a point to check AfD more regularly and improve articles. The constant lack of WP:BEFORE efforts concerns me, it seems that people much prefer the power-move of deleting rather than a few minutes improving things.
This month's topic at Women in Red is a good one, but one where I rely very much on the pre-work by others, so I'm using
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_occupation/Gender_Studies as my starting point and trying to find overlaps between women from countries that are under represented and suggestions that have good sources, I think this may get more difficult as the month passes. I'm therefore also creating articles inspired by WP:NACADEMIC point #8 whereby the chief editor of any major academic journal is notable. Almost every chief editor I've looked up is a woman and not currently on wikipedia. I've already had one flagged for notability as I think people are not accustomed to one link from an employer's website being enough to satisfy notability, but I think that is aligned with the policy, so that fits nicely into the one woman one day initiative and is easy to substantiate notability.
Thanks again for the nudge to join WIR, I didn't see wikipedia as a social thing, I just thought I'd do my thing, but it's nice to see the efforts of the likeminded people and a few have jumped in an improve things that I've started, which is very satisfying. CT55555 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I had completely forgotten you had not joined Women in Red. You are certainly putting in more effort towards our goals than most of our members. The chief editor approach is certainly a good way to step up the number of biographies on women. I don't think lack of attention to WP:BEFORE is specific to women. Unfortunately many of those who tag articles AfD lack sufficient experience. It's just as well that editors like you can explain the rules to them. It the early days, if people found a problem with a new article, they were told to "fix it". Now the approach seems to be "tag it". Not very pleasant for keen new contributors, I'm afraid. What you have been doing has certainly encouraged a few of them to keep on editing. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I did join WIR, it just took me a few weeks to get round to it. I do agree about the WP:BEFORE thing and it's widespread and too quickly used. CT55555 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for creating RCOA
Hi - I just dropped by to say thanks for creating the Refugee Council of Australia article - it had been on my list for some time and it was a pleasant surprise to find it already there. I have since expanded it, as you may have noticed, but it was great to have the base content there, so thank you! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi CT55555, can you check the birth year for Muzna Dureid? You put 1991 in the text, and 1981 in the categories. I'm thinking the typo is in the categories, but since I can't check the source, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
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're of a mind to hunt down more secondary sources for this, you might try forward-tracing some of the primary-source citations in the article? But also, it's probably worth updating - since Canadians are currently advised not to travel to Ethiopia (see: [3]), I would expect some impact on this program. But my search just now didn't turn up any relevant news items. -- asilvering (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting this and the other recent one. I wasn't able to find anything recent about this, I guess there's a lag between events happening and academic literature being published, so I'll keep searching and updating if more comes out. CT55555 (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Henry Joseph Maloney, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.
For your impressive work on Canadian uranium mining history, labour history, and local history of Bancroft and Elliot Lake. It's rare to see an editor construct such a complementary set of articles from scratch. Julius177 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I really appreciate this. It's been a lesson in history for me as I've discovered more and more about these interconnected energy, mining, social, political, economic, labour, safety, health, and environmental events. CT55555 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm very happy to have helped you to reach a conclusion, whether I agree with that conclusion or not. I respect you for discovering how to reach your opinion, rather than arguing for it from a less well informed position. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this note. My Wikipedia editing journey started off a bit confusingly, and hit some early disagreements, but I stayed here because I find that overwhelmingly people are very respectful in their interactions, and their disagreements and there is a widespread appreciation of the end goal. Our discussion and your comment further serve to reinforce my good feelings about this project. CT55555 (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
All I ask is that this is something you pay forward. Random acts of kindness help this project immensely. We may retain an editor who would otherwise have left, and who goes on to create not just a good, but a GREAT article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm 100% on board with that. I dispense as many barnstars, thanks, helpful edits, research support and advice as I can. Peace. CT55555 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, CT55555. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Natasha Freidus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
