User talk:Usedtobecool/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

DYK nomination of Witch-hunts in Nepal

Hello! Your submission of Witch-hunts in Nepal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies:, (don't mean to nag, just curious) so, what's happened/happening? Did it expire/get disqualified? Or is it still in the loop, and the one-week newness requirement is only for nominating? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 04:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi--didn't know you had worked on it some more. I'll have a look. I think the first (original) hook is fine. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thank you for your patience with me. If you could quickly go through diffs starting with this one, and read edit summaries beginning with (Drmies, ..., I have left detailed notes on what I did and what might need your consideration. I have done it one source at a time and don't worry, the count doesn't reach 30. "Note 1", for example, means the cite appears as #1 on the references section. If you don't have the time to do that, perhaps the most pressing concern is with "location" parameter in cite news. I expected it to generate something like "Anderson Cooper in NY" but it generates something like "BBC, London" instead. You do not need to correct things yourself, I think I have gotten sufficient hang of it to be able to follow if you just leave pointers about what I've done and what ought to be done. Thanks again for everything. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Sorry to bother you again. I thought I'd review all three of your articles as a sign of gratitude, specially since no one else seemed to want to do it, (with guidance from you, of course) but I couldn't even verify that the subjects were notable. Guess those require someone familiar with Morocco/French to be able to do effectively. So, I reviewed someone else's nomination instead, as it was on a really accessible topic. It was very easy too (skill wise), since it failed the most basic criteria even. I thought the nominator had made an oversight and would gladly accept my review, but they've indicated that a more careful look would have taken me to a different conclusion altogether. I am quite confident that my decision will stand even if I did a very thorough forensic analysis. What would you recommend? Should I leave it for someone else to review (I've indicated that it's my first review and might require second opinion)? Or should I put my effort into compiling a water-tight decision, even if I'm sure it will be the same? The nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Social media addiction. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I added it into the "reviewed" field in my own nom; even though it was already into the next stage, thanks to you. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I assure you that Gara Medouar (if you're talking about that set of articles), a fortress almost a thousand years old, is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: I apologise, I didn't mean I think it's not notable. I meant I couldn't verify even that (which I thought I ought to be capable of, before fancying myself a reviewer), thus making me unable to proceed any further. It's notability is of course not in question, as I'm quite sure geographical things are inherently notable, the ones with history and historical artifacts doubly/trebly so. Anyway, your response, unfortunately, leaves the main purpose of my ping unaddressed. Not knowing if that was by design, I must, at least this once, boldly reiterate, I was wondering if you'd have some advice on what I ought to do regarding my attempt at reviewing DYK/s. Other than to perhaps stop pinging you with my queries. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 21:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I noted on the nomination that I think you are not correct in your count, and why I think that. I don't know if you should continue to review that article; it's possible that the creator will find it difficult to work with you because they may have lost faith in you, but I can't judge that. On the other hand, it's a pretty extensive article with a large number of sources and it might be wise to tackle a shorter one. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thousands of characters deleted unwillingly

In the message at the top of this Talk page you wrote:

instead of adding the characters that I've added to the page, Wikipedia instead deletes thousands of characters for no reason and attributes it to me

Did you mean edits like this one: special:diff/906139135, reverted here: special:diff/906140050?

Such things happen sometimes to me when I edit one thing for a long time, leaving the editing form open and returning to it after some hours or even the next day. When you eventually publish the changes and someone else edited the page in the mean time, AND you skip a notice on editing conflict, then you overwrite their changes with an old version (plus your own changes). Which is effectively a revert of someone else's edit.

Can you remember how long did it take you to complete that edit? You may want to check in history, if the text you inadverently deleted was added in some edits directly preceding yours. If so, you can be almost sure it was unnoticed edit conflict. --CiaPan (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan, thank you for taking the time. Yes, that's the latest one that I've noticed. Almost gave me a heart attack, as it was on a highly visible page. I'd asked at the village pump/ ref desk when it had happened the second time. They were unable to replicate it and also suggested it might have been an edit conflict (undetected or inadvertently fucked up by me) due to the edit having taken too long. However, I have a pretty clear picture of what had happened in this, the third one. I am just waiting to be able to replicate it so I can discuss it again with a better account of relevant facts:

In this, the third/last one, when I clicked the edit source button, I inadvertently chose what I thought was the whole page edit when I saw it load, which I despise because my laptop is verrrrry slow. Despite that, I scrolled for a bit trying to find my section, but then gave up quite quickly. I discarded the edit session and came back to the original page, scrolled down to my section, went into section edit mode and finished and published the edit quite efficiently. The result was that. I have a suspicion that the system (browser, cache, cookie, server, edit session, I don't know what's relevant) mixed up the page edit and section edit while saving, even though I'd completely discarded the page edit. I am hoping I'll get an ever clearer picture every additional time it happens, to be able to narrow it down and get rid of it for good.

