Jump to content

User talk:Asilvering/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Draft:Homutsuwake no Mikoto

Hello! You recently declined my draft Draft:Homutsuwake no Mikoto for "unreliable sources" and didn't leave an explanation. What specifically was unreliable! Thanks - Camillz (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Camillz, almost none of the sources on the draft are reliable (and a section was removed as copyvio). #4 is an amateur podcast site. #5 is a photo blog. #6 is an English-Japanese dictionary citing wikipedia. For the first three, there are no URLs or page numbers - how did you access these? -- asilvering (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
hello and thanks for responding! The first three are books. I believe they're available on Wikipedia! - Camillz (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I know they are books. How did you access them? -- asilvering (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Some through Wikisource, but most are available for purchase, or as pdf's to read online. I have added links to them on the page. Camillz (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't asking how one might access them, I was asking how you, specifically, accessed them to write this article. I admit I was hoping for some kind of answer like "I borrowed them from my university library", but your responses have raised more questions than they've answered. Can you please explain how you wrote this article? Did you import the text from somewhere else? To be clear, you're not in trouble (and won't be). But I'd like to find out what's going on here. -- asilvering (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
i don't understand what you mean? You can go onto the page, go to the sources, and then click on them, then you can read them like I have. The sources link to were I read them. I read them online but you can get them in physical form too. Camillz (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi sorry I don't mean to come of to bluntly or rudely. But all these sources are proper sources. And some have been used on other pages before. Especially the books which are proper publications. I apologise if I sound rude. - Camillz (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Do you think with the sources filled out, I should put it up for review again? Again not to sound rude! And thanks for not being rude to me either - Camillz (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't think so, not yet. Sorry for the unhelpfully short response - I just didn't want you to be left feeling ignored. I promise I'll get back to you in much more detail soon. -- asilvering (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh no ofcourse take your time! Sorry about that, don't rush it! - Camillz (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
There's no need to apologize!
One of the reasons why I was asking these questions is because it will be much easier for me to explain why these sources are not reliable sources if I understand how you came across them in the first place, and why you used them to write this article. This source in particular is a very strange one to use for any kind of research at all. I can give you some tips for finding reliable sources and how to spot unreliable ones, but they won't do you any good if they have nothing to do with how you're finding sources in the first place.
Another reason is because three of them are books, but the citations don't include any page numbers. Page numbers help other editors verify the content the citation is being used for. Without page numbers, this is much harder. Sometimes people don't include page numbers because they read the book in a way that makes providing page numbers very difficult (for example, some kinds of ebook). Sometimes it's because they're sloppy. Sometimes it's because they're making things up. I tried to verify the first one, which we have in wikisource. But I don't find any results for "Homutsuwake no Mikoto". I also tried a distinctive phrase from the story, and found only these results: [1]. That is, that phrase does not appear to exist in this book on wikisource. This may be a reliable source, but so far I haven't been able to verify the content.
Maybe this is my mistake, in which case, hopefully, you explaining how you wrote this article will help me get out of my confusion. Maybe this is your mistake, in which case, whatever it is, I will show you how to fix it. So far, all I've found myself is that part of it was directly copied from this website, which is why that section has been removed and deleted from the page history. -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello! So for the books which you can download as pdfs, you can search words, but I will include the page for the book on Wikisource. Now, Japanese is very strange and so some names aren't translated the same. What I mean is Homutsuwake no Mikoto could be translated as Hom-utsu-wake no Mikoto as an example. Camillz (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello! The source now links to the chapter! I will also quote the bit where it says what's this thing, but you can also find it yourself. "Now there was a swan which crossed the Great Void, uttering its cry. The Imperial Prince looked up, and seeing the swan, said:—"What thing is this" no, it doesn't exactly say "What's this thing" it says "what thing is this" the book is in Japanese originally, so obviously the translation isn't perfect. But I can assure you I didn't make this up! - Camillz (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
If you see his name written as Hom-utsu-wake, you're looking at either an error or an unreliable source; it's not possible to read those characters in that way.
I've removed the unreliable sources from your draft. Only primary sources remain, so you should not resubmit this in its current state. -- asilvering (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I apologise by from now on I'd rather you not review my pages. This is a reliable source, it's been used on Wikipedia before. The name may be spelt differently as it's translated from Japanese (it's an old book) I will undo some of your edits. Camillz (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I think I'm lost. Sorry for the confusion. But the sources you left are reliable. I will resubmit it, but I'd rather we wait for someone else to take a look at it. Sorry about the confusion from my first comment. You removed the sources I didn't assume. Camillz (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I see you have removed the unreliable sources maintenance tag I placed on one of your articles. Please do not do this. It is clear that you do not have any idea what makes a source reliable or not. Having had a source accepted before doesn't mean that it is reliable; it simply means that no one noticed it wasn't, or cared to tag it if they did. Again, I am more than willing to help you understand what makes a source reliable or not, but I really would like to hear about your research and writing process first. -- asilvering (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
im not talking about the page Saho-hime I'm talk about the draft. - Camillz (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
And I am talking about Saho-hime, where you removed the maintenance tag I added, with the edit summary Sources are reliable. And have been used on other pages before.. -- asilvering (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Jaymie Campbell (01:24, 21 August 2024)

Hello thank you for mentoring me. so some guy edited my user page and I want to teell him not to do that without my permission. Can I do that? --Jaymie Campbell (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

In this case, no, you can't. Normally, your userpage is your own, and it's seen as very, very bad form to edit someone else's. But in this case, there's a very specific reason that was done. Think about what was removed, and you may understand why. I've also left a link on your talk page that should help explain. Sorry for being a bit cryptic - but I think you'll understand once you've had a chance to read that link. -- asilvering (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Jaymie Campbell (01:46, 21 August 2024)