They all seemed like important topics to write about, so if it was you who mentioned them on the page, then thanks for the inspiration. CT55555 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I wish monadnock was more accepted than inselberg. Latin name unknown lol. But if we could agree on a Latin name for the collines on the border, we might be in utopia. MsMisinformation (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi CT55555, you seem to know what you're doing with new article creation (though I've not looked extensively). Have you considered applying for WP:AUTOPAT status to avoid the need for articles you create to be patrolled? -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that system. I've created 222 articles so far. Of the three deleted, one was a category error, one was an attempt to disambiguate that ended in an edit conflict by accident and I have so far created one article that AfD found to be not notable due to BLP1E (BJ_Dichter)
I didn't really know about AUTOPAT until now. In some ways I quite like someone looking over my articles to so I know I'm on the right path. If I did apply and get it, is there a mechanism to request a review or second opinion? Is my regular stream of new articles creating work for reviewers? (I again thank you, as you seem to review most of mine recently and I appreciate what you do - by that I mean pointing out orphans, category improvement needs, etc). CT55555 (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
That's an impressive number! Sometimes people get pointed in the direction of autopatrolled status with a tenth of that. You do already seem to be on the right path. The stream of new articles does add to the burden of the new page patrollers, but other people keep an eye on things through projects and other avenues as well. For instance I personally keep an eye on all pages (or at least I try to!) that are part of WP:WOMENSCI project, as well and more "random" ones through WP:NPP. Sometimes people just stumble across articles by following other links, and sometimes it can take months or years before someone puts an article up for AfD. The easiest mechanism to ask for a second opinion is probably just leave a message on either someone's user talk page or a project talk page. I personally can mark pages as unpatrolled, but that's due to me having additional "powers". -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, if I'm creating work for people (and I plant to make plenty more articles) than it seems better that I do this and flag ones that I'm not sure about. For example I was testing the water a bit by adding all those "editor in chief" stubs - part of my wider aspirations to reduce the gender gap. CT55555 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I have never understood that template. Is it simply a case of adding it just like that every time? CT55555 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Also I think someone else always adds the default sort. And I've just let that happen. But if I get this, I'll make sure I do those steps. I was thinking I was helpfully letting some bot runners get their count up, lol. CT55555 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
That authority template appears to do nothing until wikidata exists, in which case it generates a table with some links. More details can be found at WP:VIAF. Both that and DEFAULTSORT are often added manually by other editors rather than bots, though people may use scripts to help automate it a bit. I admit I let other people add the default sort too! -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
May Women in Red events
Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230
Hi CT55555, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~Swarm~{sting}22:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Yesterday I didn't know about autopatrol. Then User:Kj_cheetham suggested I ask for it. I have been operating on the assumption that others will look over my work. From hereon in, I'll be very careful to tick all the boxes and aim for 100% articles rather than the ~95% good-enough way I have tended to operate until today. CT55555 (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi CT55555, I'm happy to look over your article creations. We have several shared interests, and your work so far has been great. Don't hesitate to ping me or put a request on my talk page. Keep up the good work! Netherzone (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, CT55555. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Port Radium Mine, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
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.
Hi, I'm Agtx. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Jean-Marc Bouju, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Thanks for catching this. Basically I made a mistake, which I have now fixed. The slightly longer explanation was that when I searched for "Erik Refner" it was taking me to "Erik Reinert", sorry for this, quite silly mistake to make and out of character for me. CT55555 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was:
Passing mentions aren't enough to establish notability of this foundation.
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:Syrian Canadian Foundation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Syrian Canadian Foundation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, CT55555!
