This is an archive of past discussions with User:ToadetteEdit. 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.
Hi there
I’m not very experienced at this but I do know that this page is not correct. Guinness world records revolved Bobi’s title of oldest dog and it is now an Australian Blue Healer.
How do we updated this page? --Turtle Bugz (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ToadetteEdit, and thank you for your work here, it is appreciated. A little back story for some insight... there has been a history of inaccuracies in sourcing by the editor of these articles on Carmel people, businesses and buildings. Which is part of the reason for their block. There has been a team of editors working to help mentor him. Before approving and adding an edit request, please check and include page numbers; and make sure to check the content against what the sources actually say, as there has been misrepresentation in the past. Including pages numbers is considered best practiceA full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found and is important in relation to verifiability which is a key policy. Thank you again for your contributions, and see you around. Netherzone (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Toadette, I just saw a third edit request that you approved with wrong page numbers. With all due respect for your efforts, please understand if you are going to take on this responsibility of answering COI-blocked users edit requests, you need to check the sources (actually read them) against the content before you mark them "Done", otherwise you aren't performing the task correctly. I'd rather not go back and correct these for you, please revise these edits, and think about possibly slowing down. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Netherzone! Thank you for this,but I am in doubt of this. I should have reviewed the sources for the page number, and I am not realised that the user is actually blocked for that. However, I think that this message seems to discourage me to do such type of edits, especially when no one would correct my edits. The same thing happened in the above threads as well as the old thread about ANI. But I will be more careful about such requests next time. Toadette(Let's discuss together!)20:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
No one means to discourage you from editing, but you need to slow down substantially. I've had to send categories to CfD to which you replied you didn't know what WP:CATDEF was, yet you were accepting categories at WP:AFC/C. You've accepted several AFC drafts in the last day that I question why you did so, some of which had been previously declined and had no new sourcing added that indicated WP:Notability was now met. I've seen you accept multiple drafts with less than 2 minutes between them, which makes it hard to believe you're putting much review into them. People have to inform you of these issues, and will continue to do so. Take it to heart and re-read policies, slow it down a bit, and continue on. -- ferret (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
You're right, Ferret, but I'll need to stop accepting categories as it is getting me problems. I try to put much effort to minimize the backlog, but I have to increase the reviewing time (analysing every source) which unfortunately reduce the number of my AfC accepts per day. My thoughts on reviewing such drafts is to analyse the source whether they pass GNG or not. I apologize but I should boycott creating categories until matters are resolved. Toadette(Let's discuss together!)21:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't mean to discourage you, but if you are answering COI edit requests no one should have to go back and correct your edits for you. Could you please clean up and correct the incorrect information you added to the articles that you marked "Done". Other editors who come after you may assume the wrong information you added is right. Netherzone (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
If I am understanding your question correctly, Todette, here is what you shall do then: Go back over your edit request responses, and read the content that the editor is requesting, then go to the sources that they included with their edit request. Make certain that the source actually backs up what the requested text says, and then once you find the correct page numbers yourself, correct the page numbers on the article itself. Don't just take the requester's word for it that what they are asking for is correct. So you have to double check their work and double check your own.
I hope you don't mind a little unsolicited advise...editing Wikipedia is not a race to a finish line, or a way to rack up points like in a game, or a venue to collect new roles/permissions/titles competitively. To my mind, it's not that sort of place at all really, it's an encyclopedia. And as such, we need to be careful, thoughtful and accurate as much as possible. We all make mistakes, I've make a boat-load of them over the years, but it is wise to cultivate good habits as a new editor. When we edit mindfully, it helps to improve the encyclopedia, and accuracy helps improve the integrity of the information in the encyclopedia. And those are great goals to have! Netherzone (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@ToadetteEdit: I do not understand why you reverted your changes if all they were lacking is correct page numbers. Can you explain this? Is it because you are pressed for time? I would do it myself but I have been p-blocked. It does not seem right to remove a block of text just because of a missing or wrong page number. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Greg Henderson, I have taken a desicion since I am too new for these edits, that I shall not enact these edits unless viewing anything that would result in an editor be partial blocked in question. I haven't realised that you were p-blocked for a controversial editing behavior. I am sorry to to do this, but I currently don't have enough experience to carry out COI edits. Toadette(Let's discuss together!)18:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi ToadetteEdit, I've seen you pop up on some of the articles and talk pages I've edited before to answer p-block edit requests. I appreciate your good-faith efforts, yet also echo similar concerns as Netherzone. If you haven't already, you may want to familiarize yourself with this recent community-wide discussion before taking on more of this user's edit requests to have better understanding and context of the overall situation, thanks. Left guide (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Toadette,
I'd like to understand your comment that the draft article is not supported by reliable sources. The majority of sources are The Washington Post and the New York Times. Are these sources not reliable? The sources cited support virtually all of the draft article. However, as a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia writer, I wasn't sure how best to refer to the same citation for sentences throughout the article. I now understand that I can use named references to use citations that have previously been used. Will this address your concerns? Commonwealth24 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Commonwealth24! Sorry for the late reply. Yes, the topic do meets notability guidelines, but some statement are from unreliable sources and needs replacement. You can resubmit it again and let another reviewer check the draft. Toadette(Let's discuss together!)18:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
hi,can a spotify artist page, Apple music artist page be used in a citation for a music artist wiki page on Wikipedia as first reliable reference. Please explain me i am so confused. Kicks of seven (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Eggs111! To make a statement in italics, simply add two apostrophes like this: ''Example'' and the result will be Example. Also, you can click on the slanting I that preloads the apostrophes. Consider using [[H:INTRO|Wikipedia's introduction to get yourself started editing. Hope that helps! Toadette(Let's discuss together!)17:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Toadette.I will remember this when editing or creating.
