User talk:I'm tla/Archive 1

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, I'm tla, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Tails Wx 15:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Please be careful

Hi, thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. Unfortunately, in In this case, you reverted and warned the wrong user. It can happen, and I've done before myself, but it's something to watch out for. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for pointing it out, I'll try be more carful from now on.. tla 02:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Your AfD closure

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Kiszka (2nd nomination) today. Please reverse your closure. You have too little experience to be closing AfDs. You even failed to mark it as a non-admin closure. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will reverse it. Forgot to use (non-admin closure), I will use that in the future. TLA (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think you should wait until you have more experience before closing AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I saw that a lot of them had clear consensus, and noticed that it was mostly Liz managing the AfD discussions, so I wanted to lighten the load. I will refrain from doing that for now. I appreciate the comment TLA (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Investment in Azerbaijan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azerbaijani. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:SongLyrics

I appreciate the comment and pointer to WP:GNG, but please only do so once you are a AfC reviewer. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Wanted to explore all parts of Wikipedia, apologies. I am looking forward to applying soon! TLA (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

too much enthusiasm

Hi. Typical of many new editors, you have a surplus of enthusiasm. Many people really catch on fire with editing and want to get involved in projects a little earlier than our community expects. We have learned in the past twenty years that over-eager new editors can accidentally cause problems because they haven't developed a long track record of level-headed editing. Big bursts of hundreds of edits can also seem to us like an effort to game the system. Wikipedia has been burnt before by secret paid editors who created a persona and were quick to edit only to find that they simply wanted to escape scrutiny for later nefarious edits. I recognize that our community hesitancy can frustrate eager editors who just want to pitch in. I recommend you get involved in content work, perhaps by taking up one of the tasks listed at our reward board. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, your points completely make sense to me. In that case, I'll take a look at the reward board :) TLA (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Arvind Otta

I appreciate your time to review the draft. i dont understand why WP:refspam added. All the reference are valid or suggest me. Gauravdelhi.wiki (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. Well next to the terms "Mental health activist", 5 sources are used, which really is not relevant for such a simple statement. The other statement about Otta with the magazine "Psychologs" has 8 references (!!). TLA (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Gopi Prasannaa

Hi I'm tla. Could you please explain which part of Gopi Prasannaa reads like an advertisement and how I can fix it? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, my concerns were mostly with the wording/phrasing, like "notable", "journey in", "Prasannaa admires...". Maybe a few changes there, but yeah it's mostly fine I think. TLA (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe you have greatly misunderstood WP:PROMOTION. Whatever you have mentioned above does not come under reading like a {{Advert}}. Kindly revert the tag yourself. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose this isn't crossing that threshold. I will accordingly do so, thanks, but I suggest changing the wording slightly. TLA (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but no.

• Prasannaa admiring someone does not give the impression of an advertisement.
• 'He is notable for' // 'He is known for' is one and the same.
• His 'journey in' is irrelevant here.

None of this even remotely comes close to reading like an advert. I kindly ask you to read through Wikipedia:Spam before tagging articles with {{advert}}. Cheers Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I suppose it doesn't count as WP:PROMO, but felt slightly WP:PUFFERY. A phrase like "tried his hand" seems informal, "set records" is vague, etc.; but I went a stretch. Apologies. TLA (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

About your request at WP:PERM

Hey TLA, it's considered poor form to throw around links to still-open AfDs in unrelated discussions, as it could be taken as a form of implicit canvassing. Especially as your message is to request to be granted advanced permissions, I'd highly recommend that you remove the statement. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi TechnoSquirrel69, thanks for reminding me! I will remove that. TLA (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperTux

Hey, I'm tla,

I have questions about a lot of your AFD closures which should not have been closed by an NAC. But why did you close this discussion after only 3 days? There was no reason for an early closure. Please refrain from closing any more AFDs until you are more experienced. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liz, you're right, I closed that way too early. I will now only participate in AfDs and see if I'm qualified enough to do so next month or something like that. Thanks! TLA (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer

