User talk:TechnoSquirrel69/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Orphaned non-free image File:Laputa Castle in the Sky, screencap 1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Laputa Castle in the Sky, screencap 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Your signature

Please stop using custom timestamps.As WP:SIGPROB says, The timestamp must adhere to the system-generated format (HH:MM, D MM YYYY (UTC)) and must not be customized. This is necessary for clear communications and for archiving bots to function correctly. Timestamps that are customized may be considered disruptive and editors using them may be blocked accordingly. Nardog (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog: Yeah, after I confused Sinebot a couple of times I figured I'd probably done something I wasn't supposed to have. Thanks for letting me know, I've switched it back. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Administrator changes

Ingenuity

• Ddstretch
• Prodego
• Resolute

CheckUser changes

Courcelles

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for your hard work in AfC over the last few weeks, usually a thankless task...! Your work is not going unnoticed. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic: Thank you very much! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Laputa Castle in the Sky, soundtrack cover art.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Laputa Castle in the Sky, soundtrack cover art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 03:20, 4 July 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.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Ingenuity! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

REVIEW THE ARTICLE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Super_Singer_Junior_(season_9)

@TechnoSquirrel69Draft:Super Singer Junior (season 9) - Wikipedia. WHY IS THIS STILL NOT IN THE MAINSPACE? H669617 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey H669617, thanks for your message. The draft you've linked is currently pending review, and will be assessed by another AfC reviewer in the future. However, as I said in my review, the draft is unlikely to be accepted in its current state, and would be better suited for merging into the main article about the show. Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

SOLO ARTICLE FOR LOVE ISLAND- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Island_(2015_TV_series,_series_9)

@TechnoSquirrel69 Could you explain what is wrong with the Draft:Super Singer Junior (season 9) - Wikipedia? It is the author's own choice whether to create an article for the season or not, so please outline why you are against the solo article? In fact, it would also be mentioned in the Super singer Junior Article itself. For example, read Love Island (2015 TV series, series 9) - Wikipedia. HOW IS IT FAIR TO LEAVE LOVE ISLAND (An Accepted Wikpedia Article) HAVE ITS OWN ARTICLE AND STATE THAT SUPER SINGER JUNIOR SHOULD NOT? H669617 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@H669617: Articles are included or excluded from Wikipedia based on whether or not their subjects are notable. The general notability guideline is the go-to test for notability, but in this case the subject of the article may also satisfy a subject-specific guideline such as WP:NTV. It's because of these that I recommended that that draft you mentioned be merged into the existing article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Edits to Alan Jones (businessman)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Jones_(businessman)

@TechnoSquirrel69 Good Morning. You archived my edits on this page saying that I did not cite my source. The citation was the one that was already listed as "51" at the bottom. I edited the copy to be more consistent with the cited article. As a "for instance" the original copy says "his ex-wife's phone" when it was determined that it was his own phone. The original copy seemed misleading. Please let me know if I need to find a different source or if this explanation validates my edits. Thanks!Millertraci (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Millertraci: Thanks for your message! I reverted your edit because it appeared to me to be unsourced. If the information is in the citation you mentioned, feel free to revert my edit, explaining your reasoning in your edit summary. I appreciate you reaching out to resolve this in a civil manner; let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Morning! I made the "undo" with my explanation. Thank you for the quick response and help. I wish you more civility! Haha Millertraci (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

François Letexier

Today, it did confirmed that Francois Letexier will referee 2023 UEFA Super Cup between Manchester City and Sevilla. I was adding his upcoming involvement of the match days before the match. After the match finished, I change it to past tense and I promise to support my changes for next time.

Here is a better website to confirm everything; https://cityxtra.co.uk/5504/francois-letexier-to-referee-uefa-super-cup-final-between-manchester-city-and-sevilla/ 187.0.187.99 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@187.0.187.99: No harm done, just make sure to cite your sources next time. As long as the link you provided is from a reliable source, feel free to add your content back to the article with a citation. (Preferably using the {{Cite news}} template!) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Before you ask or check the page itself again, I did added new information based on a website I find and it is true. It turns out that Letexier has a 2 years old son and works on a part-time basis as a court bailiff. Check it out if you don't believe me. Also, I did support my changes this time.