Hi I can't figure out how to fix my user page. will you help me please --Jaymie Campbell (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, what are you trying to fix? -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
well since the person edited it won't show what I had on it and won't let me do anything on it Jaymie Campbell (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
You're free to edit your userpage, but you shouldn't add back the bits that were removed. Please have a look at WP:GFYE. -- asilvering (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Jaymie Campbell (02:32, 21 August 2024)

sorry to bother you so much today but I was wondering how to get to other peoples talk pages --Jaymie Campbell (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking at a conversation and you want to go to someone's talk page from there, you should see a link that looks like (talk) or similar at the end of their signature. Sometimes, people use custom signatures that don't include the word (talk) specifically - most people who do this will still have a link to their talk page as the last component of their signature (just click/tap whatever that last word is, and you'll probably go to their talk page). If you're on someone's userpage, and you want to get to their talk page, the link should be at the top of the page. Otherwise, if you know the person's username, you just need to search for "User talk:puttheirusernamehere" in the search bar. -- asilvering (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
OK thanks Jaymie Campbell (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Jaymie Campbell (06:24, 21 August 2024)

hey when i press the star on someones user page will i get notifications on their activities --Jaymie Campbell (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

No, you'll just be notified if they edit their user page, or if there are edits on their talk page. There's no way to directly get notifications about another editor's activities. If you want to keep an eye on someone's edits, you will just have to keep checking back on their contributions page. You can find the link to this in the "tools" menu when you're looking at their userpage. Alternatively, you can link to someone's contributions like this: Special:Contributions/Asilvering. Just swap out my username for whatever user contributions page you want to link to. -- asilvering (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Onenonlyasle (07:51, 21 August 2024)

Hello how can I edit here in wiki? --Onenonlyasle (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, @Onenonlyasle! I've left some helpful links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from RickR2 (13:13, 21 August 2024)

Hello... I am very new to creating an article. One of my friends would like me to create a wiki page for him. How do I go about doing that? --RickR2 (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @RickR2, welcome to wikipedia! You probably shouldn't create a wiki page for your friend. That would be a conflict of interest, and also it's very unlikely that your friend meets our notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
OK... Thank you! I will pass along the info. RickR2 (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion re Albert Kim

@Asilvering: Hi, I'm the creator of the Albert Kim page and saw your thoughts in the deletion discussion. Although I've been dabbling in editing of pages for a few years now, this is my first attempt at a new article, so I apologize if I've made some mistakes along the way. I've been trading notes with North8000 to improve the referencing, and would love to know what else I can do to help the article. As a guide, I looked at other articles about TV showrunners, such as the ones for Trey Callaway, Chris Downey, Amy Berg, and Monica Beletsky, among others. I'm having trouble seeing how those are substantially different from what I've done. Is there anything else you think I should add?

I've looked through the wp:gng guidelines and it seems as if the subject has had significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (In fact, there have been some recent news stories about the subject recently and his new projects that I could include in the article.) Am I missing something?