Hello, I appreciate your willingness to help with New Pages Patrol, but it appears that some users have raised concerns about your early involvement in advanced project work, such as closing AfDs and tagging new articles. My suggestion would be to take about 2 months to become more familiar with the guidelines before requesting advanced permissions. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for the suggestion. I would argue that, yes, while I did close several AfDs too early and tagging Draft articles, I don't think that's exactly related to the components of New Page Patrol (which seems to look at notability guidelines predominantly). I hope I can get it, but yes I understand if I had to wait 2 months. TLA (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I just want to point out that AfD is definitely linked to NPP; admins typically consider AfD participation before granting NPP. Closing AfD prematurely might be a bit of a weak point, indicating you might not be fully familiar with the proper procedures. But hey, it's totally fine if you're not keen on taking suggestions! – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right. Didn't mean to "argue", sorry, I guess just try to justify myself. Happy to take suggestions. Thank you! TLA (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Happy editing. – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You too 😊 TLA (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Michael Fell

Hello, and good to meet you. Just wanted to mention that the orphan tag you popped onto Michael Fell (artist) was incorrect. Links can be checked at 'What links here' (on Monobook that can be found under 'tools' on the left of the page, I don't know where it is on Vector). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Randy, nice to see you. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will check that and I will make sure to double check next time! TLA (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE for XFDs

Hello! Thank you for your contributions in nominating articles for deletion. I agree that many articles you nominated have only very poor sources and they can not demostrate notability. But I feel you may not have conducted a thorough WP:BEFORE search for additional sources as I saw that you nominated a series of articles in a very short interval (e.g. London International Student Film Festival was nominated for deletion only 1 minute after VFX Festival). It's important to remember that, as per Wikipedia:Notability#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability, the content of an article does not solely determine its notability. I recommend conducting a thorough BEFORE search for additional sources, especially if notability is the main concern.

I might have made some misassumptions. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks! 94rain ^Talk 10:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi 94rain, thanks for this, I didn't know WP:BEFORE existed. For the film festival articles I mainly conducted Google searches to Google news, then in film trade publications, and then a "(text)" Google Search to see if they're in some source, but only found WP:SELFPUB.

Though you're right, for some of my other nominations it would have been better to do more research in books and other language publications. TLA (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Early closures at AFD

Hi Tla, you have just been closing deletion discussions early again. If a discussion is started on the 13th, it should not be closed until the 20th, 7 days later. Discussions should usually not be closed until 7 days has elapsed, even if the outcome seems clear. Thanks, Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, that's my bad. I thought they could be closed prematurely when its close-ish to 7 days and shows consensus. I won't do that again. TLA (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Spicy (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, I'm tla,

I see you are back to closing AFDs despite the problems that emerged last week. Well, hopefully, you have taken all of the comments in and have adjusted your behavior accordingly. One thing you are still doing is closing AFD discussions too early. AFDs are supposed to be open 7 full days, not 5 or 6 days. It's okay to close a discussion a few hours early but unless a closure is SPEEDY, you should not shut down an AFD discussion before the 7 day period is over. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liz, yes, I understand now that it must be 7 days. I've spoken at the noticeboard. Thank you! TLA (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Johannes Fritz has been accepted

Johannes Fritz, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Tharshan Selvarajah has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tharshan Selvarajah. Thanks! ‍ Relativity 02:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I was considering making an article on the baguette competition itself. That may help TLA (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Guilhem Gallart has been accepted

Guilhem Gallart, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Lopifalko (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naci Görür (January 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford 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:Naci Görür 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm tla! 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! Chetsford (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: El Caribe (Dominican Republic) has been accepted

El Caribe (Dominican Republic), 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination to delete Mike Hall

Hey Tla! I just caught wind of your nomination to delete Mike Hall (Musician), which was my first foray into contributing to Wikipedia, and wanted to address your concerns for the nomination.

To start; the draft was submitted and accepted through AFC - as an inexperienced editor, I took no measures or liberties to immediately publish the article. That being said; I consulted the potential acceptance of the subject, and collaborated with quite a few experienced Wikipedia editors, most notably (courtesy pings) @S0091 and @FormalDude for the draft's eventual acceptance.

Also; I've addressed previous suspicions of COI editing on my talk page well over a year ago, which you can feel free to read at your leisure.