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/news/0284-18bdbf6f9f11-f68f9fa00ccb-1000--super-cup-referee-letexier-moves-forward/ 187.0.187.83 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Your revert in Ayesha Omar

Please note that I did not add the link I just removed the marketing speech from the paragraph. You readded the marketing text and the link is still there. I suggest trying to be a bit more careful next time. Count Count (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey Count Count, I'm not sure why I ended up reverting your edit and not the other user's. I think RedWarn had a brain fart, but I apologize for the revert in any case. I'll strike the notice on your talk page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem, mistakes happen. I already removed the notice. Sorry for coming across a bit irritable. Count Count (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Castle in the Sky

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Castle in the Sky you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rhain -- Rhain (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Castle in the Sky

The article Castle in the Sky you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Castle in the Sky and Talk:Castle in the Sky/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rhain -- Rhain (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Castle in the Sky

The article Castle in the Sky you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Castle in the Sky for comments about the article, and Talk:Castle in the Sky/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rhain -- Rhain (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rhain: Thank you very much again for a great review! By the way, if you ever feel like working again on a film article, there are lots of Ghibli topics waiting to be improved; let me know if you're interested in collaborating. Princess Mononoke is next up for me! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I was actually planning to start a Studio Ghibli movie marathon soon (and reading this article has made me want to do it even sooner) so I may take you up on that offer! The Wind Rises would probably be my pick, but I may develop some new favourites along the way... – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm due for some Studio Ghibli rewatching myself, especially since I missed some of the Ghibli Fest screenings while I was traveling this month! Let me know how it goes for you. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Congratulations on the promotion of Castle in the Sky to GA! Your hard work and patience is admirable, and I can't wait to see what you work on next. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Administrator changes

• Pppery
• Theleekycauldron

• Dwheeler
• G.A.S
• Royalbroil
• Ssd

CheckUser changes

Bradv

Oversighter changes

Bradv

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Half Million Award for Castle in the Sky

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Castle in the Sky (estimated annual readership: 580,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Achyutbhai Yagnik

Thank you for your feedback. I have changed the tone to neutral. Please check and approve article for mainspace if you agree. WikiPgya (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@WikiPgya: Since I have already been involved with this draft, I'll wait for another AfC reviewer to take a look at it and provide a second opinion. It may take some time for this to happen, so please be patient with the process. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

AfC reviewing

Articles don't have to be perfect to be passed. If there are no signs of COI, the topic is clearly notable, and it passes copyvio check, I would be inclined to move to mainspace regardless of any other issues it had (short of WP:TNT worthy faults). C.f. Draft:Orphan devices (t · c) buidhe 03:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey Buidhe, thanks for your feedback! If you don't mind, could we go over the example you've mentioned in a bit more detail so I'm better informed in the future? The comments I left in my review were "I can't accept the draft right now as most of the lead is completely unsourced. Please fix that, and also make sure the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines." I realize now that I may have been a bit overzealous with the notability comment, but I could not verify the content of multiple sentences in the lead. And since the lead makes up the bulk of the content, I reasoned that it did not meet the standards at WP:AFCR § Verifiability. I see that you opted to accept the draft and tag it with an inline citations template, but I thought this wouldn't quite cut it since the uncited content had claims like "The development of medical technologies for rare diseases faces many of the same challenges... including... the lack of expertise on specific diseases and the fact that most diseases are paediatric-onset.", which weren't mentioned in any of the sources as far as I know. I forgot to mention it in my comments, but the copyvio check also showed quite a bit of too-close paraphrasing or straight-up copying from the Dooms source. I'd love to hear your thoughts with this in mind. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• • I fixed the close paraphrasing issue easily, and notability can be verified in a 5 second Google Scholar search. I know it's technically not required to do this before declining, but I see that rule as important for protecting reviewer time from COI editors rather than a good practice when dealing with good faith content creators. I understand the concern about content that may not be verified by any of the cited sources, but I would just delete it rather than declining the article. Since the original nominator is long gone (having waited several months (!) for a review) , declining just means the entire article will be deleted later. I don't think the article is so bad that this would be a good outcome for the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 17:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

    Fair enough, and you make a valid point about the effect of the AfC review backlog on submitters. I tend to switch off my editing brain a little bit when reviewing at AfC, which leads to me leaving extensive comments that I could fix myself. I think the lesson here for me is to not be so quick with a decline and look for contributive opportunities first, which I'll keep in mind for future reviews. Thanks again! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Frank Baker Holmes, draft