Appreciate your help! ~~~~ VoightKampff (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Oof, okay, my first advice is to look at good articles as templates when you're starting to create new articles, rather than just whatever related articles you find - none of the ones you've linked in your comment are immediately obviously notable either, so they're all vulnerable to a deletion discussion, looks like. Your article is much, much better than those! To be perfectly honest: the substantial difference between your article and those ones is that yours is brand new and those were all created before 2016 - that is, a new page patroller didn't have to check on them. Hard luck.
If you have some recent news stories about the subject to share, please do include them in the article, and bring them up specifically in the AfD! That's exactly what the article is missing right now. It also contains lots of very minor items, like he authorized the purchase of various paparazzi pictures, including the first set that confirmed Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez's relationship - this makes it look like you have comprehensively searched for every article you can find on him and this is the most you've come up with. A WP:REFBOMB, basically. You want substantial coverage that is about him, not things like interviews he did to promote the show he's worked on - this is a pretty tough ask for showrunners, screenwriters, and so on, until they're really quite established in their career, extremely notorious, or are closely associated with a very famous media property (eg Joss Whedon, Tina Fey). -- asilvering (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: Ah, that's very helpful. Just so you know, I got those other showrunner articles from the Category:American showrunners listing that someone added to the article. I can look at some other examples in the list.
As for the minor item ("he authorized the purchase of various paparazzi pictures, including the first set that confirmed Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez's relationship"), I only added that after North8000 suggested getting some other sources, and that came from the New York Times. I thought it was an interesting fact which is why I included it. But I can take it out.
And Albert Kim is closely associated with a famous media property--he's the creator of Netflix's Avatar: The Last Airbender, which as you probably know is huge! In fact that's why I was interested in writing the article. I was reading a lot of the coverage of the show, which is one of Netflix's biggest hits this year, and noticed he didn't have a page. I can add more about the impact of the show, if that helps. VoightKampff (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: I went to the article to edit it further but it looks like it's been deleted. Does that mean it's gone for good? VoightKampff (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: If it helps, here are the kinds of recent news stories I found:
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/avatar-the-last-airbender-showrunner-albert-kim-steps-down-netflix-1235960758/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/netflix-s-avatar-the-last-airbender-loses-showrunner-for-final-2-seasons/ar-BB1l72MY?ocid=iehpD
Not sure what AfD is?
VoightKampff (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, AfD is WP:AFD, where deletion discussions happen. Yes, the article is gone, though under certain circumstances you can ask for it to be resurrected at WP:REFUND. For example, if there's significant coverage of him that comes out in the future, so you're sure it will pass notability guidelines, and you want to start with the work you already did rather than working from scratch. For now though, it's gone, yes. Sorry this happened to your first article!
Those two articles aren't significant coverage either, I'm afraid. Those don't say much of anything about him, just that he's leaving, and the coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE. For contrast, here's an example of significant coverage about a showrunner: [2]. We don't require coverage to be quite that in-depth, but I hope it helps illustrate the difference. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: Got it. Oh well. I am curious about what constitutes significant coverage when it comes to screenwriters. Just browsing through the American Showrunners category list (I'm an aspiring writer so I research a lot of writers), it seems as if many of the entries wouldn't pass the standards you mention. In addition to the ones I mentioned above, here's just a random sampling of other writers that I would consider relatively prominent: Jesse Alexander, Beth Schwartz, Cheo Hodari Coker, Jon Bokenkamp, Glenn Kessler, and so on. I'd consider the information in these articles of interest for other writers, but that doesn't seem to be enough, right? VoightKampff (talk) VoightKampff (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd consider the information in these articles of interest for other writers, but that doesn't seem to be enough, right? Unfortunately, no. (For that, there's linkedin.) Significant coverage means in-depth coverage (at least a couple of paragraphs) directly about them or their work - like that article I linked in my last reply, though of course shorter is fine. If it's about them, that's notability under WP:GNG. If there's enough coverage of their work, they qualify under WP:NCREATIVE. The trouble with WP:NCREATIVE for screenwriters is that they're usually working as part of a collective, like a writers' room, or the coverage of the work doesn't really address the writing itself directly. (It's much, much easier to convince other editors this standard is met for novelists, for example.) If they've created the series (ie, it's their original idea), that makes things easier. So, for example, Ins Choi, who wrote Kim's Convenience. But helping Choi's case is that he also wrote Kim's Convenience (play), as well as some other pieces, for which he won awards. The more independently notable works a creative is known for, the more likely AfD participants will accept that they're notable via WP:NCREATIVE and don't need to meet WP:GNG personally.
You might want to try expanding some of the articles you've linked in this thread, to get some practice with notability with less pressure than if you start a completely new article. Since they've been around for a while, it's unlikely that someone will drag them to AfD any time soon. (To any talk page stalkers reading this right now: don't you dare!!) They're not in great shape, so anything you do to them will be a huge improvement. And some of them probably do meet notability guidelines, even though the sources currently in their articles don't show it yet. I'm happy to have a look at any sources you find, if you'd like to try that for any of them. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: I see. So Albert Kim having created the live-action Avatar: The Last Airbender doesn't count because it was an adpatation? It's because of that show, which premiered this year, that there were so many recent stories about him. But admittedly, they were focused on his work for that specific show. They're mostly along these lines: https://ew.com/avatar-the-last-airbender-albert-kim-original-creators-departing-8416094
There are also stories about the show that aren't straight interviews with him, but talk a lot about his work on it: https://time.com/6696684/avatar-last-airbender-asian-influences/
There are also a bunch of interviews with him on YouTube (such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn8pvrfT6jo&t=2202s) but I don't know if they count as notable sources.
As for awards, I just found this: He was one of the Gold House A100 Honorees this year:
https://bestofkorea.com/son-heung-min-greta-lee-don-liu-and-steven-yeun-among-22-koreans-honored-at-gold-house-a100/
Anyway, I'm just trying to get a sense of what counts as good sources. Thanks! VoightKampff (talk) VoightKampff (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
He didn't "create" it in the sense I meant by "created" in my previous response - ie, it was an already-existing IP. His name isn't so clearly associated with Avatar in the way that Joss Whedon's is for Buffy, for example. If he created the original Avatar series he'd probably be notable, like Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko are notable. (But I'll point out that they're also responsible for Korra, and so on.) If the live-action series for Netflix were to end up being a cultural institution in its own right, with Albert Kim at the head, he'd probably be notable too. But now that he's stepped down as showrunner, I'm not so sure. If he ends up being showrunner for another notable series, he might qualify as notable via WP:NCREATIVE on those grounds. It's because of that show, which premiered this year, that there were so many recent stories about him. This is what we're trying to avoid, more or less. Since he's known mostly just for this show, we can mention him in the article on that show.
This one is good. Hang onto it for if you recreate Albert Kim in the future. I wouldn't say the Time one talks "a lot" about his work - he's in that one much more incidentally than the EW article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: Pretty sure I had that EW source you said was good in my original article (it was the first reference). Along with this one https://www.ign.com/articles/the-big-netflix-avatar-the-last-airbender-producer-interview-this-is-a-remix-not-a-cover and this one https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/avatar-the-last-airbender-netflix-albert-kim-interview-1235834485/
As for being showrunner for another notable series, he was the showrunner of Sleepy Hollow https://www.thewrap.com/sleepy-hollow-episode-highlights-asian-americans-in-front-of-and-behind-the-camera/. I included that source in the original article, along with this one: https://www.tvinsider.com/145562/sleepy-hollow-season-4-finale-teases/?srsltid=AfmBOooeeZMUdOMXYBiM9Wvt74tSHBmD4KRxnIGUntSBhCt0o0PrJ9aj
And it looks like he might be taking over Percy Jackson: https://deadline.com/2024/04/avatar-last-airbender-showrunner-change-1235876104/ Though I didn't include that in my article because I couldn't find another source.
Reason I'm trying to get more clarity on what counts for creative notability is because you suggested I work on beefing up some of those other showrunner articles, but I'm not sure what more I could add. There's not much more to say about them, but at the same time, I'd argue they're notable enough to warrant an article. Like Cheo Hodari Coker. He was the "creator" of Luke Cage, but like Avatar, that was an already existing IP. Everything else in his entry is about his credits. Or Beth Schwartz. She was the showrunner for two seasons of Arrow and co-showrunner of Sweet Tooth, which I think is noteworthy, at least for screenwriters and fans of those shows. But I couldn't find anything else about her.
I could go on about many others on the American Showrunners list, but you get the idea. VoightKampff (talk) VoightKampff (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I wouldn't say any of the links you've just provided are independent, significant coverage of Albert Kim. -- asilvering (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: I appreciate all the guidance. I think I’m going to take a step back from writing any more articles. To be honest, the whole process seems pretty arbitrary and subjective, so I'm not sure how to navigate it going forward. (As I said, I wouldn't know how to improve the articles on those other showrunners.) Again, thanks for your input. Gave me a lot of insight into the process. VoightKampff (talk) VoightKampff (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry it's been such a demoralizing experience. I agree that it can get pretty arbitrary and subjective, though it's not quite so bad as shooting in the dark (most AfD regulars have hit rates over 80%). Lurking at WP:AFD for a while is a good way to get a handle on how these discussions tend to go. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: Just so I'm clear, I'm assuming none of the other showrunner articles I cited--Cheo Hodari Coker, Beth Schwartz, Trey Callaway, Amy Berg, Monica Beletsky, plus others--would pass muster based on the criteria you've outlined, right? Not that I'm trying to get them dragged to AfD! I've just noticed that a large percentage of articles in the American Showrunners category don't seem to measure up, which is what I meant about the process feeling arbitrary and subjective. VoightKampff (talk) VoightKampff (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Just on the sources in the articles, none of those look all that good. But without looking any deeper into those five beyond skimming the references and the article content, I think Cheo Hodari Coker is probably notable (my guess is that between Luke Cage and Notorious there might be enough coverage, and he's probably done something since 2018). Beth Schwartz was with Arrow for a long time, so there might be enough coverage of her there too. -- asilvering (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2024, Volume 10, Issue 9, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 316, 317