So, yeah, It probably has quite a lot to do with the edit conflict, just haven't pinpointed exactly what. ... for no reason is just there for exaggeration of course, it's just, the reason yet eludes me completely, almost.

My best theory as of now is that, on a large page, when I choose a section edit on one section, come back to the main page with the browser's back button and choose another section to edit, and save that section edit, whatever keeps track of changes records my previous action as "delete the whole section" and adds to that my later legitimate edit, and saves it all in one entry. There are some holes in this interpretation as well and haven't gotten to being able to replicate that yet. Perhaps there is a page size threshold that overflows some part of the system, that I don't routinely hit on other pages, including the Teahouse page. Will see.

Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 21:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nepalese Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Help with LGBT rights in Nepal

Hi. Considering as you are both Nepali and have contributed to LGBT-related articles, I thought you would be the perfect person to help me out. The article LGBT rights in Nepal states that LGBT people have been able to serve in the Nepal military since 2007, though I cannot find any sources to confirm this or that they can even serve at all. Do you know if they can? I've read through an English translation of the Army Act, and there seems to be no official impediment. I've also found the recruitment policy for the army (right here), but it's in Nepali and I cannot seem to be able to copy the text. Would you mind having a look through it? That would be awesome. Cheers. Jedi Friend (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Actually, I was just cleaning up after a spammer sockfarm; that's to say I am not an expert on the subject. Having said that, to possibly aid in improving the coverage of LGBTQIQA+ issues in Wikipedia would be my pleasure.

When most people mention giant leaps on any specific avenue around 2006-08, they seem to be generally interpreting this optimistically, or as per what it has made theoretically possible. Indeed, a lot has been gained on it's foundation. As it notes, there may be some explicit anti-LGBT wording in older documents, as in "OF BESTIALITY" as well as "OF MARRIAGE" and "OF HUSBAND AND WIFE" in the outdated Civil Code (Muluki Ain). I wouldn't otherwise expect explicit hateful wording to be common place in legal provisions. The Military Act seems to have come out in 2006. The only criticisms of it in relation to the subject that I can think of is a lack of an explicit affirmation that LGBTQIQA+ people are welcome to join, as major a break from general practice as it would have been. The practice, in Nepali discourse, is to ignore altogether issues that you don't want to make progress on, rather than directly attacking it. I think there is enough room for homophobes to maneuver from, in

52 (b). To behave in a hostile or unpredictable manner, demonstrate reprehensible character or behave in a cruel manner;

as the "demonstrate reprehensible character" phrase can be applied to sexual minorities as it has traditionally been, here or elsewhere. I guess this could be interpreted as such an incident in this context. Published in 2008 and still it closes with The Military Act does not recognise homosexuality and deems it illegal. The military cited breach of the code of conduct in this case. The specifics are open to speculation as the coverage is scanty; the truth could be as simple as that- being caught with a fellow officer in bed is bad enough, regardless of sexual orientation. The recruitment policy doesn't provide an option to mention "third gender". Doesn't list requirements for "third gender" but only men and women. There are disqualifiers listed, like vision +-2.5, low height, low weight for both men and women and a strict chest range for men. There's no disqualification listed based on sexual/gender identity either. I guess there's room for using disqualifiers like "deformities" against some people, as the detailed medical exam lists "deformity" under genital examination. But, that is the extent of what I could find.

