This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pbritti. 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.
Thanks for offering to help with Draft:Forty-two_Articles. I've done a bit more work on it and, as far as I can tell, it's in alright shape, but I've thought that before, and I'm pretty well at the limit of the sources I have available to me. So I would very much appreciate the help of a veteran editor, especially since you have some background with Anglicanism. TurnipWatch (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@TurnipWatch: Getting sourcing for a new article right can be hard when you're starting out. Don't feel like you've done anything wrong and be glad you're following procedure (many editors don't)! I will do my best to have a version of the article worthy of publication sometime today, and we can further expand it over the coming days. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Draft:EPR Iyer
Hi! You recently declined my draft on EPR Iyer (Draft:EPR Iyer). Since he is a musician, to the best of my abilities I have added his discography and several notability citations of articles mentioned about him solely & a few relevant ones where his band is also mentioned. The discography is enough to show how much experienced he is & how much he has done in the past few years of being active, starting from being on national television in India and other accomplishments. The citations I added include those that talk about his solo album launch, his style of music, his accomplishments & a few relevant ones that talk about his work in his band, underground authority & how he turned them around. It is written in a neutral POV as well. I took a live help from wiki editors and they mentioned that this draft, the way it is, is fine. Could you please help me understand the problem & solve it? Any help is appreciated. Loveformusicalcontent (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, recently my draft article (Draft:Ashland Rovers F.C.) was rejected due to references not being up to scratch. I based my article from an existing one (Clay Cross Town F.C.) which uses similar sources for its own references, and the draft article is of a similar subject. Just wondering what other references I could include to increase the likelihood of the article being created. Thank you very much, much appreciated if you wouldn't mind assisting a relative newbie when it comes to creating articles! :)
Thank you for getting back to me so soon - I did find a news source which mentions the club securing an investment over on the Notts County Council news, but this is the closest thing I could find to a news source. If I were to include a section briefly covering the contents of this news article, and included the ref source, would this be sufficient or is the issue with the two existing reference websites I have used? Will Bunning (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
@Will Bunning: If you don't mind linking the source here, I'll take a look and offer some guidance. At this stage, I am a little concerned if there's enough for an article, but I think your effort is likely to pay dividends. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
@Will Bunning: Absolutely no problem. If you have a moment, please take a moment to read over WP:COI. Because of the nature of your draft, your openness to mention your relationship with its subject, and your relatively new tenure as an editor, you are absolutely not in any trouble. However, there may be some disclosures you have to make. If you are uncomfortable making those disclosures under your current name, there's a process for that! Let me know if anything else comes up, but I'll keep you in the loop regarding the draft. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah my bad, not to say I'm connected to the club itself in any way, just that they are based in my hometown! Might have been some confusion there. Will Bunning (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
My draft article Adaptive Noise Cancelling was rejected asking me to consider a more substantial review based on previous comments. However, I feel I have responded fully to all previous comments and modified the article adding numerous additional references and in-line citations, in response to previous reviews. I also responded to other comments relating to notability on the Talk Page of the draft. I am new to Wikipedia and I assumed that was the place to respond to these comments. I am not aware of any any other comments that suggested the need for a major review but if I missed something I would appreciate it if you could point me to such. I have spent considerable time and effort in developing the article for this topic missing from Wikipedia before I submitted the draft and I am at a loss as to what end I should review it for. Of course I am open to suggestions for any specific changes that would lead to acceptance. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaunitzj (talk • contribs) 08:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kaunitzj: I'm going to level with you: your draft is poorly executed. Vaste swathes of text are unreferenced, references are given for section titles (why?), and the prose itself is simply not up to an acceptable standard. I recommend you heavily rewrite, acquire more precise sources, and produce a draft about a third the size it currently is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt and frank response although not very encouraging. Being a new contributor, before I drafted this article I read the relevant guides and was left with the impression that the article was to be a narrative on a notable topic in the contributor's own words based on reliable and verifiable sources, not copied from elsewhere. Please correct me if I misunderstood.