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Sardine1505 (03:19, 27 August 2024)

Do you know any good resources I could use to figure out how to Properly create a New Wikipedia Article? --Sardine1505 (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FIRST. I've also left some links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:POSTNOM

Please do not add postnominals to the first sentence of leads. This was discussed and agreed at community level at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies. DrKay (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've clarified the guidance at MOS:POSTNOM, which did not say this. -- asilvering (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Joy provider (11:43, 28 August 2024)

Hi dear mentor,

Is there any way i can trace & talk to the person who has made changes in an article? Actually, i made few changes in a wiki page of my interest which contained some incomplete information. I just wish to know who did the earlier updates. Thanks in advance --Joy provider (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Joy provider, welcome to wikipedia! You can check the page history to see who made any particular edit. Here's an example from an article you edited recently: [3]. You can also use WP:BLAME for this. -- asilvering (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Joy provider (13:08, 28 August 2024)

Hello how can an edit be traced please --Joy provider (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Le Maitron

Hey there! I just put together a redlist for women in Le Maitron encyclopedias, which has found 612 entries not yet in English Wikipedia. Figured you might be interested so thought I'd ping you about it. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, this is going to keep me occupied for a while. Is it possible to add a column that links to the fr-wiki article, if it exists? That would highlight the ones that can be bluelinked most easily. -- asilvering (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
You can sort by site links, which shows the number of Wikipedias where each entry has an article. I assume most of the ones with more than one site link have articles on the French Wikipedia. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I foolishly assumed that meant "places on en-wiki where a redlink occurs", thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from SashinaSmith on User talk:SashinaSmith (20:38, 1 September 2024)

Hello, I would like help with creating a new article --SashinaSmith (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SashinaSmith, welcome to wikipedia! I recommend reading WP:FIRST before starting on writing your first article. Do you have any specific questions? -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Parson's Tale

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Parson's Tale 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 BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Royaljordan (16:21, 2 September 2024)

Hello Mentor,

I wanted to know how long it takes for Wikipedia to approve a new article? --Royaljordan (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Royaljordan most articles are reviewed within 24 hours, and most of the ones that remain are reviewed within a week. After that, it's pretty unpredictable, I'm afraid. Up to a few months. -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Les47griffy (18:09, 3 September 2024)

How and where to I type in changes......? --Les47griffy (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Les47griffy, welcome to Wikipedia! I've left a message on your talk page with a lot of helpful links. Feel free to come back and ask any further questions if those don't sort you out. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Need Guidance on Bias and Admin Issues in Baronage Guidelines Discussion

I hope you’re doing well! I wanted to start by thanking you again for your help and kindness with the issue we worked on a few months ago—I was very grateful for your guidance.

I’m reaching out because I’m facing a concerning situation with the proposed guidelines for Scottish noble titles, which you can see here: Baronage discussion. Despite our responses being based on well-researched facts, the opposition from certain editors seems driven by personal bias rather than objective reasoning. This has escalated to unfounded accusations of "meatpuppetry," which I believe are not only unfair but also damaging to constructive discussion.

Particularly worrying is the involvement of DrKay, who has previously removed titles from pages with comments like "PRETEND TITLE." This behaviour suggests an anglocentric bias that threatens the fair treatment of Scottish noble titles on Wikipedia. Given this, we’re supporting a compromise addition to the guidelines page that doesn’t mention passports, simply stating: "Titles of nobility in the Baronage of Scotland as a rule follow peerage format."

There’s a project underway by a small team of editors to create 300-400 dedicated pages on the history of these ancient titles of nobility WP:BARONAGE without guidelines that protect these titles in the same way as peerage titles, they’re vulnerable to biased attacks. It’s important to note that many historic and notable figures, including King Robert the Bruce who held the title Lord of Annandale, were part of this baronage, which predates the peerage.

Baronage of Scotland titles were historically tied to land tenure (e.g., owning a castle), and since the Scotland Act 2000, with the end of feudalism in Scotland (Scotland having it's own legal system), they've become personal titles protected in law that can be bought and sold. However Lord Lyon the monarch's representative in Scotland must approve of the new baron being well deserving to receive a coat of arms and recognition from the crown.

Meanwhile, peerage titles are personal titles by inheritance or political appointment. This seems to be the main point of contention. However, the market for Scottish baronies is very small—perhaps 1-2 sales per year, if any. Additionally, there are 30 Scottish clan chiefs who are barons, and these families typically do not sell their hereditary titles. It’s puzzling why so much significance is placed on inherited titles or titles acquired through political donations, compared to baronage titles, which are often tied to historic gentry estates. In fact, the majority of historic gentry estates in Scotland are owned by barons, not peers.

Given the seriousness of the situation and the apparent misuse of admin power, I’m hoping you might offer some guidance on how best to navigate this. Your support and advice would be invaluable as I work to ensure that the discussion remains fair and focused on the facts.