If an older copy of the military act could be gotten hold of, that might give some idea as to whether something noticeable has changed in this regard, I'll keep you apprised of anything more I find out. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:25, 24 July 2019 (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.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camilod

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camilod. A revision you accepted at Just Dance (video game series) is related to this investigation. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White Croats

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Croats. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for everything you've done to me over last couple of days. The only thing is that the comment on the teahouse was quite affensive to me. Happy editing ;) ThePacificMan (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Wait, really? That was never my intention. Which one are we talking about, the last one? I apologise. I meant to apologise for assuming more knowledge than we are supposed to assume at the Teahouse. But, obviously, I did it all wrong. I can strike the comment if you'd like, but I fear it might draw unnecessary attention. What do you think? Again, apologies! Was not my intention at all. I sometimes miss the subtleties of English. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

About the rest, it's just what we're supposed to do in Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me any time you need some help, here, or at the Teahouse, or just ping me from where you're. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Errorus move

Why did you move Shiva Shrestha to Shiva Shrestha (footballer)? The subjects primary name is Shiva, the actor's primary name is Shiv. Therefore Shiva Shrestha should refer to the footballer and Shiv Shrestha should refer to the actor, per WP:COMMONNAME. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not true at all. Both their names is Shiva Shrestha. For some reason, the actor was named under Shiv Shrestha, so I can understand why the footballer got the correct name. Both articles looked to have no recent activity, so I thought I needed not ask anybody. If you google, Shiva Shrestha, you get results for the actor, the wikipedia page for actor comes before the footballer, despite it being titled under the wrong name. The footballer doesn't have a single international goal, while the actor is a legend. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:The Forty Rules Of Love

Hi, thanks for looking at Draft:The Forty Rules Of Love! Yes, I did check the Independent source too, and didn't see any copying other than the quotations – which are certainly excessive, and which I've tagged as such. Did I miss something? If so, do please let me know. At a cursory glance I'd say the book is likely to be notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Nah! That's it. The page I checked said:

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Use of copyrighted text must be in compliance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. This means that the quotation must not be replaceable with free text (including one that the editor writes), must be minimal, must have contextual significance and must have previously been published.

I thought it was contrary to "must not be replaceable with free text (including one that the editor writes), must be minimal, ..." Since almost all of the article is quotes right from creation, I thought it might be a violation. I am just trying to be thorough, confident that other editors' times I waste now, I will recover in my own better-informed contributions going ahead. Thanks for taking the time. Somehow, when I saw your name, I got the feeling you'd be kind and helpful in clarifying the issue (hence the follow-up question); we must have had a previous encounter where I learned something from you. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jai Gurudev (August 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Usedtobecool was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jai Gurudev and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jai Gurudev, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 12:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Usedtobecool! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 12:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Jai Gurudev has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jai Gurudev. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 12:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Lim Pisoth has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lim Pisoth. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 12:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Jai Gurudev !

Hi! I have just applied reliable source on Draft: Jai Gurudev please make the page be publish on Wikipedia. Thanks! Edit2Text (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Edit2Text! Usually when a page gets recreated right after it's deleted through a deletion discussion, it's immediately deleted without even discussing it. I moved it to draft so you could get a chance to improve the article and make your case. I have added the information about it having been previously deleted as a comment there, so that everyone knows. I am not yet qualified to judge whether an article that's just been deleted merits recreation. Your submission is in the queue and will be reviewed by a more qualified reviewer. Just give it time. And, in the meantime, you can try and improve the article to address the issues that caused it to be deleted in the last discussion. However, you should keep in mind that the article might have been deleted because it simply isn't suitable for Wikipedia, and it may not be possible to get it published at all. Don't lose heart if that happens, and focus on other projects; it might happen that the subject will get additional attention and coverage from others in the future and it will be possible to get the article created in a few years time. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 14:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