Lastly, I apologize for my lack of contributing anything else since this draft's acceptance - I didn't think I was obligated to research and submit additional subjects for consideration into Wikipedia, considering the entire process is quite lengthy in research allocation and appropriate formatting.

Moving on to the articles sources; there should be plenty of second hand, reliable, non promotional sources from established newspapers, magazines, and online publications that denote the subjects notability. If there are any sources in particular within the article that you personally find too promotional or unreliable, then I would be genuinely interested to know which of those sources those are and why - especially if I choose to pursue another subject to create a draft for through AFC.

Thank you for your time, Tla, I hope we can have a positive discourse on the subject, and move forward on this topic in a positive direction. ~~~~ Thefarcry (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thefarcry it was "soft delete" so you can have restored upon request. See WP:REFUND for instructions. S0091 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thefarcry, please refer to S0091's comments. You can choose to incubate the draft again and submit it to AFC, but I would certainly say better sourcing is needed. Thanks, S0091. TLA (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Tla. Unbeknownst to me, another editor on WP:REFUND already went ahead and requested for the article to be restored as a draft before I even wrote my post there. It is now currently draftified, and awaiting resubmission back into AFC for review.

That said; as per your deletion nomination concerns - I've gone ahead and pruned the draft of 4 unnecessary interview based sources, in addition to removing the COI maintenance tag due to the matter being explicitly settled on not only my talk page, but also being explained in my post on WP:REFUND without contention from the restoring admin (and obviously here right on your talk page).

Lastly, so I can be more experienced in this matter for potential future drafts of varying subjects - what exactly would you constitute as "better sourcing"? I ask this because a vast majority of the sources in the current iteration of the draft already covers the subject in second hand writing, from reliable sources (IE newspapers, magazines, and music publication sites with demonstrated editorial oversight), which are independent of the subject, that offer objectively significant coverage. Also; there seems to be no explicit evidence of the content of these sources being sponsored, user generated, or being press releases of any kind. From everything I can see, all sourced commentary seems transformative from one another in their review of the subject, so what exactly should I be looking for in future sources that meet your criteria for being solid?

From my perspective, the subject "should" not only meet WP:GNG, but more specifically criteria 1 & 7 of WP:MUSICBIO, and even criteria 3 of WP:NMUSICOTHER. Being the experienced editor that you are with multiple drafts already accepted as articles, I'm genuinely curious to hear your analysis for the contrary. Thefarcry (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is what I'm seeing. Source #:

1. This is very likely not a reliable source, judging off the magazine's readership and design, + the large number of ads.
2. Self-published.
3. Music Connection is a known source, but this is largely an interview, so lacks independence. It also seems promotional due to the list of links to Hall's social media.
4. Another interview source.
5. Reliable publication, but entirely based on an interview.
6. Again seems promotional. Flaunt Magazine is also known to be a bad source.
7. Ends off with direct links to all social media, seems promotional.
8. Reliable publication, but this is entirely based on an interview, clearly. Similar to #5.
9. There is really no analysis here. Just listing some music. At the end, seems like a press release.
10. Unreliable source.
11. York Calling says on their website "promoting music". Regardless, there is puffery here.
12. Bad source. Known for undisclosed promotional content.
13. Interview again.
14. Self-published.

The promotional nature of some of the sources here raise concerns for me, especially clearly linking to his social media in a list – a properly WP:INDEPENDENT journalist doesn't do this. Doesn't cut for #1 of WP:Notability (music) as well as #3 of WP:NMUSICOTHER due to the marginally reliable sources, and #7 is a little doubtful for me – seeing lists of known bassists of New Jersey from reliable sources doesn't include Mike Hall.

This is what I see. Editors certainly can disagree (it was accepted thru AfC). You did good with the changes w/ the article, but I thought the sourcing needed to be better. If you decide to recreate it go ahead :) again, it was soft deleted, and I'm not always right. TLA (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vinnie Hacker (February 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Idoghor Melody were: 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:Vinnie Hacker 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm tla! 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! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eun Young Oh (February 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Herald 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:Eun Young Oh 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)