Thanks again for all your help—and sorry for the long message but I thought it important to provide context—I appreciate it. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kellycrak, sorry to hear you've got stuck again. This discussion actually looks like it's going pretty well, as far as contentious discussions go, so my advice this time is to let it play out. It doesn't look to me like the main point of contention anymore is related to the possible sale of Scottish titles - what the oppose side is most concerned with is WP:CREEP. You'll find that in general this is a pretty strong argument - whatever the topic at hand, if a proposal looks like "rules for rules' sake" or "rules that wouldn't make everyone's lives easier", it will garner some significant opposition. "Titles of nobility in the Baronage of Scotland as a rule follow peerage format" looks pretty simple to me, not the sort of thing you'd normally see a lot of creep-related opposition to, but it looks like part of the issue the oppose position is raising is that this doesn't affect very many articles at present? You say the WP:BARONAGE project plans to create some 300-400 articles, do you have any idea how many of them would be affected by any decisions made in this discussion? I'm not fully clear on whether this discussion is about titles of articles on people or just the baronies themselves. I admit that I'm just as confused as Fram here: what's the issue with Peregrine Moncreiffe of that Ilk? What are you proposing the title be instead?
Regarding DrKay, on the face of it that's pretty concerning. Has this issue been discussed with them previously? Have they engaged in discussion about these edits on the relevant article talk pages? Can you provide any examples? For all I know at present, maybe they are "pretend titles" and DrKay is right to remove them. It does sound rude, though.
Regarding misuse of admin power, can you clarify what you mean? There are some admins involved in the discussion, but I don't see any evidence of tool use at all, let alone misuse. Is it the "meatpuppet" allegations and the comment tagging? I agree that's in bad form, but you all seem to be doing fine countering that one on your own. Regarding the canvassing allegations, I noticed this: [4]. I would urge you all to immediately abandon that private channel, if it exists, and to use the project talk page for discussions instead. If you really strongly prefer to use real-time chat of some kind, you might consider asking for a wikiproject channel at the semi-official WP:DISCORD. Tagging in Daniel Plumber on this. This kind of thing has gone very, very poorly for participants in the past. The obvious example is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. You'll notice that one is still being brought up as recently as last year in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. In general the community is very skeptical about the motives of anyone who engages in off-wiki discussion, so it's best to keep your conversations on-wiki as much as possible to avoid any allegations of canvassing or other impropriety, which you'll attract no matter how careful you are about avoiding those things in your own private chat. I suggest the WP:DISCORD because your chats would then be available to anyone who has joined the discord, and subject to moderation by the discord operators. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me—I really appreciate your advice and perspective. Let me clarify a few things that might help with the ongoing discussion.
Under the current proposals, baronial titles are at risk of being removed from the opening line of pages like Peregrine Moncreiffe of that Ilk. DrKay has been advocating for these titles to be moved further down the page, possibly to a footnote. For example, the page for Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz used to have his baronial title next to his name in the first line and in the info box. However, DrKay removed it with the comment, "this should only be done for substantive peers, not pretend ones," and now the title appears only as a footnote at the end of the paragraph: "He is the current Lord of Abernethy in the Baronage of Scotland."
Regarding the specific case of Peregrine Moncreiffe of that Ilk. I quoted his name with the title to show that he holds one. If you click through to the page, it states, "The Hon. Peregrine David Euan Malcolm Moncreiffe, later Moncreiffe of that Ilk, Baron of Moncreiffe and Easter Moncreiffe and Chief of Clan Moncreiffe." If the oppose motion is passed, then his baronial title could be removed from the first-line part of his name (so his actual known name with noble title as he known by is not protected) and relegated to a footnote later in the article. All I’m advocating is that baronage titles should, as a rule, follow the peerage title format. So for a bio page of a notable person - in the 1st line after the name and in the infox box and the nobility box at the footer of the page.
Baronial title pages would also follow peerage title pages with the coat of arms, family motto, sequence of holders, history of the title, etc. Which is standard procedure on a peerage title page. Users such as Fram have been deleting coats of arms from these pages and removing the heir or family, and in some cases deleting the current holder of the title saying they shouldn't be on wikipedia, as he deems they're not notable titles etc.
I did follow up with DrKay on the Talk pages (User talk:DrKay#Removing baronial title from page for Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz), but as he's an admin, there's only so much I can say when his personal opinion is against displaying Scottish baronage titles in the same format as peerage titles. This is why I'm concerned about the potential bias and the need for guidelines to protect these titles. They’ve raised many objections, including that they can be bought, etc, each point has been addressed. Having replied with all substantiated-facts, only their personal opinions remain.
Additionally, if baronial titles do not follow the peerage format, then notable figures from the medieval period, or well established families with baronial titles - who currently have Wikipedia pages could also see baronial titles removed from these pages, unless guidelines protect following the peerage format. This would risk diminishing the historical significance of these titles and disrupt the uniform formatting for nobility titles across Wikipedia.
Regarding the WP:BARONAGE project, I know the plan is to create 300-400 articles, many of which would be directly affected by the outcomes of this discussion. The issue isn’t just about the titles of articles but also about ensuring that these historic Scottish titles are presented with the respect and recognition they deserve, similar to peerage titles.
I appreciate your point about WP:BARONAGE and the potential concerns over adding unnecessary rules, but I believe the proposed guideline is simple and aligns with existing practices for peerage titles, which is why I'm advocating for it.
On the topic of off-wiki discussions, I understand the risks and take your warning seriously, and these are excellent suggestions and lessons to learn. I’ll bring this up with the other editors and suggest all our discussions are on project talk page or consider your suggestions for transparency and to avoid any allegations of canvassing or impropriety. As this topic certainly has opposers!
Thanks again for your guidance—it’s invaluable, and I’m grateful for your continued support. Your mentorship is invaluable in giving me growing confidence to contribute to wikpedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the slippery slope you're worried about will actually happen, though I don't spend a lot of time in this topic area so I may be wrong. The core issue at hand as I see it is that editors want the first sentence of the article to contain the subject's common name (WP:COMMONNAME) and not a long list of titles. That seems pretty reasonable. So for notable figures from the Middle Ages, established baronage families, etc, if their title is part of their common name, nothing is likely to change. Attempts to overturn WP:COMMONNAME tend to end in disaster; you can see one ongoing and at-times-acrimonious discussion about this regarding the article titles of monarchs higher up the page from where you're discussing this issue. With the Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz article, it looks like DrKay was happy to leave the title in the lead, just not in the first sentence - this seems to me like a pretty good compromise? If this is insufficient, can you explain why, without reference to other articles? (ie, I'd be interested to know what issues you have with this presentation in that article specifically, not about the broader issue.) I'm not at all sure why DrKay removed the postnominal letters, though. We have guidance on that at MOS:POSTNOM, and I don't see anything wrong with the ones that were in the first sentence of the article. If you want to put those back, I'd say you can go right ahead.
Regarding the aim of ensuring that these historic Scottish titles are presented with the respect and recognition they deserve, I don't think you're going to win a lot of support with this kind of argument. (You probably noticed a similar one about "dignity provided by law" didn't go over well with DrKay; I personally don't care much for it either.) Wikipedia editors as a group mostly only care about one thing: what reliable, independent secondary sources say about the topic. That's what people are talking about when they say a title "isn't notable". If it isn't discussed in those kinds of sources, it's probably not WP:DUE in an article. I'm not sure why Fram would be removing coats of arms from any of these articles (do you have an example?), but regarding the heirs of the family, it may be that one is a WP:BLP issue. Have a look at the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section. If someone isn't a public figure, we typically don't want to include information about them if we don't have to.
Regarding "he's an admin, so there's only so much I can do": it is true that it isn't easy to "win" a content dispute against an admin, but that's not so much because they're admins as because they're experienced editors who know a lot about how various discussions have gone over time. Just like any experienced editor, an admin will also know how best to frame their arguments, which makes it more difficult for you to argue against them. But admins don't actually have a privileged position when it comes to content disputes, so as long as you keep everything calm and collaborative, you'll be fine. If someone tries to "pull rank" on you or violates WP:ADMINACCT, then there's a problem.