I believe that the article meets those requirements. The sources are clearly identified throughout the article and at the end and where a whole section is based on the certain refenced sources I cited these at the subheading of the section assuming that this will be taken to apply to the whole subsection. If that is not acceptable then I can put the same citations on various paragraphs.
I would have thought that the major considerations in considering a topic for inclusion on Wikipedia is its notability and how it serves the requirements of potential Wikipedia users who Google the term. As I see it, users are looking for concise easy-to-understand articles that provide answers to questions relating to notable topics, such as: What is it? What does it do? How does it work? How did it arise? Where is it relevant? The Adaptive Noise Cancelling draft was produced with this in mind, given that no such article currently exists and the term is now being searched by many people interested in noise cancelling headphones.
The 1975 paper Adaptive Noise Cancelling: Principles and Applications" by Widrow et al, published the concept as a major innovation, beyond the original concept of the adaptive filter itself, which opened the way to numerous new applications. In fact this turned out to be a seminal paper that to date has been cited by 2878 scientific papers and 382 patents. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1451965 The description of the basic concept is repeated in a few relevant books and I have also included these as references. These statistics should confirm that the topic is indeed notable as the basis of an article in its own right and not rolled into articles on other related topics. Draft talk:Adaptive noise cancelling
As Widrow's paper serves as the basic reference for parties interested in the topic, more 'precise' references are relevant only for specific applications and reasons. I provided a list of such references where required. Before I submitted the last draft I again surveyed the literature and included all relevant finds in the reference list. So I fail to see how I can respond further to your recommendation for 'more precise sources' other than transferring citations from section headings to paragraphs.
In producing this draft I strived to provide a narrative aimed in parts at 1) people with little or no technical or mathematical knowledge and in parts to 2) people with basic mathematical knowledge sufficient to understand the mathematics needed to explain fundamental principles. I am not sure what considerations guide the suitable length of this article but to comply with your recommendation to drastically shorten it I can certainly forget about potential audience 2) and omit or abbreviate some sections.
I am an engineer with publications in leading professional journals. However, I am not a professional writer, which perhaps you are, and I am not sure that I can improve my prose to meet your standards. However, I am willing to give it another try.
My question is, if I invest further effort along these lines, is that likely to lead to acceptance or am I just wasting my time? Other questions that come to mind: If it is accepted that Adaptive Noise Cancelling is a notable topic that should have an associated article, is it better to accept contributions that are deemed less than perfect or to stay with none at all? What is the process whereby such decisions are made and who makes them? John Kaunitz (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Question about rejected page
Hi, thank you for reviewing my proposed page Draft:Professor of the History of Political Thought so quickly. I'm a newcomer and I've read the instructions on notability, and I was wondering if you could offer specific feedback on what general notability standard the page doesn't reach?
Any pointers would be very much appreciated! I want to get into editing, but also want to make sure my time is put to good use. HC1958 (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@HC1958: There are a couple of issues: many of the sources emanate from Cambridge itself. While this is fine in of itself, the lack of much independent coverage is a problem. You do reference a few independent sources. From those I was able to read (or at least those I was able to read the relevant portions of) and from what those I can't are used to cite, I believe they lack significant coverage of the position outside of broader trends in this sector of academia. If you present additional independent reliable sources regarding the position in a distinctively Cambridge context, it is conceivable that it may meet WP:GNG. However, I instead recommend a new draft or merge with a broader topic. To be clear, you wrote a very good collection of information, but I estimate it as insufficient for its own article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm still not sure how so many other professorship pages managed to get published with far less than what you're suggesting, but that is helpful feedback. Much appreciated! HC1958 (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@HC1958: Unfortunately, there are preponderance of editors less adept and willing than yourself who chose to push poor articles out rather than choosing to improve Wikipedia in other ways. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Why did you delete my revision to the baguette? Baguettes were so popular in the ninetys, around 97’ so I fixed it back, but don’t change it again please. 98.223.92.212 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The source there disagrees. Your edits appear to be largely tests. I welcome you to create an account and read our resources on editing, found at WP:FIVEPILLARS. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Pbritti this page Draft:Shanti Raghavan was declined on Feb 21 with a comment stating "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". I wanted to understand more about the kind of coverage that Wiki requires a person to have in order to be deemed qualified for a page of their own. The person concerned has a vast range of articles written on them, detailing their inspiring work and life journey. These articles are published across a series of well-known Indian media publications, hence my confusion about where and what I am missing in the submitted draft. Would it be possible for you to help with which of the current sources do comply with the guidelines versus which could be altered? It would be of great help. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks! Starshinegalaxy (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