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! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, CT55555. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Knut Helge Hurum, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Moved from AFD, as it's not direct relevant there. Although obviously race is a farcical idea with as much scientific credence as fairies at the bottom of the garden, it is in common use (census data for instance). So if the US census was categorising people into certain groups, we would then have articles about those groups (however dumb that grouping was). That's the point I was trying to make, and that the editors of the article were acting in good (if misguided) faith. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
On 16 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tracey Medeiros, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Art of Cooking with Cannabis by Tracey Medeiros was praised by the Los Angeles Times for showcasing a wide range of recipes outside of the "tired pot-brownie cliché"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tracey Medeiros. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tracey Medeiros), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thanks. Sorry for the delay. I think you noted I made editing errors in my last round of edits, so I'm waiting until I can do this in a not-rushed manner - i.e. probably this weekend. User:ReidgregCT55555 (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The land claim is completed. They achieved First Nation recognition! Signed with Four tildes.🧚thank you for mentor offer. I think I will avoid editing and just learn on Wikipedia. 66.103.52.68 (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Great news. Thanks for sharing. I have updated the article on Beaverhouse First Nation. I am still not 100% sure the connection between McGary and Beaverhouse, can you say more about that? Are there any newspaper articles that link Beaverhouse and McGarry? Obviously the locations are near, but I don't think I've read anything that links the two clearly enough. All the best to you. CT55555 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi CT55555, if the disruption continues after the three months, please notify me on my talk page and I'll protect the article for a year. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for answering the question that I should have asked. :-) I think we might be speaking in early September, but fingers crossed otherwise.... CT55555 (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi CT55555, I know earlier on you contemplated giving up on Wikipedia but I am so glad you stuck around. You have grown so much as an editor and contribute so much. Anyway, thank you. S0091 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Some early interactions felt rough, but I appreciate your guidance and encouragement, which happened to land just as I was on the brink of giving up. I'm quite enjoying my new hobby, thanks again sincerely for the encouragement. CT55555 (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Your guess on structure is as good as mine. I just wasn't looking to subject community to 14 different votes. I have no strong feelings on the topic (and I rarely engage in strident defense of AfD nominations except obvious NCORP/COIs), just want the community decision so I can judge future similar article in line with community consensus. Slywriter (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
All good. In some ways I appreciate them like this, but I've seen others (about Nobel laureates) get messy when people start to say some are notable and some are not, so let's see how it goes. Thanks for the note. And of course, without the academic papers, I see the logic in your AfD. All the best, CT55555 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello My name is Jessica and I am a journalist with a news outlet called 19thnews.org. I'm writing about gender bias on wikipedia and Women in Red's latest initiative on adding women in climate and was wondering if you might be willing to chat about your work on wikipedia? my email is jkutz@19thnews.org. Loutucson15 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Theresa Nyabeze
It takes a lot more than just two newspaper articles to establish that a writer passes WP:AUTHOR, especially if one of them is from the local media in the city where she lives and the other one is from a community hyperlocal weekly in another small town where she had previously also lived. If there were major literary awards in the mix, such as the Governor General's Award for English-language children's literature or one of the other awards in Category:Canadian children's literary awards, then one or two sources would be enough because there was a major literary award involved — but if you're shooting for "a writer is notable just because media coverage of her writing exists", then it takes a lot more than just two media hits to achieve that. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:AUTHOR criterion 3 requires her to play a "major role in co-creating"...a..."well-known work"...which..."must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
It's a small details and probably not a game-changer in this context, but as you mentioned it at AfD talk, the draft article has three citations about her book.
Hello, CT55555. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:SeeChange Initiative, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, CT55555. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Seventh Generation Midwives, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, CT55555. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Steve Dennis (humanitarian), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hi, I will apologize to you for not using the edit summary and the good news, I restore a few categories back at the Phyllis Marshall article. Also, do not use both categories to double categorize "People from" and "Musicians from" because it already in subcategories and cause confusion to readers. It best to have one specific occupation category to use "Musicians from" and do not use "People from" because occupations is more "specific". I hope you will accept my apology and move on also do not double categorize "People from" categories. I hope you will reply me back. Thanks. 2001:569:7D4F:CC00:878:74DF:C0C4:8766 (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I accept your apologies. But I am not sure if I accept your logic. I think it is possible to be a Person from Barrie and also a Musician from Toronto. Because the XXXX...from Toronto type categories include people who lived there for a while. So in Wikipedia categories you can be from two places. However, Musicians from Barrie is not an option. My point is that people can be people and musicians and also from Barrie and also from Toronto. I realise it may be confusing, but that is the system we use here I think. People are not looking at categories to see where people are from, but people are using them to find similar articles.
So basically I disagree. I don't strongly disagree because it's not about my opinion, more it's about consensus. And I'm not sure, but I think the way I have been doing it is in line with consensus.
.jpg)