Hi Technosquirrel69 Thank you for alerting me to the problem of citing user generated sites. I have removed all of the blog site references and replace some of them with new sources that I have found. However, after reading Wikipedia: external links/perennial websites, I am still not clear if I can use the  blog site information as external links. l would hope to, as I can find no other sources that speak to some of Frank Baker Holmes’s individual projects, such as the previously cited detailed account about the commissioned sarcophagus painting. The goal however, is to see Frank Baker Homes become an article. Can I proceed with these external links? Any help or suggestions will be appreciated. Jjcoste2 (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey Jjcoste2, thanks for your message! Blogs and other user-generated content — unless created by the subject of the article themselves — can't be used anywhere in the article according to the biographies of living persons policy; see the WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPEL sections in particular. If there is information presented in a self-published source that doesn't appear in a reliable source, then that information can't appear in the article, I'm sorry. Let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi TechnoSquirrel69, thank you for the information links! I have gone ahead and removed all self published external links and added new external links and press citations. Will this be enough to have the Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable banner removed? Jjcoste2 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jjcoste2: Since I've already involved myself with a review of your draft, I think it would be best for me to defer that decision to another AfC reviewer so that you can get a second opinion. You are — of course — at liberty to remove the tag yourself, but I'd recommend waiting. Please be patient with the process; it can take some time before another AfC reviewer comes around. In the meantime, I still see some paragraphs that don't have sources, which you should either add a source for or remove from the prose in order to maximize the chances your draft gets accepted. Let me know if I can be of any other help! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Notification filing an active disagreement for 3rd Opinion for Kalki Bhagawan

Hi @TechnoSquirrel69 as discussed I have filed the request for a 3rd opinion on Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements for the disagreement we had on the talk page of the subject Kalki Bhagawan.

FYI and please take a look, I have tried to present it to the best of my ability as if both of us were jointly presenting. If you reword, please let me know here so that I too can see if I can suggest a (hopefully better) re edit. Thanks for being willing to go through this process. Aditya the sun (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, before the process - I wanted to make an edit to remove only the duplicate links in the article (no other change).

This is because - while you and I are quite familiar with the number of duplicate sources in the article and we haven't given it any weightage in the arguments after establishing their existence - the reader offering the opinion might not be and it might skew their analysis.

These are about 40 in number as I had pointed out in one of the posts. Does this sound fair/ do you have any objections to that? Aditya the sun (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Aditya the sun. I'm fine with the way you've represented the discussion. Please go ahead and remove the duplicate citations, I agree that that would be an uncontroversial constructive change regardless of the content dispute. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: hi @TechnoSquirrel69 this was removed once from the 3P active disagreements page because they believed it was not a good fit for the process as it looked like 3 editors were already involved. They also didn't know that this also existed on the BLP noticeboard. I have reposted once more with the clarification that NatGertler has declined to participate further and the link to the BLPN discussion. Hopefully, it is a good process still but have asked them to inform if they think it isn't. Aditya the sun (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Castle in the Sky

On 11 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Castle in the Sky, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fans of Castle in the Sky twice broke the record for largest number of tweets posted per second? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Castle in the Sky. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Castle in the Sky), 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.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Unmarking for review

Hi. Before unmarking a draft for review, as you did at Draft:Eduard Georg von Bethusy-Huc and Draft:Udo of Stolberg-Wernigerode, please message the reviewer who placed the tag. In this case, I've tagged these as under review because they were created by a prolific sockpuppet (WP:DUCK), and the SPI case must be closed before they can be WP:G5 deleted; in reality these are not actually under review, tagging them as such is just a way to get them out of the AfC queue. Thanks. Curbon7 (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Curbon7; I just saw that it had been tagged as under review for over 48 hours and figured you had forgotten to remove the tag. I'll make sure to check with you next time. Thanks for your message! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Removing Simon ekpa from IPOB

since my request 4 hours now I haven't seen your reply @TechnoSquirrel69

You know what am saying is true but you don't want to do the needful needed I have linked a source to show you that Simon ekpa is self proclaimed spokesperson Not an official IPOB spokesman And I know you have saw it still you don't want to say something Or do you still have any excuse to make

Please if you are replying reply me from that request I made Thanks 😊 Ojadi Emeka (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ojadi Emeka: Edit requests can take several days until a volunteer makes time to address them, please be patient until then. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Jared_C._Monti page

Jared C. Monti

Hello, @TechnoSquirrel69! Thanks for reviewing my submitted edit earlier today. I wanted to touch base because I went back to edit my wording (I submitted a summary explanation there) and noticed my original submission was reverted. Now, I'm not sure whether it was accepted or not (?). So thought I'd explain my rationale: Paul Monti is now buried next to Jared Monti, which is unusual (military cemeteries are usually reserved for active duty only). So I added content to the "Burial and MOH ceremony" paragraph. Then noticed my wording could use improvement.