S0091, I am really concerned about the editor requesting to "review" their drafts from other people. I've seen this not on our talk pages, but in another. Maybe encouraging them to not ask others to review their work may be ok, so to the OP, don't get discouraged from my saying. Keep up on your good work in the field of Indian topics, and also believing that you are autoconfirmed, you can actually create articles directly in the mainspace, Saishna96. And remember not to request people into reviewing your work, as S0091 said on their talk page. I really trust you! Toadette(Let's discuss together!)18:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree about contacting multiple reviewers which is what I expressed on my talk page. I think we are all good and great point about @Saishna96 being autoconfirmed. At this point, there is no need for them to submit their drafts to AfC but of course they are welcome to do so. S0091 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
My ubmission at Articles for creation: Ashley Folashade Adegoke (March 18)
Hi Toadette
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing in reference to your recent communication regarding the review of my article submission for Wikipedia. Upon reviewing the references provided in the submission, it appears that the subject meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article, as there is significant coverage in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
However, I would appreciate further clarification on what additional references, meeting these criteria, should be added to strengthen the submission. It is my intention to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's standards and provides comprehensive coverage of the subject matter.
I believe the submission adheres to the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article, maintains neutrality, and draws from a variety of independent, reliable sources. Consequently, I am puzzled as to why a tag might be placed on the draft, suggesting speedy deletion from Wikipedia. From my perspective, the page does not appear to be unambiguous advertising or solely promotional in nature.
Could you kindly advise on what specific aspects of the submission require fundamental rewriting? Any guidance or suggestions you can provide would be greatly appreciated, as I am committed to making the necessary revisions to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
Not an unreasonable split. Table format would work better in the longer term. I know that duplicate linking is permitted in lists (MOS:REPEATLINK), but in places this looks rather like a wall of blue, and some reduction might make reading easier.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Thanks for your contributions to List of battles in Belgium. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to List of battles in Croatia. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Need a mentor on This page I found on an article and I see it’s worthy of a wiki page, let’s work this together. --A85pr (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2024 (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 List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. 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.
Quote from your userpage: Toadette's username here is ToadetteEdit since the username "Toadette" is already registered. Have you considered usurping the username "Toadette"? Their last edit was in 2006, so Global Renamers might be willing to perform usurpation. It can be requested at meta:USURP using the instructions at the top of the page. —andrybak (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
{{copyvio-revdel
|url = <!-- The url of the site the article was in infringement of, or a text explanation of where the source(s) can be verified. -->
|start = <!-- The number of the first (oldest) revision to be deleted. -->
|end = <!-- The number of the last (newest) revision to be deleted (optional). -->
}}
Hello, ToadetteEdit!
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! CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2024 (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 Mach61 was:
The Blues Rock Review source is currently the only one which establishes notability.
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:Dirty Shine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, ToadetteEdit!
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! Mach6109:45, 30 March 2024 (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 Mach61 was:
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:Atlas (The Score album) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
I hope you are well my mentor , thanks for choosing considering me
About the person am editing on, she seems not to have more websites talking about her, not using 3rd party social media apps in this, where else can I get information to write about her? --Musene Reagan (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Hello my friend, I am ery Grateful that you have reached out to me for your friendship, knowledge, I look forward to simply learning about new word's,also nostalgia --MK 120 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I saw you marked Draft:Nairobi Orchestra as "on review" at AFC. However, the tag has been there for more than twelve hours. Please if it doesn't meet the criteria, then fail ir or pass if it meets the criteria for entry. Just a drive by reminder! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!17:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Toadette
Ive been editing this page for over a year. I have supplied mutiple sources and citations from Captain Hart Dykes book : Four Weeks in May" to newspaper articles and the actual Report of Proccedings submitted to the Commander in Chief Fleet writiten by the Commanding Officer Lieutenant Commander Mike Kooner , Officer in charge and Lieutenant Nick Hawkins who wrote the official report, in additrion to the BBC media publishing a news stroy on the opperation, teh Operation is also refeenced in Wikipedias own accounbt of theHMS Coventry sinking. Waht more can I do, be more than happy for you to assist in getting Operation Blackleg finally published. Devargo007 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for reviewing Draft:Taiwan and the United Nations. I just wanted to flag that the copyright issue was already resolved as it was confirmed that the content was actually a backwards copy from another Wikipedia article (China and the United Nations) from which this new article was intending to split. This was discussed in the previous reviewer’s talk page as well as the draft talk page, and confirmed in the review note. Would you mind re-reviewing and letting me if there are any other concerns? Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Question about John Paul (scientist) draft article