CSD#G11

Hi Usedtobecool. CSD#G11 is meant for obvious spam; Draft:David Spanbauer, which you tagged as a G11 (since deleted, sorry) was a rather negative article about a murderer. Can you explain why you used this tag? Did you mean to use a G12 instead? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I don't remember all the specific details but my impression was that the article was written with promotional language (one thing I distinctly remember is something like he was the most accomplished of the children). I skimmed through the whole page rather quickly and made certain that it needed to be fundamentally rewritten because of the way it was written. I decided that it was glorifying the subject (despite him being a murderer, maybe the content creators were just trolling). I could not say whether it was a glorification or an attack page without rereading the whole page again. Anyway, yesterday, I would have just declined the draft or left it for someone else, but I usually watchlist the pages I'm unsure about and saw that a few I thought borderline were later deleted, so I've been trying to get closer to that line myself. I am tracking all my CSDs to see which ones I get right and which ones I mess up and often I come across articles I know will need to be speedy deleted but none of the available criteria seem to exactly fit (I think I've had to tag more pages for speedy in the last two days, than I've done the whole time I've been active before). Thanks for bringing this up (I might not have had the courage to go to the deleting admin to ask exactly what I got wrong). If you did read the whole page thoroughly, I'd appreciate anything more you can tell me, about which of the things about the article and what I did, you know for certain. I have seen CSD competence brought up at RFAs, so I'm hoping it's uncontroversial that there's a learning curve associated with getting them always exactly right? P.S. can you confirm my reading that G10 applies for dead people as well, and the emphasis on BLP in there is just that? Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 06:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Vanamonde93:, forgot earlier. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 06:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Most reasonable people understand that there's a learning curve when it comes to CSD, so I wouldn't worry about that; trying to understand any mistakes you made and not making them again is the right thing to do. If you're really interested, I can send you the text by email, but essentially it was a rather negative piece (even for an article about a murderer, it used very dodgy language) and was sourced to very poor sources. A G10 (attack page) is actually what I tagged it as, and either that or G12 (copyright) would have been appropriate. G11, however, was not. G10 does indeed apply to dead people (and also to non-humans; organizations, for instance). Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 14:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you had mentioned copyvio, I have since googled and found a page that reads similar to what I remember. So, I have some idea. Since you say it was an obvious blatant attack, I must have not paid close attention. I will be more careful in the future. Let's hold the offer for the email share for now, I might need to use it for when I am really really confused, most likely on another spam related case. One page I thought could be improved and had a legitimate case for notability just got deleted under G11, so G11 still confuses me sometimes. Thanks for your time and patience. 15:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you mention it; most of the CSD criteria are independent of notability. The only commonly used criteria that is an exception to that is A7 (which doesn't mention notability; it mentions significance; but significance is a lower bar, and so if something is notable, then it's usually not A7 eligible). For every other criteria, the problems that would make pages CSD eligible are not related to notability. A page about a notable individual can still be vandalism, a copyright violation, or an attack page (for instance). This is especially true for G11; it is quite frequent for a new user to create a page about a notable individual or company that is nonetheless written in a manner that is promotional, and the page should still be deleted. Hope that helps, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it does, immensely. I never put promotion in the category of emergency stuff like copyvio, and was under the assumption that G11 was for obviously non-notable subjects being promoted. I was viewing it more as a hassle-free way to get rid of undesirable content on a useless topic, and believed promotional language and spam could always be cleared up by stubbing if the subject is notable. But, now it makes sense. On the case that I mentioned, the creator had left a message saying that the subject is notable and that they were going to sleep but would clear all promotional language the next morning. Viewed with the knowledge that notability isn't relevant, it makes perfect sense why it was immediately deleted anyway. I think that was the missing piece of the puzzle, all of it is coming together quite nicely now, LOL! Thanks a bunch! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 18:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobe, I don't know if you're already aware of Barkeep49's User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/, but they do a great job working with folks who want to learn about deletion criteria. --valereee (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

valereee, actually, I had no idea. Looks like just the kind of thing I've been looking for. I will talk to them. Thanks a bunch! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 07:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Witch-hunts in Nepal

On 12 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Witch-hunts in Nepal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in one of the vigilante witch-hunts in Nepal, an 18-year-old girl was dragged from her home and tortured for hours in public on International Women's Day 2018? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Witch-hunts in Nepal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Witch-hunts in Nepal), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Help

Hi! Please I need you to help me create an article for myself. I’m a proven young leader in Nigeria and it’s rather unfortunate that I cannot create a page for myself by myself. I’ll send you all the required references and media links. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmekidmfon (talk • contribs) 07:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello again Mmekidmfon, ceasing your attempts and engaging with fellow editors as you've begun doing now, is a very positive step. Unfortunately, I am not qualified to judge the reliability of Nigerian sources. You can leave your request for a new article at WP:Requested Articles. You could also try your luck with some Nigerian Wikipedians. I hope you have given a careful read to WP:YOURSELF. Writing autobiographies isn't banned per se, it's just nigh impossible to create an acceptable article about oneself. If you write a neutrally worded draft and submit it for review, you might still succeed. Since you are still trying to get an article about yourself created here, I suggest you declare your conflict of interest in your userpage. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 10:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Possibly you meant ‘it's just high impossible’, not ‘it's just nigh impossible’. --CiaPan (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