I didn't intentionally mean to revert the page if you don't agree.

Let me know your thoughts! I added citations and links, as well, in hopes that I was adhering to guidelines and adding value here.

Thanks very much. Look forward to your response.

Best, ~~~~@Meeshelle Meeshelle (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey Meeshelle! I reverted your edits by accident, and have already restored the content. Sorry for the confusion, and let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Baby's first real edit (Worcester Revolution of 1774)

I may have made a mistake with references, but I did include one in there. However, I have included four sources of this documented event. I would very much appreciate Worcester's role in the pre-revolution to be included on the Wikipedia page, especially since this part of history is glossed over or forgotten.

https://www.massar.org/2013/01/23/setting-the-record-straight-the-worcester-revolt-of-september-6-1774/ https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/02/the-true-start-of-the-american-revolution/ https://www.discovercentralma.org/articles/post/patriots-day-worcesters-role-in-the-american-revolution/ https://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/the-worcester-revolt.html DasKleinesPäckchen (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey DasKleinesPäckchen, thanks for your message! I reverted your edits because the sources you put in did not seem to be reliable per WP:RS, being either blogs or tourism sites. However, I missed the Journal of the American Revolution source, which seems to have an editorial team; sorry about that! Feel free to re-introduce the content that is supported by that source, explaining your reasoning in your edit summary. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, the references you added are currently what we call bare URLs; I'd recommend that you read Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates to learn about how to format citations. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Please check again, I think this should be all set! DasKleinesPäckchen (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like it is all set. I was having more trouble with the article that I wrote for the actual event. I will have to try again tomorrow, if someone online does not help me out. DasKleinesPäckchen (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Hello,

this relates to an addition to the National Socialist Network page

the source is a video posted on 9new's twitter account, it is the only place that the video was published. twitter not being a reliable source surely does not consider that multibillion dollar media companies post fact checked news to twitter. anyway semantics, that's fine.

I was having trouble archiving the twitter link as it was, would it be appropriate to upload the video to an archive and link to that as a source?

The closest thing I could find covering this in writing is listed below, would this be considered a reliable source?

https://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=50941

I was trying to including a factual account of an event that occurred locally, are you able to suggest a way around?

thank you

TheAncestorsRemindYouWashYaGills (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey TheAncestorsRemindYouWashYaGills, thanks for your message! You are correct in saying that tweets from presumably reliable news sources can be treated the same as the source itself, which I did overlook — sorry about that. However, there are other issues with your edit that led me to revert it, the most important being that the prose you added seemed to have little to no relevance to the subject of the article. Going over the video in more detail now, I can see that the source never mentions the names of any groups, choosing to call the factions simply "anti-fascists" and "neo-Nazis". Interpreting this news report as being about the National Socialist Network would almost certainly be original research, which is not done on Wikipedia. Also, the link you provided here would not be considered a reliable source due to it being a blog, which is a self-published source. Let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

hey, thanks so much for laying that out for me, your reply was very helpful. I was being very careful to include what was in the media piece, part of the issue was that it was pretty editorialized as it was. must have missed that it didn't actually list NSN, even if it undoubtedly was.

I've finally found a written source today so I'll be able to tweak what I'd written and include the information.

Cheers TheAncestorsRemindYouWashYaGills (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi TechnoSquirrel69. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Anarchyte (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Anarchyte! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Square pyramid

Regarding our discussion in the peer review about article Square pyramid, I do think I have some understanding of the topic. However, there are also where I do not master any part of the topic. An example is about the "stereochemically" part because I do not understand chemistry (and I think this could be the same for some suggestions from yours). Should I ask the user who understands more, for example, about stereochemically things at the WP:CHEM?

To tell you the truth, I am actually not an expert in some fields, and it seems that WP:CIR warns me more about my ability. However, I would like to improve the article so it may potentially have the status of GA. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey Dedhert.Jr! First of all, don't worry about CIR. That essay really only exists to discuss repeated disruptive behavior from editors who are clearly acting recklessly and making big changes in ways they don't understand. You are not doing that, and have been acting with the appropriate caution by requesting a peer review to help with improving the article, and reaching out to other editors when you come up against areas in which you aren't comfortable. I appreciate you for that! As for the more technical aspects relating to stereochemistry, I would recommend first tracking down the source and reading it for yourself to see if you're able to get anything out of it. Remember, you don't have to have an expert's understanding of the topic in order to summarize the main points made by the source as they pertain to mathematics. Doing some additional reading about pyramidical structures in chemical compounds might help inform your understanding. If you still don't feel confident that you can accurately represent the source due to your lack of technical understanding, you could also consider trying to find expert help from an editor more familiar with the subject — reaching out at WikiProject Chemistry could also have the same effect. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

A sad message!

