Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Zimbabwean dollar into Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Wikipedia sections are usually headed "Controversy" no matter how many controversies there are. It's as if to say, "There is controversy about him". Please remember this is a BLP and we don't want to appear as if we're piling on the accusations. "Controversy" is enough. Yoninah (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I'm currently in the process of copy editing Hyperinflation in Venezuela. What should the standard format be for the abbreviated form of bolívares fuertes? The article was originally inconsistent, as it used both "Bs.F." and "Bs.F" throughout; I changed all instances of "Bs.F." to "Bs.F", but then I realized that the article Venezuelan bolívar also has these inconsistencies. According to this website, the symbol is "Bs.F.", but even this website uses "Bs.F" at one point in the table. What are your thoughts on this? Which one is used more commonly in the sources cited? Unfortunately, I can't read Spanish.
I've also added {{Failed verification}} tags on two sources that seemed to lead to their home pages instead of accurate, specific pages. I'm still in the process of copy editing, so if you have any questions regarding my edits, feel free to ask. Don't forget to use {{ping}} so I can get the notification. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobbychan193: Bs.F. and Bs.F are the same and commonly used, it doesn't matter. These two symbols can be used at the same time. I'll let you wait until you finish the copy editing completely. --cyrfaw (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If they are both commonly used and acceptable, I will stick to one for the sake of consistency. I will resume the copy edit later, most likely later today. Bobbychan193 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, cyfraw, as one of the other DYK editors asked for a new reviewer to look at this article, I have read it and considered the other reviewers' comments. I have added some comments of my own in the nomination discussion. I'm sorry to say that I think that it still needs some work before it meets all the criteria for DYK. I have mentioned some issues there, such as court actions or charges in 2005 and 2017. I think that if such actions are mentioned, the article should also provide information about what happened in the court cases. And for one allegation, that Lugo was involved in kidnapping the banker's daughter, it seems that the only source is Twitter (it was reported in a newspaper, but their only source was a tweet by the banker) - and Twitter is not considered a reliable source. So if that allegation is mentioned, a reliable source is needed to verify it. Kind regards, RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for your understanding regarding your issues on that article. I will try my best to fix the issues before considering as final for DYK. Anyway, can I do it anytime, right? I'm currently busy. --cyrfaw (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, cyfraw, I am new to DYK, so I am not sure, but I think that the other editors there would like to close the nomination - either approved, with all the necessary work done on the article, or not approved if that's not possible now. It was nominated 4 months ago, which is quite a long time. However, I can see that the first review happened 6 weeks after you nominated it, and it wasn't until one month ago that an editor said there were some issues about neutral point of view, and I think that you were not notified then, from what I can see. When do you think you will have time to work on this? RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Within this week is better. Another good idea for me is to invite other Wikipedians involved about Venezuela to join together in fixing the issues. So I will try my best to do it myself or invite others to fix it. --cyrfaw (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea to set a deadline for the work to be accomplished, or at least ready for another round of reviewing, since I don't see any progress since the above discussion over a week ago (only a minor copyedit later that day). Cyfraw, September 11 is just over a week from now, and it would be four and a half months from the article's first appearance in mainspace on April 26. If the article isn't updated to address the outstanding issues by then (or very close to that point), the closure process will likely commence. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was busy with my university studies, actually is it possible to withdraw the DYK as personal request, I'm no longer interested. Because I couldn't find reliable sources regarding this article. --cyrfaw (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cyfraw, it is always possible to withdraw a nomination if you no longer wish to pursue it. Please post that you wish to withdraw it on the nomination page, and I'll be happy to close it for you. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, rather than make you write an extra post, I'll just copy your "Sorry, I was busy" post above to the nomination myself, and then close it as withdrawn. Thanks for considering DYK; I'm sorry this one didn't work out, and I hope you try again in future with another article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