In my opinion, Jähmefyysikko is right to !vote oppose "on producedural grounds" in this discussion, since it's not fully clear what the issue is, what's at stake, what the changes would be, or even what people are !voting on at all. At this point, though, I don't think you should try to fix any of those problems, and it would be better to let the discussion peter out (it doesn't look like it's headed to any kind of consensus). The discussion has been productive in the sense that you've been able to see the arguments against your case, which will help you reframe it if you need to do a formal WP:RFC about this in the future. I think that's probably where this will have to go eventually, and I'm happy to help you work out a neutrally worded RFC question if and when that happens. In the meantime I think it's probably best to just get back to normal editing as far as possible, since you might be able to come to some sort of consensus-by-editing more easily than trying to get consensus-by-discussion in advance. If you run into trouble with someone reverting your edits, take it to the article talk page, and if you can't agree after some discussion, my recommendation would be to list the dispute at WP:3O. That way, you can get some opinions from some completely uninvolved editors who have experience working out content disputes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you again for your thoughtful reply, and I appreciate the offer to help with a possible WP:RFC in the future. I understand that the common name principle is central to this discussion, but what concerns me is the apparent double standard between peerage titles and baronial titles.
For pages about individuals with peerage titles, Wikipedia follows a standard format: the individual's primary title (typically highest ranking by precedence) is placed after their name in the first line, regardless of how many titles they hold. This title is also reflected in the infobox on right side, nobility box in the footer and referenced in the article. It’s notable that this doesn’t seem to be an issue for peerage titles, yet for Scottish baronage titles—there is resistance to maintaining this format.
For example, if you look at pages for peers, their primary title is ALWAYS treated as the most significant aspect of their identity. They are not footnoted or relegated to a lesser part of the article, if they have multiple titles, only the primary title is highlighted in the areas mentioned. The same standard should apply to baronial titles, if that is the individual's primary or significant title.
The case of Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz illustrates the issue. While DrKay allowed the title to remain in the lead, it was relegated to a footnote rather than being displayed in the same prominent position as it would be if it were a peerage title. This diminishes the visibility and recognition of the title—when this is his known legal name—which is a concern I have for other baronial titles if the current proposals are adopted. The removal of postnominal letters also seems inconsistent with Wikipedia’s guidelines, and I agree that they should be restored but I remain concerned challenging an administrator.
Regarding the removal of coats of arms and references to heirs or family members, I believe this reflects a broader issue of inconsistency. Peerage title pages typically include these elements as standard, so it’s puzzling why they’re being removed from baronial title pages. If the issue is about privacy or notability, then it should be addressed consistently across all nobility pages. Examples include Lord of Balvaird with dozens of credible online links for his coat of arms very well sourced but Fram wouldn't agree but eventually led to a compromise with Fram in the Talk page that the shield could go on the page but not the standard coat of arms footer which explains the meaning (as on peerage pages).
I understand that some editors are concerned with WP:CREEP, and I do appreciate that argument. However, I believe that maintaining consistency in how nobility titles are presented across Wikipedia—whether they are pe.erage, baronetage, knighthood or baronial titles—is not creating unnecessary rules, but rather upholding the standards that have been set for other noble titles. Which would undermine the integrity of these articles.
Once again, I’m grateful for your advice and support throughout this discussion. I will continue to engage calmly and constructively in the discussions, and I’ll also take your suggestion to return to normal editing as much as possible. Should the need arise for an RFC, I’d greatly appreciate your help in crafting a neutral and clear question to present to the community.
Thank you for everything, and I’ll be sure to keep your guidance in mind as I proceed. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, looking at Lord of Balvaird, I have to say I don't have any idea what Fram's objection to Burkes Peerage or the Georgian coat of arms is. This makes me think that the whole argument about barons vs peers is a red herring - I'm not really convinced that you wouldn't be having these same issues if you were editing peerage titles and so on. Is there really a double standard here? Or are you perhaps observing that older articles have certain elements, but you're being reverted when you try to copy that format? That might not be related to any kind of double standard so much as it's related to how the standards for sourcing and notability on wikipedia have risen considerably since its earliest days. If that's the case, any fixes to the MOS or RFCs or so on won't really help you. Old problems can persist for a long, long time without anyone noticing them. Newer edits are subject to more scrutiny. Have you been editing articles on peers also? Any troubles there?
One thing I hope you take away from the discussion on Lord of Balvaird is that bringing in unreliable or irrelevant sources scuppers your argument even if you have good sources in the list. A single reliable secondary source is all you need, most of the time. Dumping a huge pile of links into a discussion is more likely to harm your case than help it, since people will simply assume you're refbombing. If there are unreliable sources in there, they'll additionally assume that you don't have any idea what you're doing. Stick to the good stuff.
I've added the CBE back to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz. I don't see anything in the article about the FRSA so I took that one out. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Very good points—I did think quantity is what people wanted to see but I understand now it's quality over quantity. This is definitely something I’ll keep in mind moving forward. I also, of course, improve peerage pages here and there, and I haven’t encountered any issues there because I believe they're protected by guidelines, which is why I became concerned about a potential double standard. These particular users have repeatedly targeted baronage pages, and their previous edits reveal their personal biases. For example, DrKay used the term "PRETEND TITLE," and Fram made comments like "Removed bought title, kept original one. Please keep these meaningless 'noble' titles everyone can buy out of Wikipedia" and "Utterly non-notable bought title of no value" on the Earl of Aboyne page.
By the way, it looks like DrKay has already reverted your changes. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and with an unhelpful edit summary. But they did provide on my talk page a link to a 2023 RFC deprecating the use of post-nominals in article leads, so I've made an edit clarifying that in the MOS. That does mean you shouldn't add them to any more articles, and any that do exist are there simply because no one came around to remove them. -- asilvering (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
You said it was a substantive CBE[5]. It is an honorary one. See Template:Post-nominals/GBR for the correct code. DrKay (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Since the postnominals aren't supposed to go in the lead sentence anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's honorary or not. But thanks for the correction. -- asilvering (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In general, if you make accusations about people and their behaviour, it's best to inform them and let them present their side of the debate. All I see here are a lot of one-sided, diffless accusations. Nothing I didn't expect from Kellycrak, but Asilvering, I hope you'll remember this when you are an admin. I do notice that you didn't buy the accusations and claims wholesale but tried to look for yourself, which is good of course. As an example; Lord of Balvaird. Before I edited it, it looked like this. The title is claimed to be exactly 400 years old, but the vast majority of the article was about the person who bought the by then meaningless title in 2017, showing his coat of arms three times, plus the coat of arms of his four years old son, and the coat of arms of his 6 years old daughter, and the coat of arms of another title he held (which had no relation to the Lord of Balvaird), and essential information like "From birth he was formally styled as Mr Brady Brim-DeForest.". It is a very arduous process to get this editor to follow some of our basic policies, or to learn what reliable, independent sources are. Fram (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fram Your bias is evident in your use of the term "meaningless title," which reflects your personal opinion rather than an objective stance. It's concerning that you dismiss titles with historical significance simply because they don't align with your views. Additionally, it's surprising that you don't recognise Burke's Peerage as a credible source or acknowledge the relevance of international law concerning founts of honour.