Hello, respected brother! The admin is not entirely helpful; they deleted the draft page, even though it was recreated multiple times and frequently deleted. I've only recreated it after one year, and I haven't added anything new from my own thinking; I've simply translated it from BN-Wiki. The admin could review it again, but unfortunately, they couldn't. I'm so disappointed. I'll never contribute to EN-WIKI if I don't get a proper solution. I believe that Draft:Mizanur Rahman Azhari meets the criteria outlined in WP:GNG, but they don't seem to care. There are also articles in several other Wikis. ImranAvenger (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Explicit, I would appreciate your attention, please. ImranAvenger (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@ImranAvenger: From the information I received from the administrators who deleted the page, your draft was a recreation of a version of the page that had been deleted at Articles for deletion — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizanur Rahman Azhari (2nd nomination). Basically, editors have formed a consensus that the article in that form should not be in the encyclopedia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: I apologize if I make any mistakes. Since I'm not a native English speaker, I may have a language barrier, and I might fail to interpret something accurately. Anyway, as for the quote,

Basically, editors have formed a consensus that the article in its current form should not be in the encyclopedia.

— Here, several points are worth noting:

• I didn't see the previous version that had been deleted, which is why I can't relate to or point out where the problems actually lie with my last created draft.
• I've noticed two deletion nominations. The first nomination summary stated that the previously deleted version of the article was full of unreliable sources. However, I believe my new draft, which I recently created, does not contain unreliable sources. The second nomination summary mentioned that it failed to meet WP:GNG, but I believe my new draft meets WP:GNG.
• Most importantly, I want to emphasize once again that, as it is frequently mentioned, the draft is nothing more than a translation from the recent version of BN-Wiki. This raises the question of whether the policies of BN-Wiki and EN-Wiki are the same. Although BN-Wiki deleted the article several times, the recent version that was retained is significant and meets the notability guidelines.

I want to mention another point. Since you are a reviewer, you've likely seen the draft. Does the draft contain a lot of unreliable sources and fail to meet the notability guidelines? ImranAvenger (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Though you may have meant well when you created the draft, it's possible that the abusive user who had previously created the article also translated it from the Bangla Wikipedia. Even if it was an accident, this means that you may have recreated a previously deleted version of the article, which falls under CSD G4 on the English Wikipedia. Since only administrators can view deleted pages, I did not review your draft, instead deciding to defer it to an administrator after our discussion on Draft talk:Mizanur Rahman Azhari. For what it's worth, I'll ping the deleting administrator in this discussion to see if they shed some light on the situation, since I am just making guesses at this point. Also, I don't contribute to the Bangla Wikipedia and so can't comment on whether the rules are different over there; the decision for this draft was made in accordance with the English Wikipedia's deletion policy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

JBW, since you deleted this page, would you be able to take a look at the comments above and provide some information? Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@ImranAvenger:

1. Wikipedias in different languages are completely autonomous, and in some cases have very different policies, so what policies a Wikipedia in another language has is no guide whatever to English Wikipedia's policies.
2. There have been 12 deletions, under one or the other of the titles Draft:Mizanur Rahman Azhari and Mizanur Rahman Azhari, by nine different administrators. I have compared several of them, including the latest one, which I deleted, and the one which was deleted at the first deletion discussion for the article.
3. The latest version was virtually identical to one which was deleted on 1 May 2021, no doubt because they were both translations of the article on Bengali Wikipedia. (Thank you for attributing the text to the source from which you translated it, ImranAvenger, whereas the creator of the previous translation didn't.) Other versions which I checked were not identical, but they were essentially similar in character, and there were some cases of use of the same words, or similar wording, so that the versions were certainly not completely independent.
4. I found that some of the references in the latest version were the same as those in earlier versions, including the version which was the subject of the original deletion discussion. More references, however, are different from those previously used, but of essentially similar nature, so that they do not seem to address the concerns about sources expressed in the deletion discussions. I have not checked every one of the references, as doing so with sources in a language I don't understand, and having to rely on Google translation, is tedious and time-consuming, but I have checked enough of them to think it very unlikely that my impression is very far from the truth.
5. There is a very wide range of opinions of how widely to interpret criterion for speedy deletion G4, with some editors taking it as requiring the new version to be virtually identical to the one which was discussed, and others closer to regarding it as sufficient for the versions to be substantially similar, and the new one not addressing the issues which led to the original deletion. Many years ago I came to the conclusion that it is not worth trying to argue about how to interpret it, as most editors stick firmly to their view no matter what is said, and so I tend to set a fairly low threshold for restoring a deleted page and taking it to another deletion discussion if the deletion is disputed. However, while I could do so this time, I would much prefer not to, because it looks to me as though doing so would be very likely to be a waste of editors' time which could be better used for other tasks, as the outcome would probably be deletion again; it is essentially similar to a two figure number of previous versions which have been deleted, and I see nothing in it whatever to suggest a different outcome this time. As I said above, there have been 12 deletions, by nine different administrators. There have been two deletion discussions, in both of which there was unanimous agreement among all those who expressed an opinion on whether to delete that it should be deleted. Furthermore, the latest draft was in parts unambiguously promotional in character, containing such language as "thanks to his contemporary approach", "while staying true to Islamic teachings", "his well-researched discussions", "his approachable style", etc; that is totally contrary to Wikipedia's policy that articles be written from a neutral point of view. JBW (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