"Nigh impossible", I'm sure is an established term for near (to) impossible. I'm unsure now, on whether preceding it with "just" is wrong/contradictory. "High" just sounds wrong, what would that even mean? Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 11:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

And in fact both 'nigh-on impossible' and 'well-nigh impossible' are idiomatic AmEng, if slightly old-fashioned. Not sure I've heard 'nigh' prefaced with 'just' a lot, but it's not something that sounds wrong to US ears. Nigh just means near or nearly. --valereee (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, thanks for your work. Please remember not to link common terms like "politician", nor dates, nor years, and even country-names. Thanks. Tony (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony1, I am hoping you have the time to clarify. I went through the guidelines and see that both common professions and country are listed. My rationale was:

• Politician: As the principal occupation of the subject, and
• Nepal: As a country a substantial portion of the global population doesn't necessarily know of,

were both legitimate terms to link in the articles in question. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 14:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Nepal, well MAYBE, but there are so many other Nepal-related links in the surrounding text. But definitely not "politician". No. So please save us a lot of trouble by not linking "politician"—then your articles won't be on the list for script treatment. Tony (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I've asked the script-designer to exclude "Nepal"; but he's no longer at en.WP much. Tony (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Usedtobecool/List of reliable news sources in Nepal

Hey, Usedtobe! This is a very cool list -- did you put this together yourself? Is it listed in any order (like most reliable first or whatever?) I ask because I have a similar one for Indian sources at my page, given to me by Cesdeva with commentary by WBG, and some of the entries were very interesting. For instance, Times of India is generally reliable, except for their entertainment coverage, which is for-pay spam.

At any rate, finding this is making me wonder if some other users here might have similar lists for countries whose media isn't as familiar to me and isn't inlcuded at WP:RSP. --valereee (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! It's not currently ordered by any metric. At first, I thought I'd create three pages to list reliable, iffy and crap sources respectively, but I quickly realised the contextual nature of sources and decided the list needed to be much more detailed, clear and organised (mostly because of one source that makes a strong case to be included in both RS and iffy lists). I have been trying to come up with the best format for such an organised list (I'm thinking about including a list of articles published in them too, to show just how wrong/sloppy they can be).

Right now, the RS page includes a list of premier sources for which it's a matter of pride to get things right, and when they get something wrong, it's widely noticed and criticised in the country. But it's not complete. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 12:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I do think, in absence of community-endorsed lists, user lists can be quite helpful as a guide. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 12:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism not intended

At the Hindi article, my opinion is that some of the content is both outdated and not useful, hence my attempt at shortening the text while retaining the reference. I do not intend to oppose your reverting my changes. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

David notMD, Hiii!!! You have me at a loss, here. The vandalism was by another unregistered editor. I saw that your edit was reverted inadvertently and restored it, or at least tried to. It seems while I restored the substantial part of your edit, I missed the typo corrections you had made. I will correct those typos now. You are welcome to continue your work on that article. Anyway, I have no opinion on the current state of the article. I only intended to do the possibly BLP violating IP edit at the lead (in Devanagari script), as I judged it my urgent duty as someone who can read and understand the script. I would never intentionally revert your edits without a discussion Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 14:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's all fixed now. I reverted my revert as well as the partial restoration, then reverted the vandalism edit. That should leave all your edits unaffected. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 14:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jayshree Sengupta

I am not sure why the page I created was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blatantluddite (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Blatantluddite, I am not sure which page you are talking about. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 14:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You deleted an article

Hi there I am an RA working on a page for economist Jayshree Sengupta. She is a noted/veteran journalist who has written on gender issues. You deleted the page, I am not sure why. There is more need for recognition of female journalists in South Asia, and Wikipedia should strive to do as much. I have asked for a review and have added some sources. The page is now Draft: Jayshree Sengupta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blatantluddite (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Blatantluddite! The page was not ready to be published as an Wikipedia article. So, I moved it to the draft space where editors can work on the article while it's being developed. I noted the principal reasons for doing so in the edit summary. At the top of the page, you should see a tab marked "View History". You can click there to see a history of all edits made to the article. In my move summary, I noted that one of the main problems was that the article did not have sources. Having sources cited for the article is a fundamental requirement, since every claim made in the article needs to be verifiable. See WP:V for why verifiability is necessary, and see WP:REFB on how to properly cite sources. Also, note that the sources need to be reliable/credible ones, not just any. See WP:RS for details. The second issue I noted was that the article contains external links in the article body. We also don't usually do that. See WP:External for details on what to link, what not to link, and how to link when you do link. I can see that you have already removed all the external links. So, that's been resolved.