Also, regarding our earlier discussion about the copyright violation you alleged, I want to reiterate that I significantly altered the text to ensure it was unique. Your full revert and block warning were disproportionate, as is your constant monitoring of my contributions and repeated attacks against me and others you're targeting. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Fram, it wouldn't have been at all helpful for Kellycrak to simply import the argument they were having on another page to this one. Then they'd just be trapped in that argument on yet another page. I think you might find explaining basic policies and reliable sources considerably less arduous if you didn't start by calling another editor's contributions spam and then arguing with them in edit summaries. As you can see, you've immediately put them back on the defensive, trying to explain why these aren't "meaningless titles". That sort of comment appears to be what has prompted the whole confusion on WT:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). At least from my perspective, which of course may yet be incorrect, this is almost completely irrelevant to the actual issue at hand, which is that some editors have been making changes that are not properly supported by WP:RS. -- asilvering (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Your idea of dispute resolution is talking to one party in a conflict about the other party, instead of functioning as a neutral mediator between the parties? That's not good. As for "arguing in edit summaries", I started the discussions at the article talk page as well immediately after my second revert. But it's rather hard to have a useful discussion with someone complaining that I removed Burke's Peerage and don't consider it a reliable source when I didn't remove that source at all, but removed a whole bunch of other unreliable sources (youtube, wordpress, commercial sites with no authority)[6] they inserted again and again. But as you claim "Well, looking at Lord of Balvaird, I have to say I don't have any idea what Fram's objection to Burkes Peerage or the Georgian coat of arms is." but don't feel that perhaps asking me would in any way be beneficial to the discussion, I don't think it is useful to continue here. Feel free to continue listening to one side only, it will only waste the time of both of you. Fram (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
@Fram, I'm not trying to solve a dispute, or to function as a neutral mediator between the parties. If it came to that, I would of course have gone to you to ask for your side of things. Instead, what I have been doing in this thread is encouraging a newbie who has run into trouble to reflect on why that is so, to avoid arguments based on unreliable sources, and to continue productive editing elsewhere - but I have also given them advice about where to go for dispute resolution and how to go about doing so. I do not think it is a waste of my time to treat newcomers to the encyclopedia with patience and respect. -- asilvering (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
At this point it would be wise to say something like "OK, Fram, you got a point". Because they do. Bickering can be fun but it should be easy to find common ground. Polygnotus (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Or Asilvering can take a look at e.g. the newly created Baron of Abbotshall and explain to Kellycrak88 everything that's wrong with it. Fram (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
@Fram I created 5 new pages last night, and while Baron of Abbotshall may have been the weakest, I’ve added more references this morning. I would appreciate it if you could stop focusing solely on finding faults in my edits or for that matter focusing on me. You seem to be the only editor constantly monitoring my contributions and causing disruptions where you can—this is tantamount to harassment. Kellycrak88 (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
You posted an article in the mainspace with, at the time of my note above[7], 6 sources: 1 and 3 were identical and gave a "page not found"[8], the website doesn't seem to be a WP:RS anyway; source 2 is from 2000 and is used to source the current holder, which is dubious[9]; source 4[10] was used to reference the second paragraph of the "history" section, but had no contents matching the text in the article. Source 5[11] gives minimal information, and has no indication of being a reliable source either. Which leaves us with Burke's Peerage, used to source the "The current baron; Harold Robert Peerenboom, Baron of Abbotshall, continues to maintain the historical significance of the barony." which is not really a neutral way to describe things. This just wasn't an acceptable article to put in the mainspace. The current version of the article still has clearly unreliable sites like Wikitree and a lot of other issues. And I would love for others to take a critical look at your articles, that's why I asked Asilvering to do so. Perhaps they can convince you that e.g. armorialregister.com really isn't a reliable source and that you should stop using it. Fram (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
You’re referring to an old edit—as I mentioned, I refreshed the references this morning (so actually within a few hours of the page creation). Referring to outdated versions of the article is a common tactic you use, but it doesn’t reflect the current state of the page.
The Edinburgh Gazette notice (announcing his change of name and title) is not dubious—it's from the Court of the Lord Lyon, the monarch's representative in Scotland acting on behalf of the Crown. This is the official public record. If you still believe it to be dubious, I encourage you to contact the Lyon office for clarification, although I suspect you'd claim Wikipedia:No_original_research to continue this unfounded argument.
I consider the Armorial Register a valid and authoritative source, though in this instance it wasn’t included! Instead, I referenced the illustrated book Burke's Peerage & Gentry International Register of Arms, Volume 1 (Volume 1 ed.). Martin S. J. Goldstraw. 2011. ISBN: 9780956815712. I’m sure you’ll find an issue with that too, but it remains a credible reference. Kellycrak88 (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I explained why I posted my notice this morning, which was about the version of the page as it was then, logically. The reference to armorialregister.com was not part of my criticism of the version of that article, it followed a line about "your articles" in general, as you use it in other creations from today or yesterday. And looking at those better articles, I would urge you to get at least the facts right. In Baron of Lochnaw, you claim that the barony was established in 1426 for "Sir Andrew Agnew, 1st Baron of Lochnaw". Andrew Agnew and his descendants were baronets, not barons. The barony seems to have been established in 1699. Please slow down, create less but better articles, based on better sources, and at the very least make sure that the claims in the article are correct. Fram (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
You're correct, it was 1699. I stand corrected on the dates for Lochnaw and will review more sources to update the article accordingly. I'll make sure to be more careful with the details going forward. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Asilvering, please respond to my message above. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @Polygnotus, I don't really have anything else to add here. I think the conversation that has ensued since my last response in this thread is an excellent case in point. I'm glad Fram and Kellycrak appear to have now made some progress in their content dispute, but it was never my intent to mediate that dispute, and I don't think my Talk page is the right place for it.
Since Fram has made this discussion the subject of his oppose vote at my RFA, responding here is somewhat awkward because of the general expectation that candidates not respond to oppose voters. I had planned to disengage after my last comment in this thread. I am explicitly disengaging now, and would appreciate it if there were no further comments in this thread, since I will not be responding. The appropriate place for a content dispute is the talk page of the article in question. The appropriate place for an RFA-related question is the RFA. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I was hoping you'd display some tact, the most valuable skill any admin can have. This was a very good opportunity to acknowledge the problems, ensuring Fram felt heard while helping Kellycrak88 at the same time. Guess you failed the test. the general expectation that candidates not respond to oppose voters I do not know why people would expect that. I'd expect any admin to be able to handle criticism, especially valid criticism, with tact and grace. You probably didn't care too much about that general expectation when you wrote the passive-aggressive gem I do not think it is a waste of my time to treat newcomers to the encyclopedia with patience and respect. to someone who had voted oppose in your RFA. Bit weird to then suddenly "disengage" citing that general expectation when someone recommends acknowledging valid concerns and suggests finding common ground. The appropriate place to discuss editor behaviour is that editors talkpage. Still, I am not gonna change my !vote because humans should be allowed and expected to make mistakes, and I wish you well in your new role. Polygnotus (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@Polygnotus I respectfully disagree, and I believe that’s a completely unfair assessment. @Asilvering has been nothing but fair, impartial, and professional throughout this entire process. They have approached the subject with balance and without bias, and have offered guidance in a neutral manner. It’s important to recognise that they were never obligated to mediate this dispute and have chosen to disengage, which we should respect by refraining from further comments on this Talk page.
In contrast, Fram has now reported me to the administrator board (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) recommending that my account be restricted. There is a pattern of behaviour here focused on picking apart nuanced arguments to cause disruption—likely less about content and more about exerting control over others.
Fram, I’m requesting once again that you refrain from engaging with me and my contributions. I’m more than willing to engage constructively with other editors, but at this point in time, I do not wish to continue interacting with you.
If you wish to respond, please do so on the administrator thread you created. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@Kellycrak88: I'll respond on your talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Savyra (11:42, 3 September 2024)