How can I improve my East Side Blood Money Piru article for acceptance to be submitted?

I would like a more in-depth explanation of what I can add specifically to get the article submitted. Kingshottiru (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey Kingshottiru, as I said in my review, the first step would be to familiarize yourself with the concept of notability. Wikipedia articles are created for topics that are shown to pass this guideline, and need to be referenced using reliable sources. All of this information is available in the links provided in the review. Let me know if I can be of any other help, or you can alternatively request assistance at the Articles for creation help desk or the Teahouse. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Help! Your comment on FamilySearch not being a reliable source

I understand that Wikipedia does not normally allow Family Search due to potential inaccuracy, that would not seem to be the case when the citation is to actual digital images of historic record books as in the case of my draft (my first article so I struggled). The first citation takes you to images of pages of Terézváros parish records and the second the Budapest Civil Records. I see that I should use WP:BLPPRIMARY but as none of the persons involved are living I am not sue how it applies. Also, it's reference to WP:PRIMARY states that primary sources can be used with care.

Citations to FamilySearch images are included in the entry for Maria Andor's first husband Arpad Palotay (https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palotay_%C3%81rp%C3%A1d) ...the first actually mentions FamilySearch while the second points to an image available there without mention of the website.

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-XCSS-5QX?i=224
Születési bejegyzése az Újpesti Izraelita Hitközség születési akv. 45/1880. folyószáma alatt. (Hozzáférés: 2019. november 23.)

I also struggle with the fact that I am writing this in English while she was Hungarian, as was her first husband, and her second was Swiss so his Wikipedia entry is in German.

I do have a secondary source I just found and will be adding confirming the same birth date as on the church record and that her birth name was Manheit.

Any help to resolve this would be GREATLY appreciated.

BTW...my interest in this article is that prior to her immigration my grandmother was maid to the family, and specifically to Maria. Victoria Indiana USA (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey Victoria Indiana USA, thanks for your message! I appreciate you for familiarizing yourself with the relevant policies relating to primary sources before starting this discussion. Unfortunately, there are a couple more reasons why FamilySearch can't be used, the most important being that much of its content is user-generated, and so falls under WP:SELFPUB. There have been several discussions about the reliability of FamilySearch in the past, most of them ending in consensus that the source is not acceptable for use on the English Wikipedia. Since you provided a link here to the Hungarian Wikipedia, I will also note that rules can vary significantly between the different language versions of Wikipedia, as they all operate essentially independently. (In fact, see the discussion just above this one!) Just because a source is in use on that article doesn't mean it gets a pass here. Let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand. The page to which you refer classes Family Search as "questionable in most cases", but specifically adds that: "FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations, as well as a large collection of digitized books, which should be evaluated on their own for reliability".

These two citations are to images of primary source documents, the legal records for a birth and a marriage of the period and place in question. As I read the above both of these should be allowed. Victoria Indiana USA (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I may have to turn this over to the Hungarians (somehow) to get this resolved. After all, she was originally of their country.

Another problem is that I suspect the following may be considered original research as the use of a stage name complicates matters. Nowhere does any record specifically say Maria Andor was born Maria Anna Johanna Ludovika Monheit.

• Several secondary sources state portions of the following: that Maria Andor was a tragedienne or dramatic actress, her family name was Manheit, she was born Mar 8 1890 in Budapest, she was the daughter of Jakab Manheit opera singer and later singing teacher.
• Primary sources as images in Family Search show that Maria Anna Johanna Ludovika Monheit was baptised Mar 8 1890 in Budapest, she was the daughter of Jakab Monheit opera singer and that in 1911 she married, the record recording she was a színésznő (actress) and daughter of Jakab Monheit.