You wrote There is more need for recognition of female journalists in South Asia, and Wikipedia should strive to do as much. While true, on both counts, that's not a sufficient reason for an article to get accepted. All subjects need to fulfil the special notability criteria established by the Wikipedia community over the years. In the case of an economist, the subject needs to fulfil the general notability guidelines at WP:GNG and/or the economist specific guidelines at WP:ECONOMIST. I am confused by your argument that an economist needs to have a page because we need to cover more journalists, but in any case, WP:JOURNALIST also redirects to the same guidelines as that for economists, since both are considered WP:ACADEMICs.

Your submission will be reviewed by an experienced editor, checking whether your sources are reliable and whether the reliable sources have significant coverage of the subject establishing Wikipedia notability. In the meantime, you can continue working on the article.

Finally, if you have a conflict of interest (See WP:COI), it's essential that you disclose it. Removing COI tags and/or deleting discussion on the talk page severely hinders your case. As before, I strongly advise that you self-revert. This is especially pertinent with regard to the draft's talk page. You should immediately restore the discussion that occurred there. You can affirm, strongly, that you don't have a conflict of interest, and leave it there for everyone to see. What you must never do is remove someone else's comment (unless it's a blatant attack). Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 15:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Why??

I don’t get it. I created a draft for Andrew Lee and published for days, before going ahead to move it to be visible and you flagged it for premature movement? Now it’s been deleted. As much as we’re trying to ensure decorum with Wikipedia and ensure rules are followed, I believe very strongly we need to be careful not end up frustrating contributors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmekidmfon (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not deleted. It's at Draft:Andrew Lee (entrepreneur). Please note that the article makes a legitimate case for being deleted for promotion. I moved it to draft space so it can be improved. There are multiple issues that need to be addressed. The draft needs to be neutrally worded. See WP:REFB to learn the proper way to cite articles. This is especially indispensable in the case of a subject who's a living person. The section headers aren't formatted as per the guidelines either. If you still disagree with my assessment, simply hit the "Submit your draft for review" button and someone else will publish it for you. I won't review and decline it. Note that as the article currently stands, the other reviewers are as likely to nominate it for deletion as accept and publish it. You can also ask for help at the Teahouse, a friendly forum where experienced editors provide advice and share experience about editing Wikipedia, to new editors in need. They may be able to provide you a third opinion and additional insights. Regards! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 16:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Jayshree Sengupta

I am an amateur. I don't know what I deleted exactly and how to restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blatantluddite (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Blatantluddite, on the talkpage of the draft, you should see the "View History" tab at the top. Click it and a page with a list of edits will appear. From the list, find the one where you deleted the content. It is easily noticeable because you can see (-590) in red. That's the count of characters you deleted. Other edits have (+number) indicating the number of characters you added. You should see an option to "undo" the edit at the end of each entry. Clicking undo on the edit in which you deleted content will cause it to get restored.

By the way, you do not need to create a new section here every time you reply. Just find the existing section for the relevant discussion and continue there. Also, please end your comments on talk pages with four tildes like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your signature and timestamp to your comment so everyone can follow who's making which comments and when. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 21:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Socialism

Hello MarioGom, nice to meet you and thank you for the invite. I also appreciate the improvements you've made to the articles I've created. My primary area of focus is Nepal-related articles. Since a lot of that includes communism/socialism, I'm sure I'll be participating in the Socialism project, at least incidentally. I'll try and remember to add the WikiProject to all my articles that fall under the scope of Socialism. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 22:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Cathy Daley article