Hello, how do I add a title to my draft in sandbox before submitting for approval? --Savyra (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Savyra, welcome to wikipedia! What I would do here is move the draft to draftspace and give it a title there. Move should be under the Page menu. When you initiate a move, you'll get to choose a new title for the article. You'll also get to decide which "space" it goes to - pick "Draft". Let me know if you run into any problems. -- asilvering (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much @Asilvering! I followed your instructions. This redirected my sandbox to a new article with my needed title, but it includes the following red alert: "This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template."
Could you kindly assist in the needed step now? Savyra (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi again @Asilvering. I managed to remove the User Sandbox template. How shall I submit my article for approval now? Savyra (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
It looks like you've moved it to mainspace yourself, so there's no need to submit it for review. New page patrollers will be by to have a look and suggest improvements. I see you've already had someone add an advert tag, which you resolved (sorry about my earlier edit replacing it), and I've just added a notability tag, since it doesn't look to me like the sources here will show a pass of the relevant guideline, which is WP:NCORP. What we're looking for is significant, independent coverage of the company and/or its products. I warn you that NCORP is one of our stricter guidelines, so you have your work cut out for you here. I've also placed a notice on your talk page about editing with a conflict of interest. If you don't have one, you don't need to take any further action. If you do, please follow the instructions in that message. -- asilvering (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again @Asilvering! Taking all your notes into consideration, will do the needed to resolve all issues. TechPaths (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asilvering/Archive_9&oldid=1249689525"