Victoria Indiana USA (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Some of the points you bring up here were in fact brought up by the very editors who participated in the discussions leading to FamilySearch being designated a generally unreliable source. As you said, there isn't a reliable source that definitely proves that the records for Monheit listed on the website are actually relevant to the subject of the draft, making their inclusion as references questionable at best. Keeping that in mind, I don't think that this would be one of those "limited situations" where it would be appropriate to cite primary sources. As for turning the issue over to the Hungarians — they may be able to assist you with your research into the topic, but I doubt any of them would be able to help you with questions about policies and guidelines here on the English Wikipedia. As I said earlier, each language community operates essentially independently, and rules on one may not line up with rules on another. You can also bring your findings to the Articles for creation help desk, which is a more public venue that will hopefully lead to you forming a consensus with several more editors. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out at peer review!

		The Peer Review Barnstar
		For your excellent contributions to Wikipedia peer review, I present to you the peer review barnstar. Nice work! Tom (LT) (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

For your very helpful responses to those in need on peer review. They're appreciated! Tom (LT) (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Tom! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Administrator changes

Hey man im josh

• Alex Bakharev
• CorbieVreccan
• Cyphoidbomb
• Davodd
• Hog Farm
• JamesR
• KnightLago
• Mark Ironie
• Nosebagbear (deceased)
• Rschen7754
• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

DatGuy

• Ferret
• RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Oversighter changes

RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The Storm Before the Calm#Euro label

@TechnoSquirrel69: Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 183.171.122.135 (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Citation for Indigenous Place Names

Hello, I'm responding to your notice that blogs are not considered reliable sources for adding the Indigenous Muscogee name for Atlanta - Pvkvn-Huere. The blog in question, https://decolonialatlas.wordpress.com/turtle-island-decolonized/ , is highly researched from primary sources, tribal language departments, which are cited within the page. As there is little published material on Indigenous place names in North America that is accurate and spelled in modern orthographies, this is currently the most accurate source on the topic. The only Google results for "Pvkvn-Huere" are this blog, which cites Muscogee linguist Jack Martin, author of the Muscogee Dictionary. "FISHERCAT5751 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)"

@FISHERCAT5751: Thanks for your message! I completely understand your concern about Native American topics having sparse coverage in sources, but that is unfortunately a much larger systemic issue. When it comes to sources on Wikipedia, we have no way of determining whether a blog post has been through a reliable editorial review in the same way that a news article might, which is why user-generated content is usually not allowed to be cited. It's highly unlikely that this case will be an exception to that policy. I'd recommend that you start a discussion on the article's talk page about this to source the views of other editors working on the article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please remove the "Peacock" template!

Hello! I am Tronoptimus. I just wanted to request that the page you are referring to Salman Shah (actor) has valid information from references as checked. I don't see any information there has any exaggerated claims as per the articles mentioned in the citations. Rather the page is under-developed compared to others as the subject is an important figure with enduring legacy in his country and media. Especially 'career' and 'legacy' lacks many vital information. I understand you didn't find my edits neutral in some parts so you deleted them. But before the edits about 'legacy and influence' the page was fine enough with credible references so I think the peacock template still being there is harsh. Considering the subject is an important figure of Bangladeshi cinema so its important that the page depicts him in a justified way according to the given articles and citations. Furthermore the page lacks many important contents regarding career and legacy which needs improvement. So I think for clear information purpose the peacock template should be deleted, so not to confuse readers as the page is as per facts given the referenced articles. I would rather not edit more pages for a while as you said. Please do consider how to remove the peacock template on Salman Shah (actor). Thank you for your co-operation. Tronoptimus (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey Tronoptimus, thanks for your message. I want to clarify exactly the type of issue I have with the article: it's not that I think the article needs more citations or is misinterpreting the existing citations, I believe there is extraneous language used in the article ("peacock" words) that serve no purpose other than to make the subject seem greater or more impressive. Also, note that even if sources have described the subject flatteringly, the additional fluff of promotional language should not be carried into the article, and rewritten to be as neutral as possible. A lot of these principles are outlined in the neutral point of view policy, which I'd recommend you read through to get a sense of the standards expected on Wikipedia. After doing so, I'd recommend that you start a discussion on the article's talk page, which could attract comments from other editors for possible improvements that can be made. If there is consensus that the problems have been resolved, then the banner can be removed. (Also, I don't remember telling you to "not edit more pages for a while"; you're free to edit wherever you like as long as it complies with Wikipedia policy, including the policy on the usage of multiple accounts.) Let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello TechnoSquirrel69 thanks for your message. I get your point. If I am able to edit as long as it complies with Wikipedia policy I would like to contribute to the 'Career' and 'Legacy' parts of the page in future with valid citations and references because its lacking many contents for new readers. If the inputs and sources go hand in hand with Wikipedia policy and neutral point of view I hope the revisions get accepted normally and the page becomes more credible with enough contents. Thanks for your support. If I get time and opportunity I would like to contribute to other Wikipedia pages following the guidelines as well in future. Tronoptimus (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Kevin Short