Usedtobecool, Thank you for reviewing the Cathy Daley article! I would like to improve the bibliography section; however, I'm not exactly sure how to go about doing that. I used the Chicago style for the citations so if you could help me understand if I've used the wrong style or how I can improve this section - I would happily work on it. :-) LorriBrown (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown, hope you are doing well. So, first off, it's not that I'm asking you to do something because I know better. I don't know if you saw my edit summary, but here's what I was thinking (as a fellow editor/reader, not at all as a reviewer). Wikipedia recommends that bibliographies should be listed chronologically, while the Chicago manual says it's to be listed in alphabetical order of author's last name. The Cathy Daley list seems to follow neither. It also seems to list both works by her and works about her, that needs to be clarified IMO. One way would be to include a lead sentence that says just that, another would be to list works by her there, and works about her in the further reading section. I'm not sure what the inclusion criteria is, for works that make the bibliography section instead of the further reading section which the article also has, that's another thing I found confusing. Wikipedia also recommends using headers like "Works" instead of "Bibliography" for artworks. It also suggests avoiding "Bibliography" because it's ambiguous (as mentioned already, it doesn't help the reader understand the inclusion criteria, since it can mean both works by and about the subject). Add to that other minor things like at least one brace opening but not closing, at least one title ending with a comma while others end with dots, and the first entry needing clarification as to whether the title was "Untitled" or the work itself was untitled (it looks like it's saying the title was "Untitled" which I find unlikely); and I thought I'd just tag it so someone else could have a look. Final clarification: I don't know as much as you about the Chicago style, so it was confusing to me as someone unfamiliar, is all I'm saying. Have a look and if you don't think there's anything to improve, you can just remove the tag, that's exactly how tags (unaccompanied by talk page messages) work. BTW, just out of curiosity, I am entirely unfamiliar with the use of braces, do they indicated descriptions of works which are not titles per se, or does that mean they are titles of the works but braces help to distinguish them as artworks instead of a written chapter? Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 22:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, Thank you! I see what the issues are. I'll attempt to fix them... I have much to learn! I'm not the expert on brackets. I found the articles presented this way in EBSCO. My logic (right or wrong) in the further reading section was to place articles that have links. The other articles in the bibliography were articles I was unable to find links for. Initially I thought you were referring to the structuring of the items in the list; which I am still trying to understand the correct way to do that, i.e. the structure is one format in bibliography and another in the further reading section - I suppose they should be the same within one article. I know that I should read more but honestly get overwhelmed with the detail of it all. For now I took out CD authored items from the bibliography and may delete the section entirely, since one of the remaining items was duplicated in the further reading section. Again, thank you for your efforts! All the best, LorriBrown (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sock query

Hi there, I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia. I saw your "So, you're back, eh?" comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saranga Shrestha and I was curious what other account you think that user had. If you wouldn't mind pinging me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, Hi, I am aware and thank you for taking the mop.

About the user, that's actually a registered username, they just didn't know how to sign the right way. The case that got them blocked is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ozar77/Archive. The case that includes all the information I had uncovered, is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dansong22/Archive (except the vote canvassing I asked SirSputnik about vote canvassing I asked SirSputnik about). I was really new then, and I have changed my mind about a lot of the specifics as well as the things I said there, but I am still convinced the two active ones(others don't matter) definitely with a strong COI on one person and their business, were blockably meatpuppetting at the time. But I am not following either of their activities, since all the articles that they really cared about are all deleted (and some necessary articles have been created by them, like Nepali MP biographies). Ozar nominates a few articles about Nepali journalists for all kinds of deletion, now and then, contrary to their philosophy expressed during the relevant AfD's, but that's the extent of what I know about their activity since returning (and we cross paths at AfD (Nepal) sometimes, as in the discussion you are asking about). Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 19:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Cyphoidbomb: just in case there's a difference that matters. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 19:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you for the write-up. I thought maybe you knew of an account and were taunting them. Well if anything interesting happens, let me know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure! Thank you for your diligent interest. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 20:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Françafrique

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Françafrique. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The 1619 Project

You've done great work on the article--thanks. I hope it gets on the front page soon. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Heyy! Hi! Thank you very much, Drmies! Now that I know just how long it takes, I am not scared like the first time. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 17:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Disclosure about non-paid

Sir/Madam I am just creating my page for my professor because they deserve Wikipedia. I am not taking any kind of money from them. Once page started I will invite them to edit information about them. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunilKumarAtWiki (talk • contribs) 14:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)