@Gog the Mild is the bot delayed? I wonder if it may have missed than this one - it's been more than 24 hours and it's run a couple times since the discussion was closed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Ganesha, three other articles were promoted on the 20th, all earlier than Anna Filosofova, and have also not yet been picked up by the bot. Including one of mine!. Let's just be patient for, say, another 48 hours. That said, thanks for notifying me, I hadn't picked that up. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Ganesha811! The article you nominated, Anna Filosofova, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seasonal greetings:)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!
Hello Ganesha811, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing,
— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ganesha811, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, History6042 (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Thank you today for Maria Trubnikova, "about Maria Trubnikova, an early Russian feminist and activist. She was part of a group of three friends and allies known as the "triumvirate", alongside Nadezhda Stasova and Anna Filosofova. Trubnikova mentored them and was well-known internationally, but suffered from illness towards the end of her life and died in an asylum."! - Another one of my recommendations, as you kindly called it, is one the same page, Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123. Dada Masilo was there yesterday, - too short, I think, as her life, - a story for tomorrow. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! Do you want to nominate (WP:TFAR) for the day, or should I (later today). Only one more table to improve for the cantata, then fresh air. - I nominated it for GA, in case you are looking for something to review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'm ready to do it now, and will keep you posted. You will be needed for a good blurb, because how would I know what to omit from the lead ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nono ;) - you'll have to trim to get it accepted. Check other nominations for the acceptable length, and/or just compare with what was fine with today's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am interested in creating a full wikipedia page for an individual named in another wikipedia page and who has enough publicly relevant information on them to warrant their own page.
What is the process to -
A) create a page for the individual (eg is there a template / format?) What are the source requirements (eg what is deemed a quality source and does this include statements or claims from books / articles written by the person in question or by their spouse?) How do you handle claims the individual have made but which may not have corroboration from other quality sources or are perhaps disputed)?
B) what is the process to connect the person to mentions of them on other pages? And if we want to add them to a page where we know they have played a role?
Is there someone I can send proposed edits to for a “coaching” and feedback session before posting?
Hi! Creating an new Wikipedia page is tough, but it can be done. I would recommend following the guide at Help:Your first article which should answer most of your questions. You can also ask me to look at something specific. You can start by creating a Draft article which will then be reviewed by an experienced volunteer - the Your first article page will tell you how to do that. Good luck! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question from MuntasinHoque (15:53, 14 January 2025)
The IP user tagged with CSD/PROD/Advert more that 10 lawyers pages in 3 days, doing nothing else. All had the same statement of no notability with zero other explanation. This does not look appropriate, I reverted them. Of course some might be relevant, but this looks to me to be far more targeted. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the other articles the IP tagged. While none are horrific, most of them contain a little puffery or have promotional passages. Some read more like resumes than encyclopedia articles. Remember, AGF! The IP editor definitely appears to be acting in good faith - it's certainly not vandalism or worthy of mass reversion. And the specific template used is not a "statement of no notability", it's a cleanup tag that encourages fixing the articles. I would recommend undoing all your reversions. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least for academics, independent awards are considered critical and are one of the pass criteria in WP:NPROF. While Marquis is clear fluff, some of the others such as being elected a fellow of a major society would not be for an academic. Is the approach for lawyers that different? Ldm1954 (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is all personal opinion, FYI. I don't object to mentioning major awards in the text, for lawyers or for academics. But I don't think separate "Awards and honors" or similar sections are ever useful. They encourage adding fluffy awards and puffery to the article. My rule of thumb is that if an award is itself notable (like the Nobel Prize or a Pulitzer), it should always be included, but all other awards/honors should be excluded unless they are covered by secondary sources independent of both the award grantor and grantee. Where those "minor" awards are worth mentioning, they should not be put in a separate section but mentioned elsewhere in the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are agreeing about what can be included. At least 9/10 academic bios have an awards section, e.g. the influential guide User:StarryGrandma/Writing an article about a professor or researcher. Of course some awards are puff, and those that are not must be sourced. A number of awards such as being elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society are considered to be an automatic pass.
In this particular bio the Litigation Council of America [1] claims to be selective, as does the American Law Institute [2]. I would be inclined to keep those two and remove the rest, they look selective enough. Then again law and lawyers are outside where I have reviewed/edited. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we agree more than we disagree. Go ahead and restore those awards in the body. I'm still not in favor of a separate 'Awards' section, but my opinion is just my 2¢! Sometime later today I'll go through the other articles and remove any poorly sourced awards / puffery. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tupou VI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ITBF📢16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, please help?
I came to you from the active administrators list, can you help me, to understand? Are these simple edits A and B valid according to your experience?
I wanted to discuss this on the associated talk page, but there has been a lot going on it for months and still pending. Additionally, a group of editors is acting as if they own the article, reverting all edits. Sokoreq (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm afraid I don't really understand the context about this article and its history. Could you provide a little more detail? Is the talk page not working to come to consensus? —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time. I was only making structural edits to make the article easier to understand, and I didn't remove anything; I just created a new section and added one reference from Newsweek, which I thought was reliable. However, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally considered reliable. That I understand but this group of editors reverted all my edits.
After that, I only made these in last A and B edits, but they have also reverted them too repeatedly, And then they pushed me to revert back again, which started an edit war and ultimately led me to violate the three-revert rule.This is strange!
Due to this behavior, initially i thought the one of the editor may have COI so I went to COI noticeboard (that discussion closed now) but I believe they have some sort of ownership of the article, now they are threatening me again on my talk page, while I just wanted to understand their disagreements.
And the discussion going on the associated talk page for months is hard to understand. What are they really up to? The talk page is messy; it's difficult to understand who is who and what is what?
I note that standalone Criticism sections have long been a subject of some controversy on Wikipedia (see WP:Criticism). To me it looks like your other edit got caught up with that. I would recommend engaging on the talk page. If that is unsuccessful, there's always WP:DR, but I would only recommend that as a last resort. Talk page discussion can resolve much. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the group of editors overreacted and reverted my edits aggressively. I was trying to improve the SIF article by moving criticism out of the theology section, Because i was reading similar article Minjung theology before and the criticism section make it easy to understand. Theology and criticism are not the same thing, which is common sense, but it seems I was punished for using my common sense. Still, thanks for all the suggestions. Sokoreq (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