Hello, TechnoSquirrel69,

Before tagging an article for deletion, make sure it hasn't been vandalized or hijacked. If so, revert the damaging edits to return to the decent article that existed before. If there was a worthwhile article or disambiguation page before the damage was done, the edits should be reverted and the page should not be deleted. Hijacking an existing article to promote some person with the same name who is not notable is fairly common so please keep an eye out for articles, usually unsourced, that have been in main space a while that seem misplaced. It's harder to recover pages that have been mistakenly deleted than looking at the page history before tagging and undoing the damage done. And if the editor is persistent, report them at AIV or alert an admin so they can be blocked, at least from the page that they are vandalizing. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Liz! That user was definitely making some unusual changes that threw me off as I was sifting thorugh them. I'll make sure to look through the history more carefully before tagging under the CSD in the future, thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, regarding Draft:Shahi Kabir, when you tag a page for speedy deletion CSD G5 because it is the work of a blocked editor by a sockpuppet, when you use Twinkle, put the name of the sockmaster in the field, not the sockpuppet. This is so if an editor or admin has a question, they can easily go to the relevant SPI case which is filed under the sockmaster's username. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Good to know. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK Mai Fujisawa

Thanks for you DYK nomination for the article Mai Fujisawa. I think you did solid work there. No glaring errors left and the hook is solidly interesting. Thanks for your work to make Wikipedia a more complete source of information. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that, MtBotany! Thanks to you as well for for a short but helpful review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem. It was a short review, but you did a good job on your article and it is not needed to get something all the way to Good Article or Featured Article quality for just for a new article DYK nomination. This kind of work is the fun tapas bites of Wikipedia where Featured Article is the formal seven course meal with fish forks and figuring out which knife to use. And I think you wrote a good hook. Better than I usually do. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Polymer banknote of Vietnam

Sorry, I reverted your edit also, as I was putting this draft back to the review point. My edit note about 'tampering' wasn't aimed at you! :) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Ah, I thought something looked funny with that one — I probably should've checked the history before changing that template. Thanks for the message, and the fix of my fix! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Mai Fujisawa

On 1 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mai Fujisawa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a song from Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind was performed by four-year-old Mai Fujisawa, daughter of the film's composer Joe Hisaishi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mai Fujisawa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mai Fujisawa), 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.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello TechnoSquirrel69:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2600 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

releated to article in living person

hi, as you told i have to add reliable sources about living person. the reliable sources and newpaper links are already addred in referece of amardeep singh aujla plz review once again. thanks Dwikifirst (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dwikifirst: Thanks for your message. Looking through the page history on Amardeep Singh Aujla, I can see that you restored content that was previously removed from the article while it was being considered for deletion. Please don't do this, as the content is possibly in violation of Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and biographies of living persons. Any content in the article must be supported by reliable sources and be presented in a way that is not promotional of the subject. Language such as "his illustrious and long service" is an example of these issues, and is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article. Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Issues with a RfD closure

Hi TechnoSquirrel69,

Your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 9#Expedition to Tibet seems fail to interpret the full consensus that moving the dab page Expedition to Tibet (disambiguation) to its base name Expedition to Tibet after retargeting per no primary topic, which aligns with WP:MALPLACED and was suggested by two participants (sysops in deed) there. Besides that, you should have avoided closing this RfD per WP:NACD because you actually have no technical ability to implement the page swap, which I have done as a page mover. Now that you have made this closure, please also mention this part of consensus to keep editors who visit this archive from being confused. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Thanks for your message! Looking over this again I realize I did misunderstand what was being proposed; I wouldn't have closed it if I realized it needed administrator or page mover attention. I apologize for the mistake, and I've edited the closing statements to reflect the move that you implemented. I appreciate you coming here to provide feedback, as I am relatively new to closing discussions, and will take much more care to avoid this happening again in the future. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)