Hi Toadette. Thank you for taking the time to review my draft article and I’m hoping to resolve the citation situation with you. Having read, as thoroughly as I can, the article on Wikipedia acceptable citations, can you advise whether I’m picking up the correct area of concern please and, if so, how I can remedy this? There are a number of citations (3,9,10,11 and 19) which link to a website about the deceased subject. These point to lists of research and articles produced by this person, committees and boards which he sat on, a copy of his retirement ceremony front page and the oration for his Honorary Doctorate. If these shouldn’t point to this website then can I, instead, create PDFs (or whatever is appropriate) and upload them to Wiki Commons? Or, how else should I refer to these? Thank you. Gcwcd (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Toadette. I just spent months putting together my first draft article on this subject. It has just been deleted. I also spent subsequent hours trying to amend the article to take account of comments made. The article was intended to reflect the history and achievements of someone who lived at the end of last century. As a beginner, I didn't expect it to be without faults and have tried to correct these. More recently I posted a request for advice on your talk page in response to your feedback. This was to clarify which citations were of concern and how I might correct this. A couple of minutes later another contributor recommended the whole article for speedy deletion then it was deleted. Please can you help advise on how I navigate this minefield and get back the content of the article that I spent so much time on so that I can rework it offline? Gcwcd (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I am shocked about this. Who requested the speedy deletion, Gcwcd? And also, as always you can get the draft back through this linkunless if it was deleted under G3, G4, G10, G11 or G12 (it is best to contact the deleting admin), and I will review it and give advice if needed. Toadette(Let's talk together!)13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi ToadetteEdit, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
Hello Toadette.
As a newbie to Wikipedia, I have been exploring the "suggested edits" on my homepage. I have filtered the suggestions by topics I am interested in and set the difficulty level to easy. Currently, the suggested topics are in English. As a beginner, I would feel more comfortable editing articles in my native language, Polish. Is there a way to adjust the settings so that the "Suggested Edits" display topics in Polish, or should I manually search for articles?
Thank you for your guidance. --mw (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi mw! This is the English language Wikipedia, and there are no articles in Polish. There is a Polish Wikipedia if you want to contribute in Polish. It is not possible to change the settings in Suggested Edits. Polish Wikipedia also has a version of Suggested Edits that is best suited for you. Toadette(Let's talk together!)19:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, yes, this feature is also available on Polish Wikipedia, I just had to enable the option manually. Thanks for your help! mw (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I hope all is going well with your exam preparations! If possible may you be able to give me a little more information as to why you recently declined my recent draft. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Topg1985! Thanks for your message. As far as I know (I haven't rereview the draft yet), most of the draft's sources are either primary (written by the subject), blogs or listings. With only one source or two that passes GNG, it feels that this draft's sources do not proof that the subject is notable. Toadette(Let's talk together!)18:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Toadette,
I’d be most grateful if you could have another look when you have time. I will add some further sources as suggested.
Case closed; the matter has already been dealt. Please initiate another disvussion should this continue. Closed at 18:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What are the unreliable sources? Is it the Michael King text? I was told by another editor that some of my sources were told old (before 1990). I sited a Michael King text that's edition in either 2000 or 2004. The original version of this the text I think may have been written in the 1980s. I don't know if there are other sources out there I can use on this topic. I51iM (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm really not sure I can do that. There's only so many resources out that delve into the Moriori slavery. The editor who said this was Stuartyeates. He said the views of Moriori have changed since 1990. I51iM (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I wanna say there might be two sources out there I can add two the article that might help. One of them is a court case PDF. The other I don't remember completely what it was. It might have been in webpage. I51iM (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I did some analysing and found that all sources cited were after 1990 and what Stuartyeates said was The consensus view of the Moriori has changed a great deal since ~1990. Some of these older sources no longer reflect the consensus view. So what they said implied that the old sources they referred to are different to modern sources in terms of consensus view, and may need further clarification. The Michael Kings source from 2000 is modern. But IMO, I do not see unreliable sources, but suggesting you stick to either old or modern sources, I51iM. Mixing them might give it some sort of undue weight in the consensus view. Toadette(Let's talk together!)19:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay of the two sources I was thinking of. Only one is usable. So I just added it. I hope this article is now ready for Wikipedia. I51iM (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I wanna say the source cited is called Rekohu Report (2016 cV). If your talking about what's in quotes yeah they've all been checked. I51iM (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi ip! The reviewer thinks that it may not meet the notability guidelines. As an advice, go online and find any source that passes the general notability guideline, it should be reliable (so no blogs, social media), independent (so no interviews) and addresses the subject in detail (so no listings, brief mentions). Can you clarify by content is being removed from there? Who has removed it and placed the tag? The best way is to see the article history. Hope that helps! Toadette(Let's talk together!)10:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
List of Indianapolis Colts records submission
Hello,
Thanks for reviewing my draft of this this article. I re-did the reference you mentioned and linked directly to the PDF with page numbers for reference. If possible, would you mind re-reviewing the article?