@Starshinegalaxy: I'd highly encourage you to look at our policy to get a better explanation than I can provide regarding what constitutes a reliable source, but most of your sources for this draft fail to pass the sniff test. The reliable source issue isn't the exclusive problem, though, and your draft would have been declined even if every source came from the New York Times or The Hindu. Biographical articles on living persons (and recent decedents) must provide inline citations for all contentious claims. That means basically any material that isn't plainly obvious must be accompanied by a supporting citation adjacent to the claim in the prose. This draft lacks that. However, should you properly cite all the claims, I'll go through very closely and see if we can publish the draft (or a modified form of it). Please feel welcome to ping me with additional questions or to notify me you've submitted the draft for review. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
@Claudio Cuello: First off, hello! The issue is that both of these sources are really not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia unless they are themselves referenced by a secondary source. If you want some idea of what sources to look for in order to establish Cuello's notability in accordance to WP:NPROF, please look at this list of references. It's not perfect, but you draft doesn't have to be. If you want more help, please feel free to respond! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I am actually Dr. Cuello's secretary my name is Ludmilla Boyer. I was trying to create a page with my bosses bio... but it's becoming rather time consuming and complicated...Any chance you could send me the steps I need to follow in order to create the bio page for my boss? Claudio Cuello (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, feel free to improve the article, for apparently very few people stumble upon it so I do not think many will improve it. Veverve (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
@Veverve: Good catch. I'm inclined to believe they should be merged into a single article because the concept is essentially doctrinally identical across Catholic and Anglican circles, with Anglicans generally taking a broader view of validity. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I am resubmitting the article with several attempts of improving it. I tried to elaborate in the text why citing Peter Marshall's "Beliefs and the Dead in Reformation England" is relevant for this particular section of the text (providing an example for England on how protestant theology has abolished the idea of purgatory and thus intercessory masses). I also provided more literature (Schuler) and links to other articles in Wikipedia, especially Death anniversary, Obiit, Chantry and Intercession which explain the phenomenon of medieval commemoration in anniversary masses and should give you ample evidence that the article "Anniversary book" with several thousands of medieval manuscripts across Europe documenting these practices is relevant for readers. While English literature on the subject is scarce (the only comprehensive article in English is the one cited in "Bloomsbury Cultural History of Memory"), the standard works in French and German are cited (Lemaître, Hugener). In order to understand the importance of anniversary books for medieval culture in Western Europe, please have a look at the German (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahrzeitbuch), Italian (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obituario) and French Wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obituaire). User:194.209.75.21511:16, 07 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.75.216 (talk)
Read the sources, educate yourself, and then assess if you want to make an edit
Harassment by blocked disruptive editor
Apparently you are not familiar with the very old dispute if the horses called "tarpan" were wild horses or not and the most recent papers on that issue. I suggest that you dig into the relevant literature a little deeper before starting another edit war. Apart from that, the sentence would be contradictory if your version is kept, it's basically saying "its not certain if the wild horse was a wild horse", which is nonsense. Thanks. DFoidl (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Your private war on me
Apparently you are reverting every single change I make in articles were I have the feeling that you know substantially less than me, for some private reasons. Stop this childish behaviour, don't start edit wars and if you disagree with my changes, start a discussion. Remember that also "non-established" users are allowed to make changes and try being constructive. Thanks. DFoidl (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@DFoidl: I have reviewed your editing pattern since I encountered your deletion on Heck cattle and since then I've noticed a combination of incivility, perspective-pushing, and refusal to acknowledge reliable sources. When I do engage you discussion, you either break our edit-warring policy or frequently make passive-aggressive or overtly inappropriate comments. You are unwelcome from further commenting on my talk page unless required to do so by policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
YOU started the edit war, and you are responsible for nonsense being in the articles. Alas, no sanctions for you, what shows that only the "established" users are allowed to edit Jokipedia. Stop your childish war on me please. PS: I comment where I want and what I want. DFoidl (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thank you. I intend to avoid DFoidl and pages they're involved with following the week's expiration unless there's a clear instance of vandalism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I think the only remaining point of contact left will be fixing a WP:3RR content removal on Wild horse once other editors have had enough of a chance to chime in. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
can you hel me to identify sentences in the article that don't comply with Tone? I tried to write objectively impartially and focusing on only the facts from the articles. Also having a problem with citations Brycelpro89 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@Brycelpro89: Absolutely no problem! If you want to use citations properly, look at templates like Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news, and Template:Cite book. I'll fill out one citation completely and you can replicate its format for your other citations. I'll go through and tag individual sentences that are tonally inappropriate. Don't worry, you didn't screw up or anything, but we do have some policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR that mean some of the content you added wasn't entirely up to certain standards. Please feel welcome to continue commenting here on my talk page or on the draft's talk page (just be sure to use Template:Ping to get my attention if you post there). If you want further guidance, I encourage you to look at WP:FIVEPILLARS, a neat and tidy primer on Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and technical protocol. Welcome to Wikipedia! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@Brycelpro89: Again, not a problem. I probably won't be able to do a complete once-over of that article today, but if you think I've forgotten, please feel free to come back and remind me. Drafts usually get deleted after six months of no editing, so we have plenty of time to bring this draft up to snuff! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
On 19 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Williamsburg Bray School, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Williamsburg Bray School – the "oldest extant building in the United States dedicated to the education of Black children" – was moved a second time in February 2023 (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Williamsburg Bray School. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Williamsburg Bray School), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Iam early created the article of Metropolitan of Malabar Independent Syrian of Joseph Mar Koorilose IX i submitted article for review unfortunately the article is declined But no reasons regular draft articles of Metropolitans Malabar Independent Syrian Church declined all time.
this is the list of metropolitan s Malabar Independent Syrian Church not have articles in Wikipedia. KpmLiswin18 (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Parkville, Colorado
On 23 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Parkville, Colorado, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Parkville lost out on becoming the Colorado Territory's capital by eleven votes and is now a ghost town largely buried under mining waste? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Parkville, Colorado. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Parkville, Colorado), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
@MrOllie: If there are more edits to the page today I think we should request a 24 hour protection. I don't mind them flocking to the talk page so long as they aren't interfering with the article itself. Let me know if you want me to take care of the protection request should it become necessary; I should be available on Wikipedia for another five hours before life gets in the way again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm working on creating the U.S. 1928 prayer book article right now, with content and sources. The moving and renaming of the U.K. 1928 prayer book article was discussed on the article's talk page, having been first proposed by another user years ago. --TrulyShrutitalk • sign20:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@TrulyShruti: That was not a discussion. That was one message several months ago that did not gain a consensus and failed to follow the procedures established in WP:BEFOREMOVING. Other editors involved in the project disagree on what the naming should be. You have now created a inadequately/inaccurately sourced article that should have been written first in the draftspace or in your userspace (or using the various preexisting drafts on this subject). Additionally, you should have responded on your talk page.~ Pbritti (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The below discussion was deleted out of order from my talk page because it was placed outside of procedure and etiquette. I have added it to this talk archive for ease of access should the need ever arise.
Our edit war
I find this edit unreasonable. You restore the template instance that says that the intro is too short. At the same time you remove the majority of the intro. This is inconsistent. If it is not OK to introduce a summary of the existing article text, then it is not possible to expand the introduction. Ettrig (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ettrig: "edit war" has a meaning. The simple solution is the just swap the tags on the page to one regarding its deficient sourcing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ettrig: The tag in question that you wanted to fix by expanding the lede was out there by a woefully incompetent and malicious editor (the now-banned SNAAAAKE!!). I think it's ok to leave the article as it is with the corrected tags